Jump to content

NPR attacks Katie Couric's Anti-gun Documentary


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
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

 

gettyimages-530885058_wide-6ed9426b36a340f6126e0c4e8a5ae75a882952b3-s1600-c85.jpg

Edited by crossfire
  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Moderators

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
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 by Gotthegoods
  • Like 1
Link to post

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.

Link to post

"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.

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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 by mikegideon
  • Like 1
Link to post

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.

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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?

Link to post

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.

Link to post

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...

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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 :poop: they felt like printing.

  • Like 1
Link to post

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.