“The day after news anchor Katie Couric apologized for ‘misleading’ editing of her new documentary, Under the Gun, the movie about gun violence disappeared from the streaming library of premium cable network EPIX’s website,” fortune.com reports. “The movie had premiered on EPIX on May 15.” For her part, Ms. Kouric has released the following statement . . .

As Executive Producer of “Under the Gun,” a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). My question to the VCDL regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, was followed by an extended pause, making the participants appear to be speechless.

When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I questioned her and the editor about the pause and was told that a “beat” was added for, as she described it, “dramatic effect,” to give the audience a moment to consider the question. When VCDL members recently pointed out that they had in fact immediately answered this question, I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.

VCDL members have a right for their answers to be shared and so we have posted a transcript of their responses here. I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.

I hope we can continue to have an important conversation about reducing gun deaths in America, a goal I believe we can all agree on.

Transcript with VCDL Response:

KATIE: If there are no background checks, how do you prevent … I know how you all are going to answer this, but I’m asking anyway. If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?

MALE: Well, one, if you’re not in jail then you should still have your basic rights and you should go buy a gun.

KATIE: So, if you’re a terrorist or a felon …

MALE: If you’re a felon and you’ve done your time, you should have your rights.

MALE: The fact is we do have statutes, both at the federal and state level that prohibit classes of people from being in possession of firearms. If you’re under 18 in Virginia you can’t walk around with a gun. If you’re an illegal immigrant, if you’re a convicted felon, if you’ve been adjudicated in same, these things are already illegal. So, what we’re really asking about is a question of prior restraint. How can we prevent future crime by identifying bad guys before they do anything bad? And, the simple answer is you can’t.

And, particularly, under the legal system we have in the United States there are a lot of Supreme Court opinions that say, “No, prior restraint is something that the government does not have the authority to do.” Until there is an overt act that allows us to say, “That’s a bad guy,” then you can’t punish him.

FEMALE: I would take another outlook on this. First, I’ll ask you what crime or what law has ever stopped a crime? Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.

Ms Kouric’s statement would have us believe that she raised concerns about the misleading edit, but didn’t do so “vigorously” enough to overcome . . . what? Ms. Kouric was Under The Gun’s Executive Producer. She had the final cut. The final say. Which means her apology is yet more dissembling. Or, to put it more accurately, another lie.

Recommended For You

46 Responses to EPIX Pulls Katie Couric’s Anti-Gun Agitprop Under The Gun

  1. “Ms Kouric’s statement would have us believe that she raised concerns about the misleading edit, but didn’t do so “vigorously” enough to overcome . . . what?”

    Translation: I’m sorry I was caught, but you people aren’t supposed to challenge the narrative!

  2. Couric=Hillary=Shannon Watts: All use fake outrage and emotional argument to try to destroy the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. They are determined to do whatever they can to damage the Second Amendment while making a nice income from doing it!

  3. In other words, she’s raising deflector shields and hopes to ward off culpability and probably reality. (Watched star trek last night …)

    Nope. Didn’t work.

  4. “First, I’ll ask you what crime or what law has ever stopped a crime? Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.”

    Ugh… I’d say enforceable ones?

    Like, murder is illegal. And i believe that prevented me from killing a lot of people

    • If the illegality of murder is what has kept you from taking the life of another you have some serious issues to work out and most likely will someday commit that illegal act.

      • I’m guessing he was joking, but it is always a bit concerning when people say that were it not for the punishment to be meted out by the state or belief in some deity, they would do horrible things.

        • Not really. I wasnt joking. That’s what i honestly believe.

          Life sentence or the electric chair is a *very expensive* punishment.

          If such punishments do not have a valid deterrent value, i dunno what does.

          As to *how exactly* is an individual prevented from doing “horrible” deeds, it doesnt really matter as long as they do not.

          When a person, contrary to my belief, genuinely believes that murder is “morally” wrong, it just proves that their unwillingness to violate their own belief is what’s doing the work. No more or less of a saint than i am.

        • On the Penn & Teller: BS episode about the war on drugs, Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio said, on camera, that the only thing keeping normal people from going out and shooting up heroin is the fact that it’s illegal.

        • The only things keeping me from going out and shooting up heroin are common sense and a lack of interest in heroin.

          If H was legal I don’t figure most people would have any interest in it, the same way the vast majority of people have no interest in tobacco. It’s expensive and unhealthy, that keeps most people away.

        • James, So what is your criteria for killing someone? Mine is defense of self, and/or others from a threat.

          Which is legally protected, no morality required.

          So what you’re saying it is merely the cost/benefit analysis is what keeps you from what exactly? Killing someone who cut you off? People whose lifestyle choices you don’t approve of – despite the fact they don’t actually affect you? Someone of the wrong color – regardless of their character? You don’t like their accent? Performs abortions? Has had an abortion? Cheated in a poker game? Where’s your line?

