Donald Trump BBC

Control of the licence fee

How much control of the licence fee do they actually have? To suggest this gives them influence over the day to day running of the organisation would be akin to suggesting a nurse is influenced by the government when deciding whether to do obs on a patient.

The glaringly obvious reason this particular error wasn’t a deliberate attempt by a left wing government to influence the BBC is, the programme aired in October 2024. It was in production for over a year. The final edits would be in the can by the time Labour came to power.

The programme was very Trump positive over all. Would we suggest there was a right leaning bias during the Conservative government?

BBC is guilt but so is Trump, who has been convicted in New York this spring on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush-money payment made to a porn star before the 2016 presidential election. (Also sounds like he enjoyed the child escort services of Jeffrey Epstein)

I am objected to a UK organisation paying any compensation to a convicted felon.

Trump cares only when it benefits him, he certainly does not care about upholding the quality of impartial media coverage. Listen to the podcast Trump so get a feel of what that man is capable of and how much he actually cares about the truth in media.

is entirely a place of ignorance and privilege to call it a government mouthpiece when you compare it to actual state broadcasters in places like Russia, China, North Korea, where their state media controls the entire news and entertainment narrative

I'm the first to agree the BBC issues aren't on the scale of such places, @boredzelda, but stand by my remarks about it being a government mouthpiece inasmuch as administrations
enjoy undue influence via their control of the licence fee

Besides, on a simpler level, what's the point of them if they can't even honour their own charter and prefer to peddle lies?

I'm fully supporting the BBC on this one. Trump has a history of enriching himself by sueing news outlets. For someone who supposedly believes in free speech, it's incredible hypocrisy. Yes the BBC screwed up. But this is a direct attack on a British institution and on all of us who pay the licence fee.

That is the crux of it, that’s the condition for the licence fee which other media doesn’t get. Institutionalised bias means it’s not delivering.

Damages are based on the damage - how on earth has trump been damaged by this editorial decision? He might win but I can’t see him being awarded more than £1

There’s lots of things I’d change about the BBC , but it’s one of the best recognised and internationally trusted brands in the world. No one who cares about our country wants it destroyed.

The BBC is not a state mouthpiece. Well, unless you count Kussenberg and her continual soft pedalling of the last Conservative government.

They are consistently assessed for bias and if you care to look at the overall picture of their reporting they will have Government ministers, including the Prime minister being challenged and questioned over policy etc. People are always arguing over whether they are treating one side or the other fairly but no matter the colour of the government, they act largely impartially. So far here we keep being told about two particular issues, representing three pieces which were broadcast (Trump-panorama, and two Gaza documentaries, both of which are stretching to show a bias) across millions of hours of output in a year and people are jumping up and down to claim a left wing bias.

It is entirely a place of ignorance and privilege to call it a government mouthpiece when you compare it to actual state broadcasters in places like Russia, China, North Korea, where their state media controls the entire news and entertainment narrative.

If you don’t like it, don’t watch it, but let’s stop catastrophising what is a really tiny story, whipped up by competing media outlets who would love to see the BBC brought down for their own commercial gain.

Because I am not expected to pay for other media outlets.

Because the BBC is required by Charter to be impartial in its coverage, and there is no clause exempting odious people.

Because if I cannot trust the BBC to tell the truth then I don’t know what the point of them is.

If it was anyone but trump I would agree. But that man - pot calling the kettle black.

Additionally uk press have been doing this for years on a daily basis- almost part of the job description. Even has a name ‘false news’. Why just focus on the bbc now (who are as guilty of disinformation as the next media outlet).

my point is that it would effectively be suing the people because we pay for the BBC. So he is directly harming us

It's hardly Trump's fault the UK has a state mouthpiece broadcaster, OP, and the fact many of us dislike him is no reason for the BBC to act as it did

My own view's that this integrity-free bunch deserve to be taken apart, but I still think there's a lot of chagrin around from those who crowed that what turned out to be utter dishonesty "proved" something about the bogeyman

But then surely that is on the BBC? If you get taxpayers money, surely you have a responsibility not to do stupid shit which might get you sued?

