• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing [W:150]

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
$12M compensatory damages and $350k punitive? Well, it's good tax planning if you can get it. I'm not really sure that they can show $12M damages but maybe Couric will settle for a quarter mil each just to skip litigation. That was quite the butcher job she pulled.
 
Don't mind the lawsuit, but $12 million is kind of laughable.
 
The anti gun twit is being sued for defamation based on her dishonest editing of her selective editing of the responses of pro gun activists in her anti gun film "under the Gun" which was supported by several bannerrhoid organizations

Katie Couric & Epix Sued For $12M Over Anti-Gun Film Editing | Deadline
This is going to be an interesting case.

Apparently, the defamatory editing is: Adding a pause, when asking the panel if there's a reason to not have background checks.

The producer claims the pause was added for drama and reflection, and appears to be claiming artistic license:

"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,” said the director on May 25 with support from Epix. “I never intended to make anyone look bad, and I apologize if anyone felt that way."

The plaintiffs claim:

“The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks,” the heavily visual 52-page filing claims. “The Defendants’ actions were malicious, willful, and wanton, and evidence a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs,” it adds.

I have no idea if an 8 second pause is substantively defamatory, but I'd like to see that footage.

Do you have it by chance, Turtle?
 
This is going to be an interesting case.

Apparently, the defamatory editing is: Adding a pause, when asking the panel if there's a reason to not have background checks.

The producer claims the pause was added for drama and reflection, and appears to be claiming artistic license:

"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,” said the director on May 25 with support from Epix. “I never intended to make anyone look bad, and I apologize if anyone felt that way."

The plaintiffs claim:

“The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks,” the heavily visual 52-page filing claims. “The Defendants’ actions were malicious, willful, and wanton, and evidence a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs,” it adds.

I have no idea if an 8 second pause is substantively defamatory, but I'd like to see that footage.

Do you have it by chance, Turtle?

no, but I watched the entire film-admittedly hostile to the views of Couric and her bannerrhoid allies-and it was obvious the pause was designed to make the pro freedom advocates look flummoxed or dazed and confused.

she's a hard core anti gun hack and given her track record, she is not entitled (at least in my view and that of many pro-rights advocates) of any benefit of doubt. The support for her schlockumentary was a who's who list of bannerrhoid groups.
 
"Seek, and ye shall find"!


 
no, but I watched the entire film-admittedly hostile to the views of Couric and her bannerrhoid allies-and it was obvious the pause was designed to make the pro freedom advocates look flummoxed or dazed and confused.

she's a hard core anti gun hack and given her track record, she is not entitled (at least in my view and that of many pro-rights advocates) of any benefit of doubt. The support for her schlockumentary was a who's who list of bannerrhoid groups.
You very well may be right.

But after seeing it, I'm not sure if they got a winning case regardless of personal intent - unless the intent can be shown.

If the defendants show this technique is commonly used by other producers without malice (I believe it is), the plaintiffs might have a tough case.

I suspect LutherF is right, in that ordinarily there'd be a small settlement at best.

But if the plaintiffs are trying to make a political stand or are backed by political orgs, who knows? They may insist on dragging Curic et al through the negative publicity of a trial.
 
"Seek, and ye shall find"!




Yes, I saw this example among others.

It is disingenuous of Ms. Couric and her producer to claim this pause was anything other than an attempt to make the panel seem like they had to think long and hard on an answer.

A clear case of distortion propaganda at it's best.
 
You very well may be right.

But after seeing it, I'm not sure if they got a winning case regardless of personal intent - unless the intent can be shown.

If the defendants show this technique is commonly used by other producers without malice (I believe it is), the plaintiffs might have a tough case.

I suspect LutherF is right, in that ordinarily there'd be a small settlement at best.

