Should Katie Couric be Fired? - Granite Grok

Should Katie Couric be Fired?

katie-couric
“I only did it to protect… you”

David French has a piece at NRO titled Dear Yahoo, Fire Katie Couric. In it, he explains the fraud she has committed and why Yahoo! ought to cut her loose.

(NRO) Dear Yahoo, let me put this in plain English for you. Your premier news personality is “proud” of lying. She “supports” a statement that purports to justify those lies as a form of creative “pause.” This would be a firing offense at any decent opinion journal, much less an organization that purports to objectively report the news. Americans can no longer trust a single news report or a single interview from Couric. They now know that she will unashamedly and proudly deceive them to advance her own ideological agenda.

His argument is spot on. You can’t trust a thing she does from here on out and as the front-girl for Yahoo! News this diminishes the credibility of the entire operation. She should follow Dan Rather into retirement.

Rather invented a lie–or at least advertised it–to create a false narrative. Couric is perpetuating a false narrative that already exists, one that she, herself would have damaged had she not edited out the truth.

Here is the unedited audio of the portion of the interview that was deceptively edited. In the video, after she asks her question, there is a pregnant pause and silence. In truth, the interviewees respond immediately and with devastating effect.

Couric asks the leading question, “If there are no background checks..,” but gets the wrong answer.

“The fact is that we do have statutes, at both the state and the federal level, that prohibit classes of people from being in possession of firearms.” He then lists all the existing prohibitions against possession of a firearm. He lists everything the average MoveOn.org supporter would repeat with practiced ease as the reasons why we need more background checks.

Couric and her director or producer had to remove it. Not because it was the truth but because it wasn’t their truth and they had a professional obligation to protect us.

But as bad as that was, what followed, to Couric and the left, was probably worse.

“…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.”

The progressive response is similar to that of Luke Skywalker when Darth Vader announces that he is his father. “Government does not have a right to prior restraint? That’s not Possible! Noooooo. Nooooooo.”

The entire Democrat social experiment in all its forms (Socialism, Social Democracy, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Syndicalism, etc,) are predicated on the idea that the government can and should do anything and everything it wants for any reason it can imagine, as soon and as often as it can. It’s for your own good. But this is exactly what the Constitution set out to prevent.

Progressives hate that. They have spent more than a century trying to ensure that as few people as possible grow up understanding that. You must also believe that there are no background checks, or never enough of them. That the second amendment does not protect an individual right to possess a firearm. It is a lie, but it is their truth. And so what if everywhere that their truth rises unopposed inevitably looks like inner-city Detroit or Chicago? So. What.

They don’t live in these places, and they don’t talk about them except to suggest that the solution to the violence (they) created–if forced to even consider it–is more of the same.

And, when Katie Couric deletes an honest explanation with a cogent, factual, legal/constitutional explanation from her in-depth, fact-finding expose-esque documentary thingy, she believes she is doing you a favor. She is removing damaging and discomforting facts to protect you, and I’m sure she can’t imagine why you are not thanking her.

Ingrate.

Remember, the entire Social-Democrat Social-experiment requires it.

So, should she be fired? Yes. Will she be fired? I doubt it. But what is life without hope?

 

You can hear our interview with David–different topic–here.

>