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.

Just recently Trump accepted numerous gifts from a Swiss delegation desperate for their tariff to be lowered including a gold bar worth $100k plus. Like the Qatari jet all under the guise of his presidential library, yet people here think he’ll stop suing if he’s given a settlement to a charity of his choice or if meaningful change is done. He’s had lots of success with suing as companies have given in to make life easier for themselves, such as Paramount which didn’t even do anything wrong but they had a merger they didn’t want to damage. I think Trump feels he can always get his way.
BTW the Swiss tariff was reduced.

It wasn’t two speeches it was parts of one speech. The BBC did not, as Trump claims, alter a single word of what he said. He was actually prosecuted for inciting insurrection and most people who have actually listened to the whole speech agree that he was encouraging the riot. He certainly did nothing to stop it. I wish the BBC and Starmer would stand up to him, he’s a bully.

This.

The BBC shouldn't have done it, but spare me the outrage - Trump's intention was clear.

It really feels as though people have failed to interrogate what happened

January 6th Trump asked for the national guard to protect the WH and Nancy Pelosi refused. Thats always skipped over by the media
#morefakenews.
Gifts let's talk about the Biden crime family , Chelsea Clinton's wedding. They were all having such a Mighty time dining out on USAID etc. Disgusting carry on.
Trump takes zero salary
I cant comment on the Swiss Gifts as haven't researched that as yet.
Jan 6th was some what orchestrated .
Trump is trying to clean up waste ( doge- snap- illegals abusing the system of benefits and those non illegal too ) id like a bit of that here.
Waste/ more waste
He wants people in need to get food stamps not those that aren't but dont want to get a job or give to society in any way just take from working people. I mean when did we ever hear that here ?? Middle classes squeezed to pay for everyone else
His rhetoric speaks to the working public. He called out all these climate change hypocrites flying in to Brazil on private jets after cutting down large tracts of virgin rain forest . Good on him. Don't see anyone else doing that.il looking at you Prince William
All gone on a jolly to south America. Trump is not perfect but where would womens sports be now in the US without him banning men and boys out of women's competitions.

Sorry in answer to the thread title I hope Trump sues the BBC into oblivion.no one can even watch the news now on BBC. Untrustworthy now. Is what they are reporting even true. BBC is finished well BBC News is. Sky is the only other alternative

If this takes down the BBC so be it. We simply do not want really watch terrestrial TV in this house. It's pretty much Netflix and NowTV all the way for us I certainly resent paying for a licence to prop up the BBC which I think is pretty much a gravy train for celebrities on six figure salaries. Just add the percentage of transmission infrastructure costs that partly make up the licence fee to the streaming platforms as a tax instead and scrap the TV licence. If BBC wants to remain as a thing then it can become a commercial organisation or subscription service and fund itself.

@Skodacool he was acquitted of the impeachment charges of incitement re January 6 and the two halves of two separate sentences uttered an hour apart were spliced together to represent the exact opposite of what he said.

If the evidence of incitement is so clear, why didn’t the BBC quote his actual words? And of course the Capitol was breached before Trump even got to his “fight” comments (in relation to his allegations of election fraud).

I am not a Trump fan, I’m just stunned that people seem to be defending what the BBC did here.

OP Trump does not give a flying fuck about transparency on the. BBC!

He hates any criticism and wants to control our media in the same way he controls the in US.

Wake up FFS!!

It was altered by splicing together two separate sentences.

Thats my point. They resigned and weren't sacked. Presumably had they not resigned they would still be there as the BBC were standing by them.

Yes, and the edit did change the meaning of what he was saying in that particular instant, hence the apology and resignations from those at the top. It was a really bad bit of editing which shouldn't have happened.

However, notwithstanding that, it's really difficult to see how Trump's reputation could have been significantly damaged by the misrepresention of what he was saying in that particular moment, given what was known about his wider conduct during that period and the fact that he had already been accused of inciting the riots through the US courts. The BBC did not invent that allegation.

Do you expect everyone who is told they going to need to fight for their rights to thump a politician?

In the middle of the speech you are referring to he says

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Would you be happy to say "I'm joining the march in favour of unlimited asylum seekers, which I hope will be peaceful, because we have to fight for their rights. "

And have that reported as "I'm joining the march in favour of unlimited asylum seekers because we have to fight for their rights. " and have that interpreted as a call to violence?

And aside from all that I'm stunned and utterly dismayed by the number of people who think it's ok for a reputable news channel to present what they believe a man meant instead of what he actually said.

Trump is largely a disaster of a Potus. The BBC edit is a total disaster of ethical journalism. Both can be true at the same time.

I asked the question a while back about who actually watched the panorama episode.
I did not watch it. However I fully believed at the time of the January 6 events that Trump was inciting the violence through that speech.
That edit was very bad, and I don’t defend it but it does not change my mind about the events that day.
I think all this current noise does is give Trump and his support the opportunity to rewrite history. Of course he had nothing to do with insurrection 🙄🤣

Idk what the verdict would be if it ever got to the courts. They’d have to thrash it out. It may not get there but only then can people say with certainty on all of it.

Trump just wants to shut down any voice that opposes him.
Yes BBC should not have done this and was sloppy but I dont think there was intent to mislead and certainly not defamation.

Genuinely can't tell if this is satire or if you are wearing your tin foil hat

Have you read Michael Prescott's email?

Have you interrogated what actually happened? It wasn't just about splicing.

But that's the problem. There was no intent to mislead. Journalists had made up their minds what they believed he had said and edited a speech to have him say that.

I find the idea that there is a culture at the BBC of "we know what the truth is and we will present that" far, far more worrying than a rogue journalist doing a sensationalist edit.

"Trump was actually prosecuted for encouraging Starmer" you say?!?

Is that really what you meant? I didn't alter a single word of what you said,after all.

It wasn’t two speeches it was parts of one speech. The BBC did not, as Trump claims, alter a single word of what he said. He was actually prosecuted for inciting insurrection and most people who have actually listened to the whole speech agree that he was encouraging the riot. He certainly did nothing to stop it. I wish the BBC and Starmer would stand up to him, he’s a bully.

That's what the BBC did.

And yes, it was deliberate.

Well, yes, we will have to wait and see.

I think the most likely outcome will be an out of court settlement though. The legal costs alone would be huge otherwise, and the BBC might decide it's better not to take the risk.

I'm wholly in favour of Trump suing. Not because I think he has a case, or is blameless, but because fighting it will cost the Beeb a fortune and that will hopefully crystallise their thoughts around what has gone wrong systemically.

Have you actually thought about why you "fully believed at the time of the January 6 events that Trump was inciting the violence through that speech."

Even though you haven't watched the Panorama program, and you also didn't listen to the original speech.

Who reported on it in such a way as to give you such certainty? How can you possibly still believe it was unbiased truth after this revelation.?

Can't you see how circular it is to say "It doesn't matter that the BBC have admitted to lying about Trump's speech in the Panorama program. It didn't influence me or damage his reputation, because I already knew his bad intentions.... because the BBC had already told me so"

Not just the BBC mate
Pretty much every news source was telling us what happened that day.

Well, to be fair, the indictment by the US courts might have been a factor?! And that happened before the Panorama programme aired, so I'm not sure how you can blame the BBC for that aspect!

Yup. I watched Jan 6th live.

An I just now saw the BBC clip ( on Metro news site).

He said it, and from what I can figure it's the gap of blank screen missing on the BBC edit.

That pause film makers add to indicate a splice.

Certainly possible it was an editing error, and it should be really easy to tell if it is, just review the editor's other work from that period.

And from watching the clip, I can defo see how the edit gap was missed in review.