BBC director general Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit

[Changingplace]

So the BBC Director-General and the CEO of news have both resigned over an edit to Trump’s speech before the capitol riots.

What a mess, it’s not like you have to go far to find something to genuinely criticise Trump for and plays right into the White House labelling the BBC ‘fake news’ since this edit basically was.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt?app-referrer=deep-link

The edited clip suggested that Trump told the crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.” But the words were taken from sections of his speech almost an hour apart. It did not include a section in which Trump said he wanted supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.

I think a lot of people think the lies are justified.

"Trump is terrible anyway, so really the report was just in the spirit of that"

"Israel are terrible anyway, so yeah, it's not that bad if we exaggerated some of the reports about the war - it's close enough"

Such is the ideological capture, lying becomes acceptable.

I quoted the wrong post there

Impartiality is an incredibly difficult standard to be held to (and I’m not going to argue that the BBC gets it right 100% of the time).

But, particularly in the environment we live in at the moment, I think it’s incredibly important that we have news that aspires to impartiality.

My worry is that instead of asking “how do we create a better BBC?” this is used as a reason to dismantle what we’ve got.

Impartiality is their raisin d'etre though?

That is why they get the license fee system. If you are saying they can't do it, then the license fee needs to go

Then on the other this whole exposé feels far too well orchestrated.

I don't feel that myself. Michael Prescott was the BBC's own employee. He was an independent advisor to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board. He was employed there for three years before leaving in June.

If orchestrated, do you mean he took advantage of that position to falsely and systematically accuse the BBC, or did he just do his job?

All of his specific examples of bias have been evidenced. Sadly none have been disproved.

Please everyone see this for what it is…a plot by right-wingers to bring down the BBC. Yes, Panorama made a silly mistake and should apologise but resignations by the DG and head of news? A ridiculous over-reaction and ministers and the BBC chairman need to hang their heads in shame for not backing their organisation. If anyone doubts the role played by that poisonous maggot at the very heart of the BBC, “Sir” Robbie Gibb then have a read of this https://www.theguardian.com/media/ng-interactive/2025/nov/10/make-no-mistake-this-was-a-coup-the-extraordinary-downfall-of-the-bbcs-top-bosses?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It Was just a silly mistake to spend time carefully stitching together a false report about what an American presidential candidate said and have that agreed by many people, then broadcast it in the immediate run up to the presidential election?

Did they just overlook how many drag queen stories they had, the complete absence of reporting on the WPATH files, the calling of male sex offenders and murderers ‘women’, disclaiming of presenters for clarifying ‘transwomen’ are men and another for rolling her eyes and correcting pregnant people to pregnant women which is also what the person quoted had actually said?

What about broadcasting a whole documentary narrated by the son of a high ranking Hamas official?

Not at all! I think Prescott did his job and his findings are valid. It’s a relief that they are more widely acknowledged now.

My point is that real, evidenced problems can still be weaponised. The misconduct is genuine, but the way it’s being amplified and deployed right now feels like it’s serving a larger agenda to undermine the BBC as an institution. Both things can be true.

The Lib Dem’s not only think the BBC are biased but think that is its job - to ‘defend us’ from political opinions they don’t agree with.

Tweet

I would rather have an organisation that aims to be impartial, that is held to high standards and scrutiny and is held to account when things go wrong.

Because what alternatives do we have? Traditional newspapers are struggling, other news services are being hollowed out, all that seems to be thriving at the moment is highly partisan, polarising content and outright misinformation.

I think the idea of a “public service” news broadcaster is more needed now than it has ever been because the alternatives are either withering or outright dangerous.

We might as well say scrap the NHS because doctors sometimes make mistake, if the only alternative were going to see some quack offering alternative medicine.

The problem is the response from the left to them being held to account. There should have been unaminous disapproval of their clear bias and misinformation. Calls from across the political spectrum for the DG and Head of News of resign and a proper investigation into what is going on and the culture there. Anyone doubting the bias only needs to see where the outrage at being held up for these failings is coming from.

I don’t think the left support the BBC because they think it’s some left-wing mouthpiece, but because they support the principle of public services of which the BBC is one.

And the pro-market right see the BBC as unfairly dominating the media landscape and distorting the market.

I would have had a lot more time for the argument that the BBC distorts the market a few years ago but we’re heading ever closer to complete market failure in credible news content.

The left need to be making a better in-principle case for the need for the BBC and the right need to be very careful what they wish for.

You think Sky are right wing? Netflix? Disney plus? Channel 4?

Rant incoming. I decided to put it in two bits because women still worry about calling men men, and I thought it would be better that only one bit was deleted if my post was reported. Women tip-toe through life!

It is just criminal, really, what the BBC has not reported because the LGBTQ+ Desk said NO, or relegated to Local news to suppress pick-up of the articles. That is what this is all about, really, that the BBC tried to distort our understanding of current events by keeping selected information from us.

This has been going on for a long time. Way back in 2017? the government was considering amending the GRA to self-id. There was very little coverage by the BBC of the consultation period when the government was actively asking for input . Even on Woman's Hour, which really wound me up. Women were not really given the chance to know about it, much less have an opinion and send it in (better it all goes through under the radar, right?). Yes Radio4 did in the end do about three segments on GRA reform, but always with a man saying what meanies women are and the woman spokesman being treated like a meanie.

Indeed, Maya Forstater lost her job because she asked her colleagues for views (not pestering) of self-id on a whatsapp group. Maya worked in a think tank where colleagues naturally knock ideas back and forth.She took her employer to an employment tribunal and although she is banned from the BBC Maya did get invited on Woman's Hour ONCE when she won her case, but of course she was treated more like a terrorist than a mere meanie.

But my point is most people don't know who Maya Forstater is, despite a history making court case, and it is because of our beloved BBC who decided it would be better if a woman fighting for her rights in the workplace was kept out of the news. How many people know what WORIADS means? If you don't, blame the BBC.

Btw, people understanding that sex is real and that sometimes it matters is worthy of respect in a democratic society. As decided by Maya's case.

I heard on the Rest is politics earlier that the BBC is one of the most trusted news sites in America. Call me cynical, but surely Trump would love to bring it down.

Part two of my rant, also ranty:

The BBC also consistently suppressed or lied about Caster Semenya, a man with a DSD in women's track winning their medals, Imane Khelif, another man with the same DSD knocking the lights out of women boxers at the Olympics AND winning gold for it, and many others, both men who said they were women and men with DSDs. Do some people still believe those were women? Blame the BBC (and the Guardian).

Heaps of rapists and murderers (born men, identifying as women often while waiting for sentencing) were called 'woman' and 'she' in news reports (and indeed their crimes were recorded as women's crimes). So many important court cases were not reported by the BBC or if reported were given a disingenuous slant to paint the women as, again, the meanies.

Has anyone followed the Sandie Peggie case? If so you can't have missed how Dr. Upton, the man claiming womanhood who insisted on using the women's changing room, was always shown by the BBC in soft focus in news reports while the nurse's photos were not altered. Who made that decision and why?

I have been mad at the BBC for ten years or so now, for not reporting what I knew was happening, and was important. They lost my trust because if they misreported something where I knew the background so knew they were misreporting-- well, what about all those topics where I need them to fill me in on the facts.

They could win me back but not with their "mistakes were made" attitude they have shown up to now. Real change is needed.

Change is afoot, at least in Scotland!

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,rape-perpetrators-will-be-recorded-as-male-says-chief-constable