• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit For ‘Misleading’ Edits In Gun Control Film

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
54,523
Likes
105,269
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit For ‘Misleading’ Edits In Gun Control Film


Mike Windle/Getty Images For EPIX

by AWR HAWKINS

Virginians Citizens Defense League (VCDL) has filed a $12 million defamation lawsuit against Katie Couric and director Stephanie Soechtig for their role in the “misleading” edits that made VCDL members appear stumped by Couric’s gun control questions in her documentary Under the Gun.

Breitbart News previously reported that an eight-second pause was inserted in the film between the end of Couric’s question about gun control and the responses offered by VCDL members. The pause made the VCDL members look like Couric had baffled them with her gun control insight. In truth, the VCDL members had answered Couric immediately.

Raw audio obtained by the Washington Free Beacon proved the immediacy of the VCDL’s answers, but once the edits were made, the film portrayed the members as speechless:


Couric later apologized for the “misleading” edits.

CBS 6 now reports that the VCDL has filed a defamation suit. VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said:

“We were horrified to see how Couric and her team manipulated us and the video footage to make us look like fools who didn’t stand up for the Second Amendment. We want to set the record straight and hold them accountable for what they’ve done. You shouldn’t intentionally misrepresent someone’s views just because you disagree with them.”

The suit alleges that Couric and Soechtig “knowingly and maliciously manufactured the fictional exchange by splicing in footage that the filmmakers took surreptitiously after telling the interviewees to be silent for ten seconds so that recording equipment could be calibrated.”

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...l-film/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
 

gringott

"Veteran of the Battle of Knob Creek"
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,695
Likes
24,448
Location
Stable
#2
Good. Hope they win the lawsuit and make Couric feel a little pain. She's scum.
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
52,497
Likes
95,058
Location
Earth
#3
Make them pay!!!
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
8,700
Likes
9,232
#4
To be fair she might not have even known the editing team did it. But then again no, she probably ordered it done.
 

Argent Dragon

Site Support
Midas Member
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
8,308
Likes
3,083
Location
Lone Star State
#5

“We were horrified to see how Couric and her team manipulated us and the video footage to make us look like fools....
Wow, the media never does this...........shocking isn't it ?!?
 

gringott

"Veteran of the Battle of Knob Creek"
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,695
Likes
24,448
Location
Stable
#6
Way, way back during the early Reagan administration CBS I believe, started showing a "news cycle" overnight on broadcast TV when normally there was nothing but ant fights on TV. It repeated every 30 minutes if I remember correctly. I was watching and drinking. Each segment they aired a bit with Leslie Stahl standing up and asking Reagan a question. Each segment they edited it a different way, until in the end the entire meaning of the answer by Reagan was changed. I realized [even though I had been drinking] that we as a people were screwed. They [MSM] could do anything they wanted.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,045
Likes
11,970
Location
On the top shelf.
#7
To be fair she might not have even known the editing team did it. But then again no, she probably ordered it done.
Supposedly she had final review over what was cut and not cut from the documentary since she was the draw for the program. At least that is what her contract supposedly stipulated. That alone puts her in jeopardy for the misleading edit. She now has to prove that she never exercised that right at any point during the filming or post production otherwise she culpable. Good old basic contract law.