Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:36 PM Jun 2016

Lest there be any doubt about the intent of "Under the Gun's" silent treatment...

From 'Under the Gun': Sundance Review - Hollywood Reporter (google this as I can't link)

"A group of blustery members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, however, suddenly remain painfully quiet when Couric asks them the hard questions."

The review has a so-so opinion of the longish documentary (like a "supersized 60 minutes), but considers the film more "rigorously journalistic" than Michael Moore's Columbine. I wonder what the Reporter thinks of journalistic "rigor," now.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lest there be any doubt about the intent of "Under the Gun's" silent treatment... (Original Post) Eleanors38 Jun 2016 OP
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #1
WaPO, NPR and others aren't saying "so what." Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #2
You do know there are already mandatory Federal background checks, right? DonP Jun 2016 #3
It was in fact edited. gejohnston Jun 2016 #5
"Katie Couric apologises for 'misleading' edit in gun rights documentary" Reiyuki Jun 2016 #4

Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
3. You do know there are already mandatory Federal background checks, right?
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:51 PM
Jun 2016

Whether the sale is in a store or at a gun show, all Federal Firearm Licensee sales require them, no matter the site.

And that 30 states require them for private sales, including family transfers.

The "only 40%" claim is pure bullshit, from a study conducted a decade before they were required Federally.

In the meantime FWIW, the P Stone Nation in Englewood, Latin Kings in Pilsen, et. al aren't getting their guns from a gun store or an Indiana gun show.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. It was in fact edited.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jun 2016

So what if it was? The same thing that was wrong with James O'Keefe. Kuric claimed that it was a "balanced documentary" She lied, and is an unethical journalist. Unethical and dishonest journalism has no place in a free country.
None of the gangs in Chicago are getting IL ownership licenses aka FOIDs or buying them in licensed gun stores.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/05/27/katie-couric-and-the-anti-gun-documentary-not-just-vanishing-journalism-ethics-but-vanishing-consensus-that-journalism-has-any-obligation-to-be-ethical/

Reiyuki

(96 posts)
4. "Katie Couric apologises for 'misleading' edit in gun rights documentary"
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jun 2016

Turns out it was just some clever editing. Or at least the 'gotcha' portion was.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/31/katie-couric-apology-misleading-edit-under-the-gun



“If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Couric asks.

In the film, that question is followed by silence and footage of the gun rights advocates looking uncomfortable.

But the gun rights advocates made their own audio recordings of the interview with Couric. In that audio version, several members immediately respond to Couric’s question. The way the documentary edited out those responses seemed designed to make the gun owners look “stupid”, Van Cleave told the Guardian.

The edit was widely criticized by other media outlets, including the Washington Post and National Public Radio.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Lest there be any doubt a...