KATIE COURIC ACCUSED OF DECEPTION – AGAIN!
‘It was apparent in Fed Up that all interviewees were not treated equally’
CHELSEA SCHILLING
WND.com
KATIE COURIC
Just one week after Katie Couric took blame for a deceptive edit in an interview she had with pro-gun activists, she’s facing accusations that she deceptively edited yet another film.
As WND reported, Couric is said to have edited the first documentary video, “Under the Gun,” in an attempt to embarrass Americans who support gun rights.
But several people familiar with the making of another documentary, “Fed Up,” tell the Washington Free Beacon that Couric, the producer of the film, edited it to embarrass individuals who were interviewed.
“Fed Up” examines the issue of obesity and the food industry.
“The film includes two interviews with figures who hold viewpoints counter to the narrative of the film, and sources say both interviews include at least one misleading or deceptive edit intended to embarrass the interviewee,” the Free Beacon reported.
For example, Dr. David Allison, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and an expert interviewed in “Fed Up,” told the paper: “What she did to me is antithetical to not only just human decency and civility but it is antithetical to the spirit of science and democratic dialogue.”
Allison said he had a brief discussion with Couric about whether sugary drinks exacerbate America’s obesity problem more than other foods. Couric reportedly questioned Allison about the science behind his claims, and he asked for a moment to “get his thoughts together” because she had specifically requested that all his answers be in layman terms. Allison said Couric told him before filming that he could take a moment to collect his thoughts at any point.
“Ms. Couric had said to me at the beginning of our interview, ‘You know, Dr. Allison, if at any point you need to go over an answer, you stumble on your words, just let me know, we’ll stop, and you can go back over it,” Allison told the Free Beacon.
In a clip of the interview, Couric responds to Allison’s on-camera request with, “OK.”
But the cameras continued rolling and Allison can be seen sitting silently for nearly 10 seconds before the documentary cuts to the next interviewee.
Watch the “Fed Up” clip of the interview with Dr. Allison.
After those seven seconds passed, Allison says, he answered Couric’s question.
“I had what I thought was a very cogent answer,” he said. “Of course I gave an answer. I gave an answer to every question she asked me in a 90-minute interview that was a barrage of questions. And out of a 90-minute interview, she chose to show the approximately 10 seconds when I paused and said, ‘Let me collect my thoughts.’”
In a second example, Stephanie Soechtig, director of “Fed Up,” interviewed Lisa Gable, a spokeswoman for the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation.
Sources told the Free Beacon the Soechtig’s voice was deceptively edited to embarrass Gable.
Soechtig and Gable talked about whether stores would consider removing food products from shelves.
At one point, Soechtig can be heard saying Gable is avoiding the question, and Gable is seen sitting silently for around three seconds.
“She is badgered about companies’ willingness to reformulate their products, to which the producer answers, ‘It feels like you’re avoiding the question,’” an industry source told the Free Beacon. “[But] that response from the producer didn’t actually follow that particular exchange and was edited to make it look like that was how their conversation actually went.”
Watch the “Fed Up” clip of the interview with Lisa Gable.
Another source told the paper, “It was apparent in the ‘Fed Up’ documentary that all interviewees were not treated equally.”
The new accusations surface only one week after Couric accepted blame for deceptively editing the “Under the Gun” documentary. Couric wrote on the website of “under the Gun”:
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.
She also expressed some remorse for the edit, saying, “I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.”
Upon hearing news of the “Under the Gun” edit, radio host Rush Limbaugh came down harshly on Couric, whom he described as “not a nice person.”
“It was a totally fake and phony edit, and she’s now taking responsibility for it because the pressure obviously got to be so intense,” Limbaugh said.
“I bet you there will not be a single story on how many sponsors she’s lost because of this. Not a single one. Nor will there be any stories on how many sponsors lost here and wanted to come back and we said ‘no’ to. There won’t be any coverage like that at all, ’cause that’s not the point of the coverage.
“So they’re gonna try to cover it up for Katie and limit the damage to her as much possible. That’s why she feels confident going out there and taking the hit ’cause she knows it’s gonna all be over by the next day. And no harm, no foul, and she’ll still be doing what she’s doing the same way she’s doing it. In other words, getting away with it – except when she’s caught.”
Soechtig, the film’s director, released a statement trying to explain why she inserted the long pause of nothingness: “There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. 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. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
Although the documentary cut out the responses, the film’s website is now providing the transcript, showing the responses were immediate and substantive:
KATIE COURIC: 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.
COURIC: 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.
___
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/katie-couric-accused-of-deception-again/#5PMA2F6f0or5kVfT.99