Donald Trump BBC

Neither Obama nor Biden stirred up an insurrection so if footage had been edited to show that they had, that would be wrong.

Trump did stir up an insurrection. Those who were there on the day clearly paid more attention to the "fight" bit than the "peacefully" bit. He also refused to call out the National Guard while his cult were trying to lynch Mike Pence.The House of Representatives impeached him over it and the Department of Justice indicted him (he managed to get the legal process dragged out long enough to get elected as president again and scrap the prosecution). He ended up pardoning the rioters - if it wasn't already obvious that he wanted the insurrection to succeed. This edit (sloppy as it was) didn't change the overall message in thr speech, and the effect it had.

I still want to know who actually made the edit. Shouldn't they have some culpability in all this?

Did you see the programme? It followed ardent Trump supporters, it contained (almost exclusively) viewpoints from those who were going to vote for him. It explored why people loved him and what they thought another Trump term would do for the country. It makes absolutely no editorial sense that this edit was a deliberate attempt to paint him in a certain light when the entire show was people singing his praises. It made no difference at all to the tone of the programme.

But if you have some direct line into the minds of the editorial staff, please do please share this previously unreported information.

He doesn't have a slam dunk case - not even close to one. For a defamation suit to succeed he has to show a material loss. Given that he was re-elected President after the Panorama programme in question was shown, he's going to struggle to prove that. Additionally, he has the tiny problem that the programme was never available in America. "Slam dunk case", my a**e.

He hasn't got a slam dunk case at all. To successfully sue someone for defamation you've got to prove that you were materially damaged by it. Clearly it didn't stop him being reelected, and he's not lost any money. He'd also have to prove intent.

“Lefty top management”

Tim Davie - ran twice to become a Conservative Councillor, Deputy chairman a Conservative Association, banned reporters from going on pride marches etc.

Robbie Gibb - as I noted in a previous post, strong links with Conservatives.

You want to call these guys “lefty?”

If the NHS or police do illegal things they can, and should, face the legal consequences for that.

The BBC has a purpose, like the heath services and the police. But if it's reputation becomes so bad that the majority of tax players no longer want to support it, that's a pretty fucking terrible indictment, and an indication that it is no longer fulfilling it's purpose.

What is frustrating is that there is really no reason that it should be impossible to have a really good, strong broadcasting service. There are so many moments over the last 10 years where they shouuld have taken a step back and taken a moment to reflect. Changing course should have been simple, nothing at all like the NHS which has all kinds of constraints that are very challenging to deal with.

All that the BBC had to do was pay attention to the completely normal and well known journalistic standards that every journalist should learn.

Personally I think the only way forward would be to fire the vast majority of their writers and managers, and rehire from very different groups of people.

That's about the size of it. They omitted the line he used that he could use to say "see, I told them to be peaceful" despite the rest of the hour long speech being full of inflammatory vitriol. The people involved in the insurrection certainly felt inspired to riot by the speech, they testified in court.

Stupid of the BBC to give him any ammunition though.

The documentary show is regularly under contract to the BBC and the director of it is a BBC employee. The editing of the clips was not an error or mistake, it was done absolutely deliberately. By people who knew what they were doing.

This came to light months and months ago at the BBC and they made it clear they didn't care. That wasn't a mistake or error either, it was a deliberate choice.

Trump may or may not get anywhere with his suit, but I hope it scares the absolute shit out of the kind of people who work for the BBC, and creates some self-reflection. This is the kind of thing that if an individual had been caught at it, their career would be over. So far I have seen no evidence of any self-awareness however.

I laugh at people insisting there is an inherent left wing bias, when the person who oversees the impartiality within the BBC is Robbie Gibb, a career conservative who has worked extensively for Conservative ministers, led a consortium who owns the Jewish Chronicle (which apologised for publishing a load of false stories about Gaza), and was an editorial advisor for GB news. Those who worked with him at the BBC when he was in an editorial role in news and politics have been very frank about how he was only interested in running stories that suited his own political leanings (he supported Brexit and calls himself a Thatcherite).

Complaints have been made to him about right wing bias in the organisation but he refuses to deal with them, according to sources inside the BBC. It entirely suits his narrative to raise the profile of this particular error, which was likely down to an editor not making the timelapse obvious. It is laughable to suggest that a documentary shown 3 years after Trump made that speech, after there was an impeachment trial where witnesses confirmed they had acted on his encouragement when storming the Capitol, affected anyone’s opinion of him and misrepresented what actually happened on the night.

Regardless of your views of the BBC, the President of the United States bullying a news organisation is not something anyone should support. He has done the same with CNN, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Trying to influence the media in this way threatens democracy.

