The BBC are screwed, aren't they?

[kinkytoes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

Are we ever going to find out who actually made the monumental fuck up? Rather than just a homogenous apology from the top.

Is this person/people still working for them?

I actually understand why Trump is doing this. You can't just let something so wrong pass by or they'll just keep doing it.

He still says "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore."

You are flat out wrong. Just watch the speech yourself he doesnt use fight in that context. Its ok because you have been told to think that but I advise you to go see for yourself. People use fight like this all the time he was not inciting anything and the edit of clip was 53 mins apart. Its wrong no matter what way you dress it up.

People are allowed to use the word fight in this context. Its not illegal.

There is a difference between "let us march down together and we fight", which turns "fight" into a physically-violent fight rather than "fighting" metaphorically through the legal system, at the pulpit, at the electoral doorstep etc.

I am fairly neutral on Trump, there is a lot to criticise about him and his administration, but TDS is nevertheless real, and this edit fed into it.

I watched it live too. David Pakman US left wing commentator steamed it on his YT channel. The feed was from a US network.

He said he was going to march to the Capitol with the crowd.

At the time, the commentary, and the live chat, was full of " OMG, is the army going to join him, are we watching a coup ?"

There was a few different speakers saying FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.

I have not seen the Panorama clip though.

This is why he'd be an idiot to reopen this.
Maybe it is designed for him to do just that, Pandora's Box style.
Might be time for the popcorn.

See this is the problem. Twenty years ago I wouldn't have felt the need to watch the film myself to find out if the splicing of the film was a reasonable editorial decision because it captured the overall gist of the speech, or whether it was a deliberate misleading of the audience. I would have trusted the BBC to tell me the truth about it.

Now I do feel that I have to waste an hour of my life watching the original source because the sources that report it (BBC or other media) cannot be trusted to tell me the truth.

And that's what I pay the licence fee for. So that I don't have to waste hours of my life watching original sources, because the national broadcaster will do me a reliable summary. But I can't depend on that anymore.

So much effort goes into threads designed to denigrate the BBC.

It’s a current news story it’s not surprising it’s discussed on mn. Whether it’s for the BBC or not.

Popcorn for sure.

I watched Congressional Committee too.

To me tho, he extorted free lawyer time, and here he is using it up to try get a settlement. Into his pocket.

And the Epstein stuff too. Good deflection from that.

Opening Pandora's Box ?

Oh yes, I agree. But I think the box has a name: Marjorie Taylor Green. :-)

What do you mean by that?

Should people not discuss the biggest news story of the last week on Mumsnet?

Or if they discuss it, should they all agree that everyone makes mistakes (because that's all this is, a silly mistake, not the sign of a more systemic agenda) and that there's nothing to see here so we should all move along?

It wasn't a fuck up because it wasn't a mistake. The attitudes and behaviours behind the editing cannot be a one off. So I'm interested to know what else this jumped up organisation have been doing, because this won't be the first occasion.

Exactly what I said. Anti BBC thread after anti BBC thread and it didn't start this week. A concerted effort from somewhere.

It didn't start with this current news story.

Id say BBC journalists are now barred from the Oval office and WH- what politicians can trust it ?

It’s so dull that every time somebody says something or agrees with something that isn’t incredibly left wing, they’re a bot, a bad faith actor (and the last one turned out to be Jeremy Corbyn) or a Mossad agent. Like they genuinely cannot comprehend that the majority of the country aren’t clamouring to sign up to the Greens and Your Party.

Well, there was the big hoo-ha over their very dodgy Panorama about Tommy Robinson. I despise Yaxley Lennon (always feel I have to confirm that 🙄) but didn’t they have to fire a journalist over it?

Or Labour. But yes people think differently about stuff and this site reflects that, tg.

Not dull to point out patterns. You yourself are doing that right here.
Nothing to do with political bent.

Just the sort of thing a bot would post :-)

What pattern are you seeing and why does it indicate bots or similar rather than simply posters sharing opinions?

I knew he incited them riot from the day it happened - and I haven’t seen the documentary.
Was it silly of the production company (not the BBC) to splice like that? Yes.
Was it a failure of governance for the BBC not to spot it before broadcast? Also yes.
Was it a lie? No
Did it damage his reputation? No
Did it cause him harm? No. He was re-elected.

The pattern is multiple anti BBC threads.
I didn't suggest it indicated bots or anything other than a concerted effort.

So multiple threads about something indicate bad faith actors?

That's the whole point - he never encouraged the crowd to march up and fight. When he was talking about fighting, it was a totally different context.

The fact that you think he was encouraging the crowd to fight rather suggests the BBC succeeded in misleading the public, which rather suggests that Trump deserves a huge amount in compensation