NPR attacks Katie Couric's Anti-gun Documentary

[Moped]

NPR has suggested that Katie Couric's Anti-Gun Documentary would not have passed muster, had it been an NPR produced piece. 

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

[Pete123]

Good for them - they are usually the most liberal of all.

I'm really disappointed in Katie Couric.  The thing she did is that she asked gun owners a question about the need for background checks.  Instead of playing their answers, she had the video edited so that there was a long silence - inferring that they didn't have an answer for that.

[A.J. Holst]

Her producer has stated the edits were simply for dramatic pause, so the audience could reflect on the question before the panelist answered.

and y'all think politics is edgy

[Pete123]

Wow, that's the kind of lie I expect from Hillary.

[crossfire]

46 minutes ago, Pete123 said:

Wow, that's the kind of lie I expect from Hillary or her friends in Washington and  the media

IFIFY

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by crossfire

[JohnC]

This is exactly why I view the media as nothing but propaganda for their political wings (and the views of their corporate owners) anymore. 

It would be nice to get real news with all the facts and no bias. You know, real investigative reporting and letting the facts speak for them selves so viewers could make informed decisions. But that isn't happening now and I do not see it happening anytime in the near future.

[A.J. Holst]

39 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This is exactly why I view the media as nothing but propaganda for their political wings (and the views of their corporate owners) anymore. 

It would be nice to get real news with all the facts and no bias. You know, real investigative reporting and letting the facts speak for them selves so viewers could make informed decisions. But that isn't happening now and I do not see it happening anytime in the near future.

At least print media doesn't influence the delivery of news via body language, personal magnetism and  tone of voice, as clearly exhibited by a vast majority of the talking heads.

 

the issue is how most Americans access and receive their news...it requires no critical thinking

Edited May 28, 2016 by Gotthegoods

[btq96r]

The media is a business, and a business needs a customer base.  You need to look at each individual outlet through that prism instead of the "they need to be fair" line of thought.

[mikegideon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSlSYeNBkI

[mikegideon]

"Journalists", for the most part, have always pissed me off. I'm not very nice to most of them. In some cases, I have gone out of my way to mess with them. Made for a few good stories over the years.

[crossfire]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

The media is a business, and a business needs a customer base.  You need to look at each individual outlet through that prism instead of the "they need to be fair" line of thought.

Nothing is fair in this world, maybe we need to remind some of our liberal friends of that fact.

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

The media is a business, and a business needs a customer base.  You need to look at each individual outlet through that prism instead of the "they need to be fair" line of thought.

And deceptive "journalism" can damage the business. Opinion is one thing. Although, based on what I can tell, lying to a liberal base is perfectly acceptable. Look at Hillary, and our POS in Chief. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by mikegideon

[Pete123]

This will never happen, though I would like to see news media have two sections:  The opinions section and the facts section with penalties for putting opinion in the facts section.

[Grand Torino]

Hildebeast and Couric ....losers both of them.

[Pete123]

23 minutes ago, Grand Torino said:

Hildebeast and Couric ....losers both of them.

Agreed.  And neither of them are liked or respected by those that work under them.

[DHF]

Katie Couric Apologizes for 'Misleading' Gun Documentary

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

It must be amazing to have such weak explanations for your actions accepted.

[E4 No More]

On 5/28/2016 at 0:27 PM, btq96r said:

The media is a business, and a business needs a customer base.  You need to look at each individual outlet through that prism instead of the "they need to be fair" line of thought.

Consider this: if lying is not protected free speech, (lying to LEO, for example), then lying to the public shouldn't be either. Slippery slope works both ways.

[btq96r]

4 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

Consider this: if lying is not protected free speech, (lying to LEO, for example), then lying to the public shouldn't be either. Slippery slope works both ways.

