Never any media bias - well maybe just a little. All the time.

The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.

At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.

Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. The moment can be watched here:

However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.

Turtleneck wrote:A hyper-competitive media market and shrinking profit margins means doing whatever it takes to get viewers, readers, clicks, etc. So yeah, this is just another criticism of capitalism more than a criticism of the media. The story that is not sensationalized does not sell.

xsanguine wrote:I guess my point was... Bob's prejudices and my prejudices are coming from the same place and we could both tell what a person is like based on how they present themselves... Even if we won't outwardly admit it.

xsanguine wrote:I want as little to do with the guy fingering his belly button through a flannel shirt and dirty work boots (who hasn't worked in years) and spitting tobacco as I do with the guy wearing a backwards bandana, sagging pants and referring to females as bitches all the time.

They're the same product, just different packaging.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I want as little to do with the guy fingering his belly button through a flannel shirt and dirty work boots (who hasn't worked in years) and spitting tobacco as I do with the guy wearing a backwards bandana, sagging pants and referring to females as bitches all the time.

They're the same product, just different packaging.

you offended my cupcake feelings and I'm going to advocate that you be banned..

LooseGoose wrote:Charles C. W. Cooke ‏@charlescwcooke  9m9 minutes ago
Katie Couric flagrantly lies. The channel stands behind her. Next up, progressives wonder aloud, “why don’t gun owners trust us?”

xsanguine wrote:I'd put virtually all politicians in that exact same category, Bob.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Charles C. W. Cooke ‏@charlescwcooke  9m9 minutes ago
Katie Couric flagrantly lies. The channel stands behind her. Next up, progressives wonder aloud, “why don’t gun owners trust us?”

serious question (if you are willing to entertain a serious question): are you surprised to learn that the mainstream media lies, distorts the truth and flat out makes things up in the name of profit, capitalism and corporate America?

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
serious question (if you are willing to entertain a serious question): are you surprised to learn that the mainstream media lies, distorts the truth and flat out makes things up in the name of profit, capitalism and corporate America?

Not at all, except for the part you didn't mention. 90% of the lies are created to damage one side of the political equation.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Not at all, except for the part you didn't mention. 90% of the lies are created to damage one side of the political equation.

Bullshit. That is complete perception bias, or some term from some psychology text book.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
serious question (if you are willing to entertain a serious question): are you surprised to learn that the mainstream media lies, distorts the truth and flat out makes things up in the name of profit, capitalism and corporate America?

Not at all, except for the part you didn't mention. 90% of the lies are created to damage one side of the political equation.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Bullshit. That is complete perception bias, or some term from some psychology text book.

I don't think LooseGoose is quite ready to read a book that doesn't have pretty pictures in it.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I don't think LooseGoose is quite ready to read a book that doesn't have pretty pictures in it.

I like pictures as well, Bob.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Not at all, except for the part you didn't mention. 90% of the lies are created to damage one side of the political equation.

Bullshit. That is complete perception bias, or some term from some psychology text book.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Bullshit. That is complete perception bias, or some term from some psychology text book.

I dunno. I think there is some truth to that. There's a double standard that is applied.

Take for example Ben Shapiro's situation on Dr. Drew's show where they placed 5 pro-transgendered individuals against one anti-transgendered individual. Zoe Tur grabbed Ben Shapiro by the neck and told him if he referred to him as a him again he'd be leaving in an ambulance. Only Breitbart (Ben Shapiro's employer at the time) covered it.

We know what would happen if the tables were turned. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc would all have used it as an example of violence against transgendered. When the tables are turned there isn't a peep. It's as much about not covering things as it is over-covering certain things.

xsanguine wrote:And what do you think the media coverage is if the tables were turned, TN?

Do you think MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC would have articles on it if that were the case? I seem to think so. They have no problem falsifying 911 calls, interviews, etc when it suits a certain agenda.... But the silence seems pretty obvious.

On Wednesday, the network morning shows all promoted violent left-wing protests outside a Donald Trump rally in New Mexico as a sign of trouble for the “controversial” GOP candidate and even provided a platform for rioters to justify their actions.

At the top of NBC’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer breathlessly declared: “Breaking overnight, protests turn violent at a Trump rally in New Mexico. Demonstrators knocking down barriers and throwing rocks.” In the report that followed, correspondent Hallie Jackson acknowledged “what started as a peaceful protest turned chaotic,” but still saw “purpose” in the melee: “Demonstrators jumping on cop cars, lighting fires, smashing windows. Some, agitators. Others, protesting with a purpose.”
Soundbites ran of some of the activists ranting against Trump and expressing their desire to shut down free speech. One woman proclaimed: “We're here today because the people of Albuquerque specifically do not want Donald Trump in our city.” A man announced: “We're not going to tolerate Trump's hate and his speech. We don't support what he stands for, and this is why the people are her demonstrating.”