      • I fully realise that the opportunity cost of doing it way outweighs the benefit i may get

        That’s a much more reassuring answer than “i think it’s morally (whatever that means) wrong”

        • Morals transcend natural man. Instinct doesn’t prevent people or animals from killing their distant cousins when it means increasing the chance of survival. Morality means doing the “right” thing, even when it seems to benefit you in no way.
          If it helps, don’t think of it as a theological construct.

  5. This needs to happen a lot more often. If they won’t have integrity they should have a different profession.

    • If they won’t don’t have integrity they should have a different are in the right profession.

      Fixed it for ya.

  6. This was an excerpt from her original apology; her staff edited it to save face…

    “When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I told her it was imperative that we contort and mangle the interviewees’ responses to such an atrocious degree that the viewer would have a completely one-sided and misleading view of the debate. She agreed, and remarked, ‘Hells to the yeah! Who needs truth when you have an agenda!’ Also, when I entertain guests, I serve sushi made out of raw puppies for ‘dramatic effect.’ The looks on their faces at the end of the night when I tell them what they’ve eaten makes it all worthwhile. It’s just how I roll.”

    • Thanks for mentioning the actual (as per Couric) perpetrator. Stephanie Soechtig needs to be held fully accountable…but probably won’t.

      I hate to admit this – I might just watch this piece of yellow journalism, just to pick out other pieces of warped editing.

      • I doubt she was the “real perpetrator”. Rather, she’s the scapegoat. As Robert points out, the person with final authority is the real perpetrator.

        Now, if Katie was just a figurehead and was essentially locked out from the production, I’ll give her a pass. But, I doubt that is what happened here.

      • Well, Couric spent four hours interviewing John Lot and in the end left the entirety of his interview on the cutting room floor.

        I guess there was no way to spin anything he said the way they wanted, so he was left out entirely.

      • You mean like the four hours of tape on John Lott? Edited so much you would never know it was there in the first place.

  7. Never trust the mainstream media on anything. They are 99% liberals and liars, and that is probably a conservative number.

  8. In a VCDL email last night was the following:

    IN HER APOLOGY, KATIE HAS *AGAIN* SELECTIVELY EDITED THE RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION!

    You simply cannot make this stuff up.

    On the obscure web page where Katie buries her apology, there is a transcript of the response VCDL’s members gave to katie’s question. The problem is that the transcript stops only about one-quarter of the way into the response, clipping off the most relevant parts of the answer!

    And the transcript stops at a convenient place for Katie, where Patricia Webb has just asked Katie rhetorically, “Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.” That sounds like an odd response by itself, but Pat goes on to clarify exactly what she means and it doesn’t help Katie’s case. There are other responses damning to Katie’s position on gun control, too, but none of that made it into the transcript.

    All Katie had to do was put the audio of the full 4-minute response on the apology page, but she knew that people would be less likely to read a transcript than to listen to some audio. And if they did read the transcript, the last thing they read, with Katie’s edit, sounds like the group isn’t firing on all its cylinders.

  9. Katie Couric asked in Under the Gun

    If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?

    This is a classic example of letting Progressives define the narrative. Stop it! Stop letting Progressives define the narrative. Those people should have asked Katie Couric, “Why does our criminal justice system allow known terrorists and dangerous felons to walk the streets in the first place?” And then I would have asked Katie Couric, “And how do background checks stop known terrorists and dangerous felons from stealing firearms or having a friend purchase for them?”

    Finally, I would have made this statement to Katie Couric, “Our government and criminal justice system are either unable or unwilling to prosecute and imprison known terrorists and dangerous felons. Thus people who advocate for background checks are instead tasking licensed firearm dealers with preventing known terrorists and dangerous felons from acquiring firearms. That isn’t a licensed firearms dealer’s responsibility: that is government’s responsibility.”

  10. Don’t forget all the ‘sponsors and supporters’ of this film:
    Everytown
    Center for American Progress
    Sandy Hook Promise
    Moms Demand Action
    Americans for Responsible Solutions
    Brady Campaign
    Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

    All these groups seem to be on board with this ‘documentary’. Should serve as a warning to others.

  11. Current law bans felons from firearms even if their crime was non violent and did not cause harm. A tax conviction puts you on the list.

  12. Last night, saw a twit feed where Epix claimed the video was contracted only for two weeks at the Premier status, so it was routinely moved at the end of the two weeks. Video is available on two other feeds Epix controls. So, no, Epix didn’t “pull” the video, Epix simply fulfilled their contract.

