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.

The Panorama program changed what Trump said by splicing unrelated parts of his speech together.

You seem to think that's OK - so by slightly changing your post, I'm demonstrating to you that it's wrong to do that... even if you believe that changing it shows better what the person meant. It's putting words in someone's mouth.

I'm hoping that your reaction to my change will trigger you to 'do as you would be done to' and realise that changing Trump's speech in the documentary was also wrong.

No?

BTW it's very rude to call someone odd. Even if you disagree with their political view or you find their argument hard to follow. Play the ball, not the man.

I value the BBC, but it was a very poor edit - it should have been clearer that they were cutting between parts of the speech. Fundamentally, the edit didnt materially misrepresent Trump's actions that day - it was an act of treason that has since been sanitized by the right wing US media - but it's still misleading to splice to that extent, without making it abundantly clear.

But the good thing about the BBC is that, when a fuckup like this comes to light, heads do indeed roll. Compared to the propaganda network that is the US's most popular news source, the BBC's edit was incredibly trivial - but for them, lies are rewarded (often with jobs in the Trump administration).

And no, I don't think the bbc is screwed.

The chances of Trump being succesful in his lawsuit are slim to none - the biggest risk to the BBC is in terms of public opinion.

On that front, though, most of the people who are reacting strongly to this are people who didn't care for the BBC in the first place - and most people who read or watch the news weren't learning about what Trump said and did, during one of the most newsworthy events if the century so far, 3.5 years after the fact.

That is appalling behaviour and does show the Panorama programming team has no moral compass.
By taking legal action in the US the Trump team will have to be given access to a great deal of information by the BBC. If this is normal behaviour for them, as your post suggests, a few million would be the sensible option to stop a light being shone. Personally I am very interested to find out just how many such ‘mistaken’ cut and repastes have taken place and to whom.
These are not the actions of a serious news outlet before bias is even considered.
The BBC have rendered Verify a joke around the world - get your own facts correct before looking at others.
Such a shame when the BBC was so beloved by us all.

Have you read the entirety of the speech? I understand if you haven’t - it’s long and quite banal - but the conclusion is an interesting one. This, obviously, was all said within the space of a few moments, not an hour. Here it is:

“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Perhaps I’m alone but I don’t find the sentiment much improved in the longer version.

They didn't misrepresent him, but they should have been clearer that they had trimmed some of the verbal diarrhea. The video did give the impression that it was a verbatim, unedited section of the speech.

It is all very storm in a teacup, but it could have been easily averted

All the way through - repeatedly - Trump uses the word 'fight' to talk about a democratic political fight. About not giving up. About arguing with words.

Read it. Use browser search to look for all the uses of the word 'fight' if you like - although do make sure you read enough to understand the flow. There are lots - and it's always exorting people not to give up - to fight politically.

So at the end he says to walk up to the capital to give his politicians courage to not just give up, but continue to argue against what he believes is election fraud, and to bring in what he sees as necessary electoral reforms.

You might think he's a numpty to talk about electoral fraud at a sensitive time after an election to a huge crowd of angry people (although presumably you'd agree that he should call out electoral fraud if he believes it's actually happening? Navalny was a hero, most people would agree)

But the splicing was very obviously deliberately misleading.

Oh, I read it. I understand the flow perfectly. He structured it exactly like his rally speeches: all the old hits for an hour or so, except this time bookended and peppered with “fight” and “I’ll be with you” and “Mike Pence needs to do the right thing”. Some people in the crowd might have interpreted that to mean to stand in front of the Capitol and chant. Others, though, who had weeks and months to prepare, had brought weapons with them. They were a different breed and were never to stand around chanting, and Trump knew that. He would have seen the intel.

You're quoting a poll. Not the reality of parliament.
At least you acknowledge they're far right. Imagine thinking that a party led by a man who lied to a country so much they imposed economic sanctions on themselves and who doesn't have a single policy they want to stand behind apart from immigration. A party made up of failed Tory MPs the very people who caused the massive back log of asylum claims. You must have been kicked in the head by a horse.

Yes, they did trim some of the verbal diarrhea, including the piece in the middle of the two bits that were spliced together which said.