Jackson used the opportunity to remind viewers: “It's not uncommon to see protests at Trump rallies. Some have turned violent before, like in Chicago and California. Demonstrations against the controversial candidate often beginning hours beforehand, like in Albuquerque, where protesters surrounded some attendees on their way in, in a so-called walk of shame.”

Turning back to the female protester, Jackson wondered: “But does it help to come out and to have a scene or a demonstration like this?” The woman replied: “No, it does not help, but it's self-defense. Donald Trump cannot come to our city after calling us rapists.”

Covering the chaos live Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning, pundits on MSNBC praised the protesters for “expressing their humanity.”

Despite devoting more than 42 minutes to the abysmal failures of the TSA since coverage began on May 10, neither ABC, CBS nor NBC once even hinted that the Obama Administration might bear even some of the blame on their evening news shows. Instead, the networks pointed the finger at Congress, at airlines, at passengers – but criticism of the White House was as off limits as a 4 ounce bottle of water at airport security.

Where to begin? As I’ve written before, virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue.

All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn’s words, “bands of rapists, going block to block”? Not true.

The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus.

The yarns, peddled on Oprah by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that “little babies” were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false.

The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society “left them behind”? Nah-ah.

While most outlets limited themselves to taking Nagin’s estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher—the watchdog of the media—ran the headline, “Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane.”

In all of Louisiana, not just New Orleans, the total dead from Katrina was roughly 1,500. Blacks did not die disproportionately, nor did the poor. The only group truly singled out in terms of mortality was the elderly. According to a Knight-Ridder study, while only 15 percent of the population of New Orleans was over the age of 60, some 74 percent of the dead were 60 or older, and almost half were older than 75. Blacks were, if anything, slightly underrepresented among the dead given their share of the population.

This barely captures how badly the press bungled Katrina coverage. Keep in mind that the most horrifying tales of woe that captivated the press and prompted news anchors to - quite literally - scream at federal officials occurred within the safe zone around the Superdome where the press was operating. Shame on local officials for fomenting fear and passing along newly minted urban legends, but double shame on the press for recycling this stuff uncritically. Members of the press had access to the Superdome. Why not just run in and look for the bodies? Interview the rape victims? Couldn't be bothered? The major networks had hundreds of people in New Orleans. Was there not a single intern available to fact-check? The coverage actually cost lives. Helicopters were grounded for 24 hours in response to media reports of sniper attacks. At least two patients died waiting to be evacuated.

And yet, a ubiquitous media chorus claims simultaneously that Katrina was Bush's worst hour and the press's best. That faultless paragon of media scrupulousness Dan Rather proclaimed it one of the "quintessential great moments in television news." Christiane Amanpour explained, "I think what's interesting is that it took a Katrina, you know, to bring us back to where we belong. In other words, real journalists, real journalism, and I think that's a good thing."

But in the race to prove the federal response incompetent, the "real journalists" missed some important details. As Lou Dolinar of RealClearPolitics.com exhaustively documents, the National Guard did amazing work in New Orleans. From the Superdome, the Guard managed some 2,500 troops, a dozen emergency shelters, more than 200 boats, 150 helicopters (which flew more than 10,000 sorties moving 88,181 passengers, 18,834 tons of cargo, and saved 17,411 survivors), and an enormous M*A*S*H operation that, among other things, delivered seven babies.

xsanguine wrote:I wonder what Dan Rather is up to these days.

On this, all can agree -- when Rachel Maddow stumbles, it's not for lack of intelligence. Through relentless branding, MSNBC has convinced its viewers and many others who should know better that Maddow is the smartest person on television, or at least on MSNBC at any given moment.

Which leads to an awkward conclusion -- when Maddow commits not one but two egregious errors of omission in the same report, it is not through stupidity. That is simply not possible. Such are the pitfalls of embodying her specific brand.

And such was the case on her show last night when Maddow performed the onerous duty of reporting that Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is under FBI investigation for --- wait for it -- allegedly illegal campaign contributions. This was "very surprising news," Maddow actually claimed, while somehow managing to keep a straight face.

MADDOW: ... until later on today, after the news meeting, we got the very surprising news that Gov. McAuliffe is the focus of some real-life political drama himself. NBC News has now confirmed that the FBI is looking into whether or not Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe accepted illegal contributions during his 2013 campaign for governor. Specifically the FBI looking for the past several months into whether his gubernatorial campaign accepted contributions that were illegal. The FBI's reportedly particularly interested in contributions from a Chinese businessman who once held political office in China ...

MADDOW: ... but who now has permanent resident status in the United States. A lawyer for the McAuliffe campaign tells NBC tonight, "Neither the governor nor his former campaign has knowledge of this matter." The lawyer continued -- "The governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it." If. If! The lawyer implying that the governor himself hasn't even been told about this FBI investigation yet! But it's in the press, now, thanks to somebody leaking that information.

This new FBI investigation is happening in the same state where Terry McAuliffe's predecessor, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, is currently appealing a two-year prison sentence for public corruption. Public affairs, indeed.