to say the BBC might be imperfect but

I can’t see that editing of the speech meeting the standards of any self-respecting broadcaster, it’s blatant misinformation.

It’s not like there’s a shortage of incriminating material on Trump, and you can squarely point to finger of blame for Jan 6 at him without making stuff up.

Exactly. I’m waiting for the lawsuits from the kids whose parents were persuaded that puberty blockers were completely safe by the absolute lies put out to children by the BBC.

The BBC used their trusted brand to push the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and breast binders. I can’t forgive them for that.

I used to be a huge supporter of the organisation.

The activists have destroyed all that though.

It may be salvageable if they are removed.

They are the ones responsible.

Every aspect you mentioned has been used as a vehicle by activists to push their lies and ideology.

They are still lying about it now.

Yes, apparently as part of a review after it had already been broadcast. And concerns were raised by at least some of the people who conducted the review.

From the sounds of it they didn’t take any formal action as no one had ever made any complaint about it when it was broadcast. I can pretty well imagine the thinking in the room, it will be the same thinking that plays out in organisations the world over - for god’s sake don’t go looking for trouble by shouting to the world about a fuck up that you’ve discovered and no one else has noticed, just make sure it doesn’t happen again!

It was the wrong response, but it’s a defensive mentality, and I can sympathise with it to an extent.

And TWICE it has been looked at by the BBC editorial standards committee. Twice!!

Regardless of what is right / wrong with the BBC I am outraged that that big orange bully Trump should be trying to destroy it. I’m not surprised, it’s a really influential respected Western English-speaking media outlets that does not roll over and pander to him and calls him out on his autocratic shit, rather than turn propaganda-machine.

I think what is happening is truly sinister.

Not saying the BBC is faultless, but WE the British can decide for ourselves thank you very much, the American right can fuck right off.

Regardless of what is right / wrong with the BBC I am outraged that that big orange bully Trump should be trying to destroy OUR national broadcast company.

I’m not surprised, it’s probably the only really influential respected Western English-speaking media outlet that does not roll over and pander to him and calls him out on his autocratic shit, rather than turn propaganda-machine.

I think what is happening is truly sinister.

Not saying the BBC is faultless, but WE the British can handle it for ourselves thank you very much, the American right can fuck right off.

The “they” who did this particular bit of editing was October Films, an experienced production company who make documentaries for lots of different broadcasters - ITV,Sky, Netflix, Amazon, HBO.

October Films will have had training on how to follow the BBC’s guidelines, and I’m pretty sure their contract with the BBC will have said something along the lines of - the programme they deliver won’t defame anyone and will comply with BBC guidelines.

The people at the BBC who commissioned it should have picked up on the edit, that was their failure. I think it is interesting though that the BBC is seemingly willing to take all the heat and not chuck the producers under the bus.

if there was ever a successful legal claim I’m pretty sure it is the production company (and not the BBC), that would be liable to cover the cost.

I started noticing this years ago when the BBC news coverage reported stories of women committing various heinous crimes. Not only is it unusual for women to commit those crimes, the articles were accompanied by a photo of the perpetrators (men). It got worse from there.

I would be really sad to see the BBC go and I think there is value in a media/news organisation that aims to be impartial. I think the Trump editing is appalling - a massive unforced error.

But it was the trans coverage that disillusioned me. The reality is that it's likely that the ape-like animal that we were before we evolved to be human could distinguish between the male and female of the species - their survival would have depended on it. That the BBC championed chucking this basic fact of life in the bin (along with all women and girls) is basically unforgiveable.

Ultimately, though, I would like it to survive. But it really needs to acknowledge the entirely legitimate issues they have, sack the LGBTQIA+ loonies*, and avoid drag queens for the next century, at least.

*I have made donations to LGB Alliance and support the rights and representation of same-sex attracted people but I suspect nobody who is capable of doing that is currently employed by the BBC. By definition, those who go nuts for gender ideology are intrinsically homophobic and well as misogynistic.

I don’t want to see the BBC go and I’m still down with paying the licence fee

but I do want to see it improved, the arrogance shown in recent years has been its downfall

I don't know if you've noticed, but the BBC Head Of News has resigned, and the BBC Director General has resigned, over this piece of film and edit that you a) haven't actually seen, and b) even people defending the BBC have said was a huge mistake.

