"go to the source" [View all]

This is an idea related to me while I was in college. Not by a philosophy professor or a lecturer in the history department. I learned that along with a number of practical skills from the Godan at my dojo.

There have been opinions here discussing the edit made in the film Under the Gun. It is my feeling that if you film an interview, especially a slanted interview, you don't ask questions to which you don't want answers. If you do, and you get an answer that doesn't fit your narrative, you don't alter it or remove the answer. You can leave out both the question and the answer.

A number of sources have already made known their opinions of the edit as unprofessional/unethical. So back to the thread title I used. Since these main stream respected sources aren't buying the edit as representing good work in journalism for a documentary, neither am I. To paraphrase what someone here said, 'When the Washington Post has a problem with a pro-control piece, there IS a problem.'

I'm not a journalist nor a journalism professional. I have no training, no education nor experience in journalism. Feel free to dismiss my opinions along any others you don't like. Many pro-control folks resort to attacking the source of news or opinions which don't fit.

You can say to yourself that the film's producers and director 'went to the source' (VCDL) for opinions on the RKBA and answers to gun violence and crime but how valid is that when 'creative license' removes answers and the question remains? Suppose a pro-RKBA interviewer asked a pro-control source (maybe the VPC, the Brady tribe or DiFi) a question such as, "Without access to a handgun, how can physically smaller and weaker folks defend themselves from stronger assailants or armed criminals?" and the interview showed Josh Sugarmann or Hillary Clinton sitting in silence looking at the floor?

For me the film stands as another example of the kind of lies the pro-control folks will work to invent, spread and defend.

Want to change any minds? Get some real journalists with impeccable reputations to present some good ideas.



For now my opinion of Katie places her in the group that would write for the Weekly World News and such.

Want to influence me at all in that? Get some folks with reputations to explain it so that it doesn't sound like bullshit.
Start with this guy: