Katie Couric and Honesty on Guns

[Angel Eyes]

And the temperature continues to rise:

National Review: Dear Yahoo, Fire Katie Couric:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435919/katie-couric-under-gun-documentary-lie-yahoo-fire-her

New York Post: Yahoo needs to fire Katie Couric
http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/katie-courics-fake-documentary-proves-new-media-is-a-farce/

(ETA: NPR weighs in)
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

And just for grins:

https://reason.com/reasontv/2016/05/26/katie-couric-responds-to-deceptive-editi

[Brad Johnson]

Just checked her FB page. Surprised it doesn't have little animated flames dancing on it. To say that folks are a little unhappy with her journalistics ethics would be akin to describing the Pacific ocean as "a little water".

Her PR staff is probably considering an en masse career change.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

Katie's defense is that she didn't do the editing, that she doesn't know how to edit, and that she wishes she had studied journalism more rigorously. "I don't necessarily understand journalism. I'm in the process of trying to figure it out."

Yes, really. See Angel Eyes' last link.

[230RN]

Oh, and Wiki has "locked" her encyclopedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Couric

This article is currently protected from editing until June 2, 2016.
 See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Interesting.

I wonder what they mean by "uncontroversial OR supported by consensus."

I can't wait 'til June 3rd.

Terry

[Ben]

supported by consensus."

Again with the consensus (not you Terry, "they"). I'm sick of stuff that is supposed to be supported by evidence and/or scientific rigor being given the hand-off to consensus. "97% of all scientists believe gravity makes apples fall up, so it's true". "A majority of input shows people like Katie Couric, so she didn't do anything wrong."

I realize calling Wiki an encyclopedia is really stretching things, but still, I'm sick of consensus and the idea that as long as you get enough people to agree on a thing, it becomes a fact. Physics, logic, and evidence to the contrary be damned.

And that's my Sunday morning rant. :)

[230RN]

^ I agree, and that's why I bolded and capped the "or."

The "consensus" of pro-2a folks is that she (and her director) are bald faced liars.  You don't just stick 8 or 9 seconds of "dead air" into a report unless you want it to mean something. 

So is that "consensus" going to show up in the wiki article on June 3rd??

(Well, "encyclopedia" was a handy descriptive term, is all.)

Rant on, Ben!  Good show !

Terry

ETA:
This kind of prevarication seems to be fairly prevalent, according to my searching around.  Example/sample from the New York Times:

But Mr. Zimmerman’s comments had been taken grossly out of context by NBC.

Read more:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

Too bad the producer involved was not named.  I want names, dammit!

TAGS FOR SEARCH ENGINES TO FIND THIS THREAD:

Katie Couric
Epix
Stephanie Soechtig
Brian Williams
Journalism
Michael Moore
Yellow Journalism
New Journalism

(Edited to remove excessive line feeds.)

[Ben]

(Well, "encyclopedia" was a handy descriptive term, is all.)

And it IS what they call themselves, even though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8

 

[Perd Hapley]

And it IS what they call themselves, even though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8

 

I wonder how he got YouTube to come out and film that.

[Ned Hamford]

Of course the smarmy little Pollyanna voice is trying to tell me that either the usual suspects among the anti-gun crowd are either realizing we are not the threat they have tried to make us out to be or that we are that dangerous and they need to get their *expletive deleted*it together before the big purge.

 

[Angel Eyes]

Apparently Couric is feeling the heat.  A link to this story was on CNN's front page:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/30/media/katie-couric-under-the-gun-doc/index.html

There's still a lot of "it's not my fault" in her statement, but she is at least admitting that the edit should not have been made.

[Ben]

Apparently Couric is feeling the heat.  A link to this story was on CNN's front page:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/30/media/katie-couric-under-the-gun-doc/index.html

There's still a lot of "it's not my fault" in her statement, but she is at least admitting that the edit should not have been made.

And from the URL, the famous "apology" method that I feel is one of the biggest problems with modern society:

Soechtig added, "I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way."

How about be a responsible adult, stick a period after the word 'apologize", and be done with it. Cowboy up and drive on for God's sake.

[wmenorr67]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/31/katie-couric-takes-blame-for-misleading-pause-in-gun-documentary.html?intcmp=hpbt3

She is now taking blame.

Love this quote.....

Director Stephanie Soechtig told The Washington Post last week that the pause was so viewers could consider the question.

[Angel Eyes]

[Firethorn]

Interesting.

I wonder what they mean by "uncontroversial OR supported by consensus."

I can't wait 'til June 3rd.

Okay, having gone through the edit logs, there was an 'edit war' taking place.

'Jbusch8899' seems to be the primary one putting the controversy in - complete with citations.

'Xenophrenic' seems to be using the rules to suppress the controversy - note, I haven't edited wikipedia articles in a long time, and he's using acronym cites, so I don't know how accurate his citations on the supposed rule violations are.  The first time he removed it, it was "rmv assertion of fact pending citation to WP:RS; rmv unnecessary header" - which seems odd since the citations were there.  The second was "rvt BLP violation; take your proposal to Talk, please"
BLP seems to be a reference to "Biography of living persons", which is quite the page.  Still, at the top of the list: Neutral point of view, verifiable, and no 'original research'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - he's saying they aren't reliable. CNN and such aren't?