  13. “a goal I believe we can all agree on.” This kind of statement really grates on me. It’s one we hear all the time, usually near the end of some speech that was filled with lies, misinformation and inaccuracies. Obama and the Left use it all the time as he sets up his opposition to appear as everyone else is so obviously wrong or ill informed. I keep hoping that we the people are not really that lost, they are just quiet or not heard from until time to vote.

    • “I hope we can continue to have an important conversation about reducing gun deaths in America”
      This too. They never seem to care about total deaths. If all of the good, law-abiding citizens were reduced to defending themselves with kind words and begging, and were all murdered by thugs with pointy sticks, they’d call it a victory because there were no gun deaths.
      Once we understand that suicides are not dependent on the mere existence of firearms, we can focus on murders (and ofc other violent crime). Once we realize that armed potential victims severely deter their potential attackers, we can understand how to reduce wrongful deaths.

  14. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Sabrina Erdely (the UVA rape fraud writer), Brian Williams and Shady Katie Carwreck are all modern examples of “journalism.” None of them can tell a story without lying through their teeth, and they win prizes for it.

  15. “Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.”

    The laws that were entirely to repeal existing laws?

  16. I know, I should really stop posting this – but dang, it’s so appropriate!

    http://www.efsmi.org

    “The official unit of measurement of fecal samples is the couric, which is equivalent to 2.5 pounds, or 1.3398 kg.”

  17. This is the same one sided piece that interviewed the guy who wrote “More guns – Less crime” for 4 hours and not a single minute made the cut.

    • I’m sure the fact that she failed as an anchor and is now relegated to Yahoo probably played a part in the decision to do something provocative in order to be relevant again. She’s too old to walk in the rope corral behind Hillary, so what better than to run subversive agitprop designed to promote Stalinist rights-theft schemes?

  18. Shady Katie’s question was an (intentionally) provocative one, and one the individual rights community needs to be able to counter well and on demand. The question is “if there are no background checks, then how do you prevent criminals or terrorists from getting guns?” Of course, as well all know, the presupposition “if there are no background checks” is currently false in a big way — background checks are already required for 99% of lawful purchases. Therefore, there’s no point in dealing with some hypothetical scenario based on the presupposition.

    However, there’s another fundamental presupposition here, which is that criminals and terrorists are free on the streets, looking for guns. That’s the presupposition the first male speaker was attempting to address. This is actually the Stalinists’ main presupposition of late; the one that undergirds most of their arguments for victim-disarmament. However, if criminals and terrorists are walking around, trying to get guns, someone should be arresting/deporting them. The public has a reasonable presumption that anyone believed to be dangerous is incarcerated or under surveillance. However, the Stalinists themselves are the ones who are trying to prevent criminals and terrorists from being surveilled, let alone, profiled or locked up. They fight to (import them,) keep them on the street looking for guns, then they say, they are on the street, looking for guns. Let’s ban all guns.

    However, the scenario presented in the presupposition is the one that needs addressed. If dangerous people are the streets, it is because they are immigrants, released convicts, or unprocessed convicts. Unvetted immigrants should not be in the country, but the Democrats are now the primary ones insisting on flooding the country with hostile immigrants in order to steal elections and subvert the US by degrading American ethnic and national identity. Their subversion and criminality should be a crime, not an inductive clause for victim disarmament. Likewise, if released convicts are still dangerous, then prison isn’t working, and this should be addressed. Finally, if cops aren’t catching dangerous criminals who haven’t yet been processed, then there’s a law enforcement problem to be addressed (and one that the Democrats don’t want addressed, as they’re dependent on both the criminal vote and the vote of the criminals’ fellow-travelers).

    Taken together the Democrat Stalinists’ question is “if we flood the country with potential terrorists and refuse to deal with dangerous criminals, then without background checks, how do we keep the terrorists and criminals from getting guns?” The right answer to this loaded question is to attack the presupposition: “If criminals and terrorists are the real problem, then we should address the real problem.”

    • “They fight to (import them,) keep them on the street looking for guns, then they say, they are on the street, looking for guns. Let’s ban all guns.”

      “Taken together the Democrat Stalinists’ question is “if we flood the country with potential terrorists and refuse to deal with dangerous criminals, then without background checks, how do we keep the terrorists and criminals from getting guns?”

      The answer to both is the same: without problems, governments have no mission. Therefore, be sure your mission never ends.

  19. “…I hope we can continue to have an important conversation about reducing gun deaths in America, a goal I believe we can all agree on.”

    No, we can no longer trust you to be a part of the conversation. You have proven that you are not interested in conversing on this issue at any level of reasonable level of discourse. Yes, we can agree that reducing violence and death are good things and laudable goals, but your methods of achieving those goals are vile and reprehensible.

    In other words, no. Go away. You are no longer welcome here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *