Some newsrooms are still reluctant to report outright that Katie Couric’s gun documentary was selectively edited, despite the existence of audio evidence and an admission from the film’s director.
Instead, several reports have been couched in careful language suggesting the Yahoo news anchor and documentary director Stephanie Soechtig have only been accused of doctoring interviews with pro-Second Amendment activists.
“Gun supporters claim Katie Couric documentary deceptive,” read an Associated Press headline Thursday.
Newser published a headline of its own that same morning that said, “Katie Couric Accused of Deceptive Edit in Guns Film.”
“Katie Couric Defends Gun Documentary Amid Charges of Deceptive Editing,” read yet another headline from Adweek.
No one has been more careful to avoid stating explicitly that the documentary was selectively edited than the New York Times.
“Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims,” read the group’s headline on the issue.
The rest of the story was careful to use similarly evasive language, including, “A conservative news site posted what it said was audio proof.”
The Times’ report noted the difference between the audio and the finalized version of the documentary, and the article also included Soechtig’s admission her team edited its interview with gun rights activists.
However, the paper ultimately shied away from reporting outright that the Couric interview had been selectively doctored.
The Times’ reluctance to state this admitted fact stands in sharp contrast to how the 165-year-old newspaper reacted in 2015 to the release of more than 20 hours of undercover Planned Parenthood footage.
When the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life activist group, produced tapes from a three-year-long investigation of the nation’s largest provider of abortions, the Times’ editorial board accused the activist group repeatedly of doctoring the videos to make it appear as if Planned Parenthood was in the business of selling harvested organs for profit.
In July of 2015, the board said CMP’s investigation was part of a larger “campaign of deception against Planned Parenthood.”
Later, in January 2016, the board declared after a Texas grand jury indicted CMP that the fetal tissue scandal was over and that Planned Parenthood had been vindicated.
On March 28, the board called the tapes “deceptively edited.”
The paper meanwhile will not say if anyone in its newsroom has actually watched all of the footage.
The Times even published a report on Aug. 27, 2015, claiming a third-party research firm, Fusion GPS, had ruled the tapes were altered.
What the article omitted, however, was that the Fusion GPS reviewed only four of the eight released videos. The Times article also excluded all mentions of Fusion GPS’ ties to the Democratic Party, which benefits financially from Planned Parenthood’s continued existence.
But when it comes to gun rights activists, audio evidence of a selectively edited Couric interview and an admission from the filmmaker, the truth is apparently not so clear-cut for the Times.
“The audio … seemed to differ from the video shown in the documentary,” the paper’s report on the gun documentary claimed.
Not everyone in the press has given Couric and the documentary team a free pass.
“An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here,” the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple wrote in an article titled “Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as ‘idiots.’”
The Daily Beast also came right out and said in a headline (“Katie Couric Stands by Film’s Deceptive Edit of Pro-Gun Interviewees“) that the interview was anything but honest.
The Epix documentary, “Under the Gun,” which Couric narrated and executive produced, shows the anchor interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
In the finalized version of the film, Couric is seen supposedly stumping her guests with a simple question about background checks.
But uncut audio of the interview, which was obtained first by the gun blog Ammoland and published later this week by the Washington Free Beacon, reveals members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League were far better prepared to answer her question than the film suggested.
“My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks,” Soechtig said of edits in a statement to the Washington Examiner’s media desk. “I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
Couric also told the Examiner Wednesday that she is “very proud of the film.”
“I support Stephanie’s statement,” she added.
The pro-Second Amendment website Bearing Arms, which has been on the story from the get-go, published a story this week with a headline that read, “Katie Couric Accused of Doctoring Interviews In Anti-Gun Film.”
However, that article was published before the audio surfaced and before Soechtig admitted to the editing.