While I'm going to say that the level of rule enforcement is going to vary on a huge site like wikipedia, especially when it's worked by volunteers, I will state that there's a lot less verifiable information left on various pages, with lousier citations.  As such, it looks like Xeno is trying to suppress the information.

Perhaps the answer is to create a wiki page specifically for 'under the gun', where the controversy can be expanded upon.

Especially given wiki's policy on BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

[MechAg94]

Okay, having gone through the edit logs, there was an 'edit war' taking place.

'Jbusch8899' seems to be the primary one putting the controversy in - complete with citations.

'Xenophrenic' seems to be using the rules to suppress the controversy - note, I haven't edited wikipedia articles in a long time, and he's using acronym cites, so I don't know how accurate his citations on the supposed rule violations are.  The first time he removed it, it was "rmv assertion of fact pending citation to WP:RS; rmv unnecessary header" - which seems odd since the citations were there.  The second was "rvt BLP violation; take your proposal to Talk, please"
BLP seems to be a reference to "Biography of living persons", which is quite the page.  Still, at the top of the list: Neutral point of view, verifiable, and no 'original research'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - he's saying they aren't reliable. CNN and such aren't?

While I'm going to say that the level of rule enforcement is going to vary on a huge site like wikipedia, especially when it's worked by volunteers, I will state that there's a lot less verifiable information left on various pages, with lousier citations.  As such, it looks like Xeno is trying to suppress the information.

Perhaps the answer is to create a wiki page specifically for 'under the gun', where the controversy can be expanded upon.

Especially given wiki's policy on BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

Sounds like they need to just have a link at the bottom and call it "unverified or controversial information". 

[230RN]

Those apologies ^{[citation needed]} seem similar to a cat ^{[citation needed]} scratching ^{[citation needed]} in a litter box ^{[citation needed]} to cover its poop. ^{[citation needed]}

Terry ^{[citation needed]},  230RN ^{[citation needed]}

[BlueStarLizzard]

Those apologies ^{[citation needed]} seem similar to a cat ^{[citation needed]} scratching ^{[citation needed]} in a litter box ^{[citation needed]} to cover its poop. ^{[citation needed]}

Terry ^{[citation needed]},  230RN ^{[citation needed]}

If it was my cat, it would have been lectured and yelled at for failing to cover his poop to begin with and stinking up the house.

[just Warren]

Your cat speaks English? Mine pretends not to, but he is perfectly fluent in Jerkwad.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Your cat speaks English? Mine pretends not to, but he is perfectly fluent in Jerkwad.

My cats are all multilingual. Their understanding of English only gets "spotty" when I'm not saying nice things to them.

[BlueStarLizzard]

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/katie-couric-apologizes-with-second-misleading-edit-doubling-down/#axzz4AHu9H3P3

I swear this woman is just asking for it at this point.

[Angel Eyes]

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/katie-couric-apologizes-with-second-misleading-edit-doubling-down/#axzz4AHu9H3P3

I swear this woman is just asking for it at this point.

Does she really believe we're that stupid?   Yes, apparently she does.


(ETA:  an online petition to fire Couric:  https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/42714-fire-katie-couric)

[230RN]

Reply on the Ammoland link which rang my bell:

•  2nd Amender says:

 June 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM  


Aren’t we all tired of the attacks on our Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights And Freedoms by these highly paid “mouths” with well known faces attached!

There are no “so called liberals”! These actors and politicians who have infiltrated our main stream culture by any means possible are Communists. Prior to the 60’s, when this anti-American Movement took hold on college campuses, these traitorous scum would be hiding in dark unnamed places.

 Time to take the gloves off and call “a spade a spade”. These creeps hide under their own mandated political correctness. They have warped the minds of too many of our kids with cartoons and subliminal messages of false hope in being a minion instead of a free thinking individual.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/katie-couric-apologizes-with-second-misleading-edit-doubling-down/#ixzz4ALLQrMMm
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

There are a few of us who have been brave enough to point this out here and there over the decades, myself included.  Yet we are often likened to McCarthy, who saw Commies under every leaf and rock.

Well, guess what?

They are out from under their leaves and rocks nowadays, coming out under the protection of the "Hey, that smacks of McCarthyism" accusation.  Well, while that term implies unjustified accusations, it's time to maybe re-think just how "unjustified" it really was in every case.

Yes, McCarthy went too far in a lot of ways, which is too bad, because it made "Commie hunting" itself look shameful. This played right into the hands of the Communists.

Maybe it's time we took another look at who's a communist and who isn't.

There.  I said it and I ain't takin' it back.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

25 years ago nothing would have come of this.  A lot fewer people trust the media these days. 

[HankB]

25 years ago nothing would have come of this.  A lot fewer people trust the media these days. 

25 years ago the networks had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of information.

[RoadKingLarry]

25 years ago the networks had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of DISinformation.

FTFY