But if the plaintiffs are trying to make a political stand or are backed by political orgs, who knows? They may insist on dragging Curic et al through the negative publicity of a trial.

probably the real goal is discovery-to subject Katie Couric to a withering deposition and then release some parts of that to make her look like a lying anti gun POS. her desire to settle most likely will be to avoid that and the real, if somewhat remote, threat of her committing perjury. For example if she denies she edited her hatchet job to make pro rights advocates look like dolts, and someone who was working with her and decides to rat her out comes forward and says "Yes we did that to make them look bad" she could get nailed for perjury because testimony in a deposition is basically under the same solemnity as that in court
 
probably the real goal is discovery-to subject Katie Couric to a withering deposition and then release some parts of that to make her look like a lying anti gun POS. her desire to settle most likely will be to avoid that and the real, if somewhat remote, threat of her committing perjury. For example if she denies she edited her hatchet job to make pro rights advocates look like dolts, and someone who was working with her and decides to rat her out comes forward and says "Yes we did that to make them look bad" she could get nailed for perjury because testimony in a deposition is basically under the same solemnity as that in court
I think I'd agree, and I'd add that a possibly weak suit - is still a suit that *possibly* can be lost or expose one to further liability!

$12M is not chump-change, and as you said: Discovery and sworn testimony is always exposure to liability.
 
retraction and apology?
I was thinking along those lines, or as Turtle stated: to embarrass and discredit her through discovery or otherwise.

Just the publicity of a lawsuit can do some damage, depending it's merit and on how she handles it.
 
So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?

Who's rights to free speech? The gun rights advocates or Couric's?
 
The anti gun twit is being sued for defamation based on her dishonest editing of her selective editing of the responses of pro gun activists in her anti gun film "under the Gun" which was supported by several bannerrhoid organizations

Katie Couric & Epix Sued For $12M Over Anti-Gun Film Editing | Deadline

If you know anyone from the Virginia Civil Defense League, then you would know that some air headed liberal like Couric isn't going to stump them with any question in regards to guns and gun laws. I am on their website daily, and these guys are wrapped pretty tight. I have met many of them face to face, including 2 guys from the board of directors. They are pretty solid people. Couric proves again that she is just another liberal goose stepper.

https://www.vcdl.org/
 
So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?
Here's the part you always get wrong: Their speech rights end at libel and slander. Their loss if property is a possible result of such.
 
Here's the part you always get wrong: Their speech rights end at libel and slander. Their loss if property is a possible result of such.

Slander is a false spoken statement. Was what she said about them false ?

No, no it wasn't.
 
How is the government trying to restrict their free speech rights?

...

By taking away Couric's property ($) for Couric's speech (that was not a published false statement).
 
Couric isn't allowed to add a dramatic pause ?

Not if it is libel or slander. She created an incident that was a total fabrication that could damage these people professionally. She took footage from a time before they started the discussion and moved it to create a perception that was totally false. The law doesn't allow for that if it misrepresents the situation in such a way that it damages someone.

 
Not if it is libel or slander. She created an incident that was a total fabrication that could damage these people professionally. She took footage from a time before they started the discussion and moved it to create a perception that was totally false. The law doesn't allow for that if it misrepresents the situation in such a way that it damages someone.



Then do you think Dr. Ken can sue the production of The Hangover for defamation over his nude scene ?

I don't see how it was "totally false" to add a dramatic pause. And i don't see how that defames their character. Perhaps they should explain their anti-UBC argument if they have one.

Or they should drop the charges from $12M to something halfway reasonable.
 
Then do you think Dr. Ken can sue the production of The Hangover for defamation over his nude scene ?

I don't see how it was "totally false" to add a dramatic pause. And i don't see how that defames their character. Perhaps they should explain their anti-UBC argument if they have one.

Or they should drop the charges from $12M to something halfway reasonable.

Don't know who Dr, Ken is and don't care. If it were me and she tried to damage my credentials by editing a video to create a false narrative I would do the same thing. They can't lose. She apologizes and retracts the statement or she gives them money. Win/win. Why would they not do this? Is the suit dishonest?
 
Back
Top Bottom