It is also worth noting the other news organisations who are leading this charge against the BBC, have much skin in the game. BBC is a huge competitor of theirs and they would love to see it brought down. It is widely regarded as the best broadcasting service in the world, by people who know way more about these things than I do. There are problems in the organisation, as there are in any global corporation, but letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and calling for the end of the BBC would be a pretty bad thing.

So you advocate for the removal of the Police? After all they've screwed up LOTS over the years haven't they? And according to you, those institutions should be destroyed and replaced with private companies.

Basically your argument is "defund the....* insert institution of your hate * "

So if you argue that a British institution with a problem should be destroyed, then you are literally arguing for the destruction of the police, local councils or any other public service that has ever made a mistake.

And TBH... That's a daft, reactionary argument.

So let's get rid of everything. Who needs Police when we could have private protection forces instead. Who needs the NHS or schools or local government or anything else. It'll be sooooo much better when private companies control everything and can charge what they like!! /s

Right that's it! We must now get rid of all Police forces, the NHS, all district and county councils, state education, and every single other public institution because we'll be able to find one or two screw ups in every organisation.

And then the country will be so much better. Instead of having public services, we can all pay private companies for the same services at a higher cost. I wonder who this might benefit...? I wonder who might be pushing the idea that public services that make mistakes should be eradicated?

Why is this? I love the BBC programming and readily suck up the anti fake news adverts they put out all the time. Please explain why I am so deluded.

I'd gladly pay a subscription for their radio, quiz and drama output.

The BBC have to get educated here. Trying to defraud and misrepresent to the plebs (ie the UK TV license payers) to get across their own skewed agenda, is wrong. They now have to face the consequences. Too many times the lefty top management have behaved with self entitlement and arrogance. They deserve what’s coming to them. We should be all over them for causing this shit show which could impact our license fees, not giving them the green light to continue manipulating the news to fit their own shitty agenda.

The BBC obviously fucked up and the programme shouldn't have been edited in a way that was likely to mislead viewers about what Trump had said and when. However, I really don't understand how Trump would have a chance of winning a defamation case.

Firstly, from what I understand, he would need to sue in the US (Florida?), because he would be out of time to sue in the UK. And I gather that the programme wasn't even broadcast in the US, so that's presumably a significant hurdle.

Secondly, if he is claiming damages, what's the evidence of any actual damage having been done? The BBC weren't the first to suggest that he incited the Jan 6 riots, he had actually already been indicted in the US for his part in trying to subvert the election result. So while the spliced video was misleading about the specifics of what was said, it didn't point to any overarching allegations that weren't already in the public domain. Plus Trump was elected soon after the programme aired, so it isn't at all clear that it actually damaged him in any way?

Thirdly, I understand that under Florida law, Trump would have to prove that the BBC had malicious intent. I can't see how he would evidence this, particularly given that the rest of the panorama programme was actually quite balanced and included material that was favourable to Trump.

Defamation implies that the BBC causes damage to Trump's reputation. But Trump already had a terrible reputation and had already been accused in the US of inciting the riots. So while the BBC edit was grossly inappropriate, unprofessional and damaging to the BBC's reputation, I struggle to see how it did any damage whatsoever to Trump. So I struggle to see how he could win this case. I would love for someone to explain why they believe the courts might reach a different conclusion, and on what grounds etc.

That phrase has been going round my head since they announced it 🤣

Well it did change one thing. It blew apart any trust I had in the BBC as a truthful and impartial broadcaster.

Of course people can come to different conclusions. I’m a bit puzzled by how, in this case, as it seems so obvious. I suspect it was t picked up by the BBC before broadcast purely because they didn’t realise as it seems an obvious thing. As I’ve said, that was a mistake. They should have seen it and changed it. I’m not suggesting it was ok to dO it, just that trump doesn’t have grounds to sue as it didn’t materially affect anything.

It's not one screw up.

One, that we know of, case of manipulation of a quote by a political candidate.

An ongoing pattern of manipulative coverage of Gaza.

An ongoing pattern, for years, of manipulative coverage of women's rights.

Ignoring and suppressing complaints.

Ignoring and suppressing when these issues were presented to them internally.

Some very rich people must be absolutely laughing this week based on the responses here. I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and does not let itself be bullied. The report to find examples of (only left-wing) bias was anything but independent. Why was that?

Some might say the first screw up was Saville. People don’t forget that cover up either.

It doesn't matter that you watched in real time. That doesn't mean that you, or any other individual, has come to the correct conclusion.
Do you believe that people can't come to differernt conclusions with the same information?

When the media starts to take it upon themselves to make an assessment and manipulate the public to see things in that light, they are no longer any kind of news, they are propaganda. Even from an outright partisan media source that wouldn't be considered an ethical approach.

People have the right to come to their own conclusions about things. The BBC doesn't get to decide what they think.

One wonders, if it was so obvious, why they felt the need to manipulate it at all.