Debunking 'Under The Gun' - Documentary or Propaganda?

[jamil]

The Judge's reasoning is interesting;
“The plaintiffs’ defamation claims fail because the interview scene is not false,” Gibney writes. “Under the Gun portrays members of the VCDL not answering the question posed by Couric. In reality, members of the VCDL did not answer the question posed by Couric. They talked about background checks and gun laws generally, but did not answer the question of how to prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing guns without background checks. The editing simply dramatizes the sophistry of the VCDL members.”

Had the plaintiff's (VCDL) response been as he characterized then there was no need to edit the footage to insert the silence. If the silence and inability to answer were the response to the question prior to editing then that silence is true. That is not the case. The silence was spliced in, and accordingly is patently false.

Sophistry? How do you prevent crime? Answer: Short of locking everyone up whether they've committed a crime or not, crime cannot be prevented. It's a silly question. It's fine to answer those with, "you can't".

 

[OakRiver]

Department of Pre-Crime?

A more cynical person than I might say that the judge was sympathetic to the defendant (Couric)'s stance on the matter. Otherwise there would be no need to engage in the mental gymnastics undertaken to declare that an edited in silence is not a false representation of the events.