But sure, keep going "La la la nothing to see here, Trump bad!" about a programme you haven't even watched and which has now claimed two major scalps in one of the biggest broadcasting companies in the world 🤔

This. And I think it says a great deal about the character and motives of people who are uncritically defending it, both here and elsewhere on social media.

Is that a serious question?

You can't edit two statements together to look like one statement, which is what they did. It wasn't even just that they edited two statements to follow when thee was more in between.

In any case, if it had been the latter, the standard is that you show that there has been a time lapse. There are a few ways to do that, it isn't hard.

@TempestTost Orchestrated by The Telegraph. The Board cannot agree what to do because of political appointments. You need to open your eyes! They aren’t blameless but they have had people appointed to the board who don’t support them. So guess what happens?! Yes. More trouble than was needed because inaction causes this and of course the resignations. I’m obviously right or you wouldn’t be so angry.

It's not a fucking right wing coup, they were given all kinds of chances to make it good, they ignored and buried every one.

The BBC needs to become subscription based, it is ridiculous that it hasn’t gone that way. I also find it unbelievable that BBC talking heads have been popping up all day to tell us that this Panorama edit was wrong but overall the beeb is great and just makes the odd mistake. They seemed to have wiped their facilitation of the country’s worst sex offender from the history books. It would be good if their worst crime was editing a Trump speech rather than it being enabling child abuse, rape and sexual assault. People are quick to forget.

I want there to be a good BBC, far more than just tv and radio without adverts. There is even now still many good programmes, be they ones I value, and ones I don't watch or listen but think should still be there.

The BBC however seems to have a death wish, not just things like the Panorama issue, but never knowing when a series has come to a suitable end, and then the three word argument for licence fee abolition Mrs Browns' Boys.

I didnt take notes and it wasn't comprehensive.

I googled his name to find out who he was, clear, no bias etc.

Then I googled his name with various committees just to see. This was because I was a bit suspicious that someone can have no bias linked to his name.

He's a member, or was a few years ago of a US pharmaceutical group that's currently pressuring the UK to pay more for us produced drugs. I found a few links to trump. A few links to right wing based think tanks.

I'm a civilian and I did this in an hour or so, and this is the very issue with our media imo.

I did this as I know people who work at the BBC and they are not allowed at all to say anything political in public. It's an instantly sackable offence.

This is why I find the whole system a bit off. Their very means of ensuring no bias, are creating many ways of hidden bias. The system has been set up with the intention of clarity, but it's ensured their downfall. There is no clarity.

I honestly think they've done the best they can with the parameters they've been given. I say this as someone who is is critical of their coverage. I think they've been set up to fail. I think their loss will be a blow to democracy.

I don’t see the value in it and thats before having to pay money for it.

I Am generally pro BBC but I am not going to make any excuses for this - it’s a shockingly misleading bit of editing and I am surprised both that someone saw fit to edit the speech that way in the first place and that it wasn’t questioned by anyone reviewing the programme before broadcast (I feel like anyone with a general familiarity of Jan 6 knows that Trump didn’t say anything in his speech which was that direct).

No it wasn't supposed to be about the insurrection particularly.

For the past two years, Panorama has been following some of Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters. One was just feet away from the former president when a gunman tried to assassinate him during a rally in Pennsylvania. They tell Panorama why they want Trump, now a convicted felon, to get a second chance in the White House, while experts analyse his continued appeal.

With the election on a knife-edge, and the former president facing more criminal charges, never before, and likely never again, will a candidate fight a presidential campaign whilst also fighting to stay out of prison.

(my bold)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024h6r

Well, the crux of the argument is that it's open to interpretation.

The crux of the argument is that they removed the words about people peacefully and patriotically making their voices heard and replaced them with words about fighting like hell. I can't believe you think that's OK.

Ok maybe look at what the issue is.

Most people get editing but using edits to change meaning is a problem.

My dad was one who ended up more than just bemused, he was absolutely convinced Trump was going to be thrashed and kept laughing about it. I was following rather more varied sources, and I don't think there was any doubt Trump would win, at least from a week or two after Harris took over. I did try and gently point out that I didn't think he was getting the full picture, but he was adamant. He was very confused and upset, and had refused to watch or listen to any news since. He does still only listen to BBC Sounds podcasts though, no matter how much I try to lure him away.