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.

I stopped paying my TV licence a couple of months ago. Never watch the BBC, and if it became a streaming channel I still wouldn't.

I don't agree at all. The BBC is a trusted source of news and always will be. The speech was edited, they all are. Unless you wanted to listen to two hours of ranting. He got taken to court by the US system because he incited violence.

It hasn't taken Trump this long, he just waited to use it when he needed it. It is no coincidence that he brings this up at the same time as the Epstein files might be released.

He also can't control the BBC. He needs to control the narrative and the news. GB news and Fox News are his media puppies and feed his story.

Please don't be so stupid to believe the trump narrative. He is leading you down a path of hate and divide.

They were too quick to capitulate imo. A brief apology for an error of judgement should be it. They shouldn't give in to threats as either Trump admits he's so fragile that one UK media mistake hurts his rep or he's strong so it didn't affect him.... can't be both.

you can always go and read Fox News. they never edit anything.

The BbC are no longer what they were.

Their editing was wrong, if that had been about Obama there would be a prolonged outcry and would be bought up every 4 months.

I recently complained to the BBC for allowing the C word at 9:15 on a Friday night, they said it was fine. What sort of casual acceptance and allowance is that? Yes after 9, but hardly a good moral fibre, just makes it all sound acceptable and desensitising.

I prefer ITV now.

Why?

@TheAmusedTealHare so it’s perfectly acceptable to edit something so it appears a person is saying the exact opposite of what they actually said? Journalism 101 is that an edit is only acceptable if it doesn’t change the overall meaning of the statement.

What I find interesting about this is that the Panorama episode was way back in 2024 and I didn't notice any uproar about it at the time ? Why wasn't everyone complaining about the 12 second segment of the programme then, including Trump who was elected for a second term shortly afterwards ?
Call me a cynic but the timing of all this seems advantageous too, although I don't know how much press coverage this spat with the BBC is getting in the US ?
Absolutely not condoning shit editing by the way.

It didn’t say the exact opposite. Anyone who thinks Trump didn’t want violence has been taken in.

With Sky's owners wanting to buy ITV we need the BBC just to have a different source of news, so it makes me wonder why, or rather who, those complaining represent.
To get back to the original post. Trump makes a speech, widely reported both in news reports and in Congress as a call to arms.
The speech is replayed on a Panorama programme and nothing is said.
More than a year later reports come out of dodgy editing.
I think this is a bit like "illegals, flags, ULEZ, etc etc". Diversions from things that really matter and really affect our lives.

It's the weather channel.

@cardibach the edit the BBC made literally painted Trump as saying the exact opposite. It substituted “fight like hell” for “and we’re going to cheer on our brave congressman and women and senators”.

What he said in the rest of the speech is irrelevant to the matter at hand, that’s the change they elected to make. And of course if the case that Trump directly incited the violence is so clear cut, why didn’t they simply quote his actual remarks?

They shouldn’t have made the edit without signposting it. But we all know Trump wanted that insurrection.

‘We all know’

Was it ever tested in any way? Was he acquitted or not

You base your ideas on a skewed American court if you like. I’ll rely on my own senses and interpretation of what I hear.

Oh so he wasn’t then. I mean go for it with your senses.

@cardibach the actual timeline of events doesn’t support that contention and of course it was a riot, not an insurrection.

This makes me furious, how could the BBC be so stupid as to feed into Trump’s narrative of the fake media and risk losing a fortune in a court case. Trump talks so much rubbish there is absolutely no need to take any of his speech out of context. Trump condemns himself with his repulsive views, lies and shocking ignorance. It was completely unnecessary trying to make him sound worse.

They wanted to hang the VP

What do they want instead though?

@Buffs totally agree with you. @cardibach if a crowd chanting something constituted an “insurrection” they would be a pretty common occurrence.

There was a gallows

Trump pardoned the rioters, or now known as concerned citizens

The BBC edit was wrong but I am amazed how many people are supporting Trump on this.

Foreign interference is now welcomed?

Come on now, that wasn’t a peaceful demonstration at Capitol Hill. And Trump ignored requests to ask his supporters to back down. He stoked the fire with repeated accusations of voter fraud. He was well-aware that he was whipping his supporters up to believe that the rest of the senate and the wider system was corrupt and out to get him.

He was impeached for incitement.

He refused to accept election defeat gracefully.

He wouldn’t do the traditional handover to the new president.

His behaviour was utterly disgraceful on every level - and people died because of the lies and propaganda he spread around. He may not have explicitly told them to go and tear down the walls but he incited them to riot.

All of that aside, Panorama has been shit for years. It used to be great investigative journalism but quite some time ago it turned into sensationalist clickbait. Heads should rightly roll for the edit - but it doesn’t massively change opinion of what happened that day. Or opinion of what a deeply corrupt and problematic man Trump is.

...and it was the same Panorama program that infiltrated the Met and stitched together "racist" and "misogynist" comments garnered over several months which led the the sacking of several officers. The Trump stitch up means that the BBC fall on their own sword. I've not seen the Clive Myrie BBC self-praising "fact check" advert since they tried to besmirch Trump (who didn't need any "fake news" to achieve that.