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

@Whistl3r I’m not remotely “acknowledging” Reform are far right, even the BBC has dropped this. The BBC are also giving considerable attention to Zach Polanski and the Greens, correct given their decent polling numbers.

I’d watch the rapist allegations re Trump if I were you as he has won considerable damages against people who have called him that in the past.

The next time I hear someone say that women need to fight for their rights, men need to fight for access to their children after divorce, people of colour have to fight for equity, I'll wait and see if they start thumping people.

He's a rapist.

As trump said if himself if he found a cure for cancer the left would bash him
Do ye remember the little boy with terminal leukaemia who was made a police officer and they couldnt even clap for him yes the Democrats did that.
Trump law and order , trying to make cities safer. Reduce illegals. Stopping non English speaking truckers from driving on roads they dont understand the road signs.
Trump derangement is real.
Common sense policies that would do well in the UK.
Im not going to any christmas market as afraid of an unprovoked knife attack. Coming to a town near us

I will forgive Trump quite a lot for his not insignificant part in the fact that the next Olympics, Los Angeles 2028, will have a blanket ban on any male competing in female events, irrespective of what the sports own governing body allows.

Something I'm sure a lot of BBC staff are very unhappy about.

Except he didn't.

ABC settled out of court. He did not win damages in court.

He did lose to E Jean Carrol though, in court. Twice.

The first time Trump was found to have sexually assaulted Carrol, she was awarded 5 million. Then he defamed her over that, back to court and she was awarded 83.3 million.

He has not paid a penny to her.

In fact, he is using his position to effectively extort money over the verdict. He is making money from being found liable for sexual assault.

I'm not remotely a fan of Trump. I dislike many of his policies and I think he's a pretty awful individual, as I've said many times already in this thread.

But he's the elected president of a country I don't live in.

What I'm calling out in this thread is that people in our country - whether government, state media or state institutions - are deciding that they know best and that the rules don't apply to them.

I see that happening again and again on the Left in our country. They only respect democracy - and even the rule of law - if it aligns with their world view.

They bully and try to silence anyone who disagrees or calls them out (wtf with 'who is your second favourite rapist'. Perfect example of the shitty, toxic behaviour of the Left)

That's our problem to solve. Leave Trump to the Americans.

@RedTagAlan as you point out yourself, Trump has not been convicted of rape. If he had I doubt ABC would have handed over such a significant sum after he instigated legal action against Stephanopolous for calling him a rapist.

Not convicted, but to complicate things Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided the case, ruled that Trump can't argue that he did not rape Carrol.

Judge: Trump Cannot Argue He Didn't Rape E. Jean Carroll (mediaite.com)

There are a few reasons that folk are settling with him rather than go to court as you know.

First, there is his funding. Remember at the start of the second term, he threatened to have law firms that had represented his opponents investigated by hid DOJ. So they "gifted" him something like 940 million of free work.

He extorted the law firms he considered his enemies. So he has near unlimited funds, that he does not a penny to,do his slapsuits.

Then of course, he appoints all the regulators who approve broadcast licences, approve mergers etc. Paramount settled with him re CBS, after he ordered an investigation into a merger they were doing.

It's extortion. Nice tv station you have there, it would be a shame if it burnt down.

And now, with E Jean Carrol, he has just last week asked SCOTUS to overturn the case that she won.

Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn E. Jean Carroll civil verdict - POLITICO

What a really nice guy.

His first wife did accuse him of rape, That does not count of course.

She is now buried on one of his golf courses.

Boys will be boys eh.

Yes . Major and they deserve it .

@RedTagAlan I’m not suggesting Trump is a nice guy, simply that he has not been convicted of rape.

Yes …. there was a bbc staff member who leaked the editing issue. That staff member is linked to USA organisations who are supportive of trump.. It’s not like the bbc made it look like Trump incited an insurrection when he didn’t….. he was guilty of that. They just didn’t make it clear his two spescges were a few hours apart.

yes there is a cultural / class issue in bbc and it needs reforming but it’s still most trustworthy than most others.

So when you say it's all a set up... you don't mean that the BBC were somehow forced or tricked into publishing a programme that misrepresented what the US president said, to better position him as a bogeyman in accordance with their own political beliefs?

You actually just mean that they were found out.

Which staff member, what organisation? Prescott?