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 think there could be something wrong with the Hunter Biden Laptop stuff, yes.

Russia - gate No, I don’t think Trump is a Russian spy nor do I think he had anything to do with the Russian interference in the US election in 2016.

But I do believe it was an impartial justice system that charged and judged Trump. Or it was as impartial as a system could hope to be.

I remember when the BBC called a murdered four year old Palestinian girl a “young lady”.

Also said that x number of Palestinians have died today and x number of Israelis were murdered.

They have a way with words.

It was a production company who made this documentary and then sold it to the BBC. So it didn’t happen on the BBC cutting room floor. The company should have obviously followed the right standards.
BBC News is far superior to other outlets. If you don’t use it and never listen to the radio, don’t pay the licence fee

Is this where the bar is now? Bloody hell

@Hdpr - I'm not sure you understand how the BBC licence fee works.

It is anyone watching any live TV on any channel, not just BBC channels or radio. This is often misunderstood and why people that say they are refusing to pay can end up being force to pay when they trip up by answering that yes they do watch ITV live or Channel 4 or any other live TV.

Info here if the above is news to you and you might now understand why there is so much debate about WHY we must all pay the BBC licence fee in order to watch any live TV - that's what people are disagreeing with.

Do I need to pay the license fee?

It covers all programmes on any channel, including soaps, series, documentaries and even movies. If you're watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence: if you're watching TV channels on any TV service or streaming service. for all channels, not just the BBC.

Yes, I’ve worked out it wasn’t a news report - at first I thought that was what the furore was about, but it’s a documentary which is l different. When watching a documentary a person knows that’s it’s not strictly news - it’s called documentary film making after all. Documentaries should be recognized as such and advertised as such.

When it’s news, and the news reports incorrectly or with bias, that’s a problem. Deliberately presenting the news incorrectly is wrong. Bias - well there is nearly always going to be some bias, but not necessarily deliberate, so it needs to be challenged. BBC sometimes fall to the left or right but I still judge it superior in truth telling than the privately owned news sources of present day.

Years ago the BBC was very establishment oriented in my opinion but that’s changed.

I think it’s a bad time to get rid of any of the news sources imo. We need them all as media become more concentrated in terms of ownership.

I've had the discomfort of listening to Trump live on many broadcast networks. Trump is a selfish irrational git who goes ballistic at short notice on stupid things.

Dunno what this thread is about, some kind of mind game play to pretend we didn't hear Trump telling 'his people' to do whatever the Hell they liked to fight for him on Jan 6th?

It’s not that hard to understand. It’s in the op.

The Telegraph report states that it was produced in-house and edited by the Panorama editor.

‘The documentary was produced and directed in-house by Matthew Hill, a BBC documentary maker, and edited by Karen Wightman, who has been Panorama’s editor since 2002.’

is there evidence that says otherwise? If it turns out to be a case of BBC not checking their sources properly then that’s lazy and incompetent and deserving of an arse kicking but not, in my opinion, in the same league as actively editing a speech to imply someone said something they didn’t.

The thing is that many American sources, particularly their left media, also reported similar things.

It was the same with the business in Charlottesville, where they reported, and cut the video, to make it sound like he was saying white supremacists were good people. When in fact he said, one sentence later, that they should be condemned.

Most people don't bother to watch the whole speeches of these things.

And if you look around places like reddit, 99% of the people are saying this must be fake, because it isn't coming from the right media sources. Or if they are shown the actual footage, they say it doesn't matter, it was an ok thing to do this, because Trump is bad.

This is why so many people on the right in places like the US, or even in the UK, think people like Trump are right when they talk about "fake news".

It's so toxic and I still can't understand how the BBC does not realise they are squandering their trust. Much like the Guardian has. It's crazy.

But it's there? All you are saying is that you have a bad memory.

No it wasn't. There were all kinds of normal people there from the town and surrounding area, who had opinions about the statue one way or another. It was a big deal in that community.

It was specifically a "Unite the Right" rally organised by Jason Kessler, a neo-nazi and white supremacist.

Want to protest the removal of statue? Absolutely fine. Don't do it at a specific event that seeks to draw together as many alt-right extremists as possible.

My original point stands.

It was a huge crowd with the president of the country speaking, do you really think there only going to be some demonstrators?

It's a good illustration of how much disinformation has gone on around this stuff, You only have to look at the local papers and such from the community to see how many people were there from differernt groups. I know people who were there, it was a huge local issue with many differernt people, including some who came just to see the president.

Hey? The President was not at the protest. You seem to be spreading your own disinformation. I have not found one source of news which reports it as anything other than a far right protest. If you can find one source please do point it out.

Even if I agreed with one element of what an alt-right group believed, there is no way that I would attend a protest that they organised because I find the majority of their views abhorrent and would want no association.