Quite. Who does this all really benefit?

I totally agree.

I am also fascinated to know where all these people wanting impartial news will get this if the BBC didn’t exist. The accusation of bias is interesting in the context of an ‘independent’ report actively looking for left-wing bias, commissioned by right-wing leaning board members who want phrases like ‘reproductive rights’ banned from US news reports. There should not be political appointees on the board, but we have Boris Johnson to thank for that.

Trump said this at the very end of his quite long speech. It links the beginning to the end by mentioning “fight” several times and how he will be with the people as they move to the Capitol. If this is the part the BBC was referring to in Panorama, only a few words were omitted, if any, and certainly not the underlying sentiment.

”And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God Bless America.
Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.“

Congress is partisan though.

Maybe once but no longer.

Yep this.

I thought he was acquitted anyway, was it the impeachment part.

Maybe have a listen to the Inciteful Sisters podcast to see what also went on in the newsroom…

It's not like anyone at the BBC will have to pay anything. If Trump wins, any compensation will be paid by licence fee payers, as usual.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what congress thought, or the courts, or you or me.

It doesn't matter what the BBC thinks he meant.

It doesn't matter what subsequently happened.

Journalists can't ethically stitch together two sentences to make it seem like it is one sentence. Especially when they are saying two differernt things.

It's not even like they just picked the particular bit of the speech that would seem most damning. They created something totally new, which was never said.

It's completely outside what is acceptable for any journalist or news media.

A little less than a billion was awarded in damages, but a later ruling that he had to pay fees took it 1.4!

Unfortunately nobody has seen a penny of it yet, and it doesn't look like they will any time soon.

Donald Trump needs to sue as the BBC have done unethical news before
we as a public need to trust the news we need to have faith that it’s represented with honesty and integrity with out ideally bias
we can’t do that now so Donald Trump must sue and the to be honest the BBC needs disbanding as it’s not longer trust worthy think Jimmy Saville cover ups and a host of other wrongdoings the BBC should be decided up any payments should come off the backs of the corporation profits and those involved in the scandal not the licence payers

It's not as clear cut as saying it was a documentary made by another company.

From the Times:

Trump: A Second Chance? was produced by an in-house BBC team with October Films, an Emmy and Bafta award-winning producer with credits including Labour in Power: Inside the New Government, BBC2’s Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos, and ­Channel 4’s Levison Wood: Walking With…

The collaboration came about after the BBC and October Films discovered that they were simultaneously developing documentaries about Trump’s most ardent supporters and joined forces. Under the terms of the agreement the BBC appointed an experienced ­in-house producer-director, whose credits include Panorama, Are You Scared Yet, Human? and Trump and the Tech Titans to work on it alongside a BBC visual editor.

The pair created the film, making the decision to splice together the two sections of the speech in good faith. According to Shah their aim was to help “convey [the speech’s] ­message so that Panorama’s audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time”.

But they opted against informing the programme’s executive producers at the BBC and October Films, as well as the Panorama editor, Karen Wightman, of their decision.

https://archive.ph/i8u8U

I'm not quite sure how they can have made the decision to splice the footage 'in good faith', but anyway ...

Congress voted on the matter and a majority agreed that he incited an insurrection.

His devoted followers there in Washington that day clearly decided that he wanted them to fight for him, because they did, and testified in court later. He resisted calling out the National Guard and later pardoned the thugs. One of his tweets that morning said: "Get smart Republicans. FIGHT". His speech used the word "fight" twenty times, and "peacefully" just once.

Basically all of the evidence shows that he incited an insurrection. One line in an hour long speech doesn't change that.

Yup. "Leftie" today just means anyone who Trump or his fans disagree with.

The other day Trump said Marjorie Taylor Greene was "far left".

Post truth era.

And what I find odd is that many of what Trump does can actually be described as Maoist.