Donald Trump BBC

[Daygloboo]

If Donald Trump gets compensation from the BBC to the tune of a million, which might affect our license fee payments, would it be appropriate to stop buying goods from US for a while. I think the BBC were wrong to misrepresent what Trump said, but effectively suing the population as a retaliation seems a step too far.

I totally agree but the man has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits so the BBC giving him an opportunity by splicing two comments given in two separate speeches together and effectively appearing to show a totally different meaning was misguided. I don't think they have a case to answer as his reputation was not changed in the slightest as we all know what type of man he is but this has given him an opening to make the news all about him again when there are so many other important news events to report on. It also gives the impression that the BBC lies which should not be the case with a public broadcaster so people will inevitably wonder what else they lie about.

Not two separate speeches. One speech. This keeps coming up and it’s starting to be a tell for people repeating arguments they’ve heard elsewhere.
It’s also not a lie. It’s a slight misrepresentation, but doesn’t materially affect what I already knew about that speech and his behaviour after it.

Why?

They were made 50 minutes apart though. They should just have quoted one part of the speech verbatim or made it clear that those comments were not made together.

Yes, I agree that would have been more sensible.

He doesn’t have a slam dunk case, time bar issues aside. I think given the reputation he has he would struggle to establish that the editing was defamatory

I don’t think he has any grounds. He hasn’t materially suffered, it hasn’t harmed his reputation (we all knew he was a treasonous twat) or cost him anything. It was all true things he’d said. We’d all heard what he said at the time. It’s a vexatious claim and a distraction fro his links to Epstein

I support Donald Trump in this case. It's about time the media are held accountable for their actions. We don't pay them to manipulate us (as they have done here), we pay them to give us impartial news. Good luck to him.

It wasn’t a news broadcast.
It didn’t manipulate me - I knew he’d wanted that insurrection and encouraged it back when it happened.

I don't like Trump at all. But I hate disinformation. I think he is right to stand up to it. I'm shocked really at this behaviour by the BBC. Surely they knew it was slanderous disinformation? Don't they pride themselves on the truth?

As soon as I hear this I though of Dr Evil

They aren't impartial.
They extort people. Scare vulnerable people.
They should be a subscription service.

The BBC are news broadcasters. And regardless of whether or not it manipulated you, the intention was to manipulate the viewing public.

In Trump's speech he said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: "And we fight. We fight like hell."

In the Panorama programme the clip shows him as saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

Which American goods will you stop buying?

Do you work for the BBC @cardibach

Yes but it’s not just a programme to reinforce what you alone already think.

1. No, they lean right in news programming. Still more trustworthy than most
2. Extort and scare who?
3. They are a subscription service. Don’t use the things they fund, don't pay. Remembering they fund the infrastructure too.

As an aside - fo you value the arts at all? BBC orchestras? BBC singers?

If this had been done to someone you all considered to be “acceptable” would those defending the BBC still be happy to defend it?
The character of Trump is irrelevant here. The editing of the clip intended to mislead.

Even if we don’t watch anything BBC, if we watch ANY live TV that is not BBC we have to pay the license. I have a massive issue with that.

If it was Obama or Biden we’d have a totally different response, some people are so narrow minded they can’t see past it being Trump and don’t care about the bigger picture.

If what had been done? Poor splicing that doesn’t alter the main thrust of what he said?
Have a look what’s been done by the BBC to left wing figures. Corbyn in a Russian hat, for eg. Nobody sued them or called for them to be ‘brought down’.

Obama or Biden wouldn’t have incited insurrection, so it wouldn’t have arisen. What they did was stupid and shouldn’t have happened, but it didn’t change the thrust of what he was saying.

It's worse than that.

They stitched two separate sentences together as if they were one.

As if you said "I hate boiled hotdogs," and "Candy corn is pretty fine though" and they made you say, "I hate candy corn."

Whether or not you are actually lying about the candy corn is beside the point. That's a judgement and the BBC doesn't get to assume that and tell everyone else it's true.

Infrastructure.

The BBC could have done many things to show that the parts of the speech came at different times; swipes between sections, or timestamps. They knew exactly what they were doing, but their dislike of Trump is so strong they just don’t care - that dislike overrides the need for factual reporting, seemingly. They care more about creating a narrative for people to mindlessly swallow instead of presenting the facts so individuals can use their own judgement.

God knows I’m not a fan of Trump, but I hate to see anyone being misrepresented in this way. It’s offensive to the public at large that they feel this is either necessary or acceptable, an insult to our intelligence. I’d feel the same no matter who was treated this way.