Panorama doctored Trumps ‘Capitol’ speech?

[GoldThumb]

According to the Telegraph, Panorama doctored Trumps speech.

They showed him saying ‘We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell’

The actual speech was ‘We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women’

https://x.com/telegraph/status/1985369764118622626?s=46&t=ALGAiHxwK3XXeRoDQylnWA

A few months ago, it was also reported by the telegraph that the BBC mistranslated ‘Jihad against the Jews’ to ‘resisting Israeli forces’

https://x.com/telegraph/status/1894431030800433414?s=46&t=ALGAiHxwK3XXeRoDQylnWA

What is going on at the BBC? Why are we paying a licence fee for this shit?

I watched it live at the time and he very much stoked on the crowd on Jan 6. He had zero concern for those in the Senate and zero concern for Mike Pence who he happily threw to the wolves.

He did also say that there were fine people on both sides re Charlottesville. And whilst he didn't suggest that people inject bleach, he did go off at a tangent and speculate on using disinfectants 'to clean from the inside'. He's the President - he doesn't get to be careless with his language without consequence. That's on him.

He speaks without care for how his remarks can be interpreted and he rambles for quite some time - both these things can result in misinterpretation and for journalists parsing what they believe to be the relevant parts.

You do know what the ‘34 felony charges’ were for, right?

What @Blistory said.

Here is the full transcript of what he said after Charlottesville:

TRUMP: “Well, I do think there’s blame — yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at — you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. …
… you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … that were there to protest the taking down of — to them — a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. …
And you had in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had trouble-makers …
… I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. …”

What else could he have said about the neo-Nazis and troublemakers? Isn't it true that at all these types of events, there are the extremists that can be condemned but most people there ("on both sides") are fine people? It is actually quite a balanced view to say there were fine people on both sides I'd have thought.

It shouldn’t be misleading though. Which is the issue.

@Blistory as the transcript shows, he explicitly makes it clear that he is excluding the Neo Nazis and white supremacists from his reference to “fine people”.

The charges over Stormy Daniel’s were a joke. The charge was falsifying business records, something that is typically a misdemeanour. Essentially the prosecution layered multiple uncharged crimes onto a state misdemeanour to create a felony. Obviously his appeal is now underway and I’ll be surprised if it isn’t overturned.

But they're pro Reform which is about as right wing as you can get

I don't know how you can possibly deduce that the BBC are Pro Reform

They bring them on to sneer at them, nothing else

I hold their heavy platforming of Farage majorly responsible for Brexit

So you are up for suppressing speech and don't want free debate? Cool

I find it incredible that people are justifying the BBC splicing together two parts of Trump’s speech to make it seem he said something that he didn’t say.

This isn’t some kind of clever summary. It is blatant manipulation and fake news.

That is totally separate as to whether people believe Trump’s overall speech was an incitement to violence or whether you are left or right wing.

I think this could be existential to the BBC given whom this is about, and given it was broadcast a few days before a foreign election.

It will be fascinating to see how the story develops.

It will be fascinating to see how the story develops.
@Newbutoldfather

I agree it will be interesting to see how the story develops but I doubt there will be any consequences.
The Martin Bashir interview for which the BBC had authorised forging documents such as bank statements and even an abortion receipt to ‘prove’ Tiggy Legge Bourke had had an affair with Prince Charles caused Diana and her family appalling grief as innocent people close to them were mistrusted and blamed for leaking stories.
It is illegal to forge documents.
As far as I know Bashir has remained unpunished.

@38thparallel ,

You are right about the Bashir interview. However, the power dynamic there was with the BBC. No one had a lot of interest in rocking the boat.

And I suspect the BBC saw things the same way this time as they did not expect Trump to win.

But things have really turned.

If Trump calls Starmer, what will he say? The least they will have to do is open an investigation and let some low level BBC staffer go. But there are a lot more allegations to follow.

Badenoch as already called for BBC heads to role. I know the Tories are the least consequential opposition within my lifetime (and I am not young). But, leader of the opposition is still a significant position in parliament.

What I struggle to understand is that if the evidence that Trump was directly responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol is as compelling as people suggest, why the need to splice together phrases to come up with a fake statement?

I’m not a Trump fan by the way, it’s just that the hypocrisy, lies and manipulation of the media sicken me.

Has the BBC addressed this anywhere? Can't see it on the news site.

@AzurePanda ,

‘What I struggle to understand is that if the evidence that Trump was directly responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol is as compelling as people suggest, why the need to splice together phrases to come up with a fake statement’

I don’t think it is that compelling, to be honest, and I doubt it would have got past a ‘reasonable doubt’ threshold.

However, on a balance of probabilities argument, he spoke about fighting (mainly metaphorically) to an already aggressive crowd and you could make the argument that he could reasonably expect the outcome that happened.

But that isn’t the same as directly exhorting the crowd to ‘go to the Capitol and fight’ as the BBC claimed he said. The BBC should have kept the news and opinion separate.

@Newbutoldfather I agree with you, I’ve watched extensive footage from the day and haven’t seen anything from Trump that constituted a direct exhortation to take over the Capitol, despite what seems to be popular wisdom. I also think it’s ridiculous to describe January 6th as an insurrection; it was a riot.

Yep, this is how I see it.

Let the man’s words speak for themselves.

If you think he was inciting, write that in a piece, clearly titled ‘opinion’.

At least we’ve moved on to ‘what the BBC did wasn’t that bad’, from ‘It’s all lies from the Torygraph, who are an unapproved source because reasons ’ quite quickly

I’m not sure what I find more shocking: the report that our state broadcaster doctored the speech, or the posters shrugging it off because they don’t like the person making the speech or the newspaper reporting it.

On what will happen probably nothing here. But Trump tends to exclude press if they do stuff like this.

Whether it’s been noticed is another thing.

I’d be surprised if all decisions against Trump aren’t dismissed now because he’s been busy rigging the game. God help America.

But the BBC is supposed to be impartial- it's there to report honestly, it's not there to manipulate footage to support the journalists' biases. That's its USP. It's why so many people are prepared to pay the licence fee and why, historically, it has been the UK's most trusted news source. We have no shortage of partial news media, on all parts of the political spectrum.

If its reporting is now as partisan as the Sun or the Spectator, then there is no justification for the licence fee. And it is no longer a news source that can be trusted.

I find it incredible that people are justifying the BBC splicing together two parts of Trump’s speech to make it seem he said something that he didn’t say.

This isn’t some kind of clever summary. It is blatant manipulation and fake news.

This.
It is one thing to shorten speeches to make 'soundbites' to support your organisation's viewpoint - all media outlets do that.
It is an entirely different matter to splice together different sentences as if they are one so that a person seems to be saying something they are not.

That applies whether it's someone you agree with or not.

For anyone who hasn't read the Telegraph article, an archive link is here:
Telegraph archive link

You will see it has the transcript of what Trump actually did say, as well as what the BBC Panorama programme reported.

You will also see that it refers footage of people marching towards the Capitol (and an audio clip of a police radio despatcher) both of which actually occurred before Trump's speech started. There is even a 2021 BBC Newsnight investigation confirming this.

Edit to fix link

@BeeWitchy do you think that all the charges brought against Trump had anything to do with the Democrats? What about Russia Gate? Or for that matter Hunter Biden’s laptop?

I completely disagree - the whole protest was made up of far right groups. It wasn't like it was a couple of neo-nazi's and far right supremacists, they were the whole thing. Both things he said can't be true - the condemnation was meaningless and meant to appeal to people like yourself.