I don't agree.  Also, left out of your lying to LEO example is that it's legal, and accepted practice for them to lie to suspects, which is questionable at best.  So all around, lying is widely protected legally, with specific circumstances that are debatable.  I think that's a good thing for better or worse when you think of how creating a law that would make lying open to prosecution could be abused by those "interpreting" speech.  That's not something I want on the table with the direction we're headed politically.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

I don't agree.  Also, left out of your lying to LEO example is that it's legal, and accepted practice for them to lie to suspects, which is questionable at best.  So all around, lying is widely protected legally, with specific circumstances that are debatable.  I think that's a good thing for better or worse when you think of how creating a law that would make lying open to prosecution could be abused by those "interpreting" speech.  That's not something I want on the table with the direction we're headed politically.

I don't think you understand. Freedom of the press is protected under the 1st as is freedom of speech, yet lying is NOT protected speech, apparently. You can't, for instance, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Saying that you can have freedom of speech with limits is not freedom. I don't think that lying to a LEO should be allowed to stand at all because it infringes on someone's freedom, but it is allowed to stand. Now since the 1st covers Freedom of the Press as well then it should NOT protect lying as well. How can one say the 1st covers both press and speech yet only apply a restriction to one?

[Pete123]

Changing gears just a little, I think she is feeling some heat.

The publish issued and apology that was a total non-apology.

Now, Katie has taken responsibility while blaming it on someone else, but still taking responsibility.  Even CNN, who hates guns, printed Katies 'I'm responsible but not really' article.

[Sidecarist]

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be held to different standards. I'm not sure it can or should be done on a legal level because of the interpretation problems...

However individuals MUST hold the press accountable for publishing lies. The average citizen doesn't exercise critical thinking enough. This is both more and less of a problem with online media. Online sources are more sensitive to pressure from readers, but also more likely to take a risk and publish an article without substantiation... 

Do you think critically about what you read or hear? I have strong feelings about many things but I try to weigh every argument on its merits and based on what I think the publisher might have to gain from expressing their views.

Freedom of speech doesn't make everyone that speaks "right" about what they say...

[btq96r]

7 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

I don't think you understand. Freedom of the press is protected under the 1st as is freedom of speech, yet lying is NOT protected speech, apparently. You can't, for instance, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Saying that you can have freedom of speech with limits is not freedom. I don't think that lying to a LEO should be allowed to stand at all because it infringes on someone's freedom, but it is allowed to stand. Now since the 1st covers Freedom of the Press as well then it should NOT protect lying as well. How can one say the 1st covers both press and speech yet only apply a restriction to one?

I'd say the difference in lying is how it effects others directly.  Goes back to the your rights end at the infringement of mine kind of thinking.  Either way, the protections afforded to the press are for the best, even when the play hopscotch with integrity in their reporting.

Either way, this is a problem because the majority of people are dumb enough to believe whatever they see/hear/read without exercising independent thought.  Or they have a formed opinion that won't let them accept an argument countering it.  It is what it is.

[crossfire]

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull####.”
― W.C. Fields

[E4 No More]

10 hours ago, btq96r said:

I'd say the difference in lying is how it effects others directly.  Goes back to the your rights end at the infringement of mine kind of thinking.  Either way, the protections afforded to the press are for the best, even when the play hopscotch with integrity in their reporting.

Either way, this is a problem because the majority of people are dumb enough to believe whatever they see/hear/read without exercising independent thought.  Or they have a formed opinion that won't let them accept an argument countering it.  It is what it is.

But the press lying to people does effect others exactly infringing on their rights, and they hide behind the 1st while doing it. And to your point of believing what they see/hear, how else are they supposed to form an opinion? No one on this earth can be everywhere at once to witness everything that happens. That's why integrity in journalism is so important to be given the protection in the first place. That freedom was given to them because the English Monarchy did not allow them to print things against them; not so that they can make-up whatever bull  they felt like printing.

[Omega]

Freedom of the press should not be a pass to lie to the public.  Outright lies or misleading journalism should be challenged both legally and in the court of public opinion such as is being done here.  I can understand left or right leaning stories (reporters are somewhat human), but to be actively deceiving the public with omissions and lies should not be tolerated.  To me Freedom of the press should be to let them report the truth, no matter who it's against.