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.

my point is that it would effectively be suing the people because we pay for the BBC. So he is directly harming us

It's hardly Trump's fault the UK has a state mouthpiece broadcaster, OP, and the fact many of us dislike him is no reason for the BBC to act as it did

My own view's that this integrity-free bunch deserve to be taken apart, but I still think there's a lot of chagrin around from those who crowed that what turned out to be utter dishonesty "proved" something about the bogeyman

If it was anyone but trump I would agree. But that man - pot calling the kettle black.

Additionally uk press have been doing this for years on a daily basis- almost part of the job description. Even has a name ‘false news’. Why just focus on the bbc now (who are as guilty of disinformation as the next media outlet).

Because I am not expected to pay for other media outlets.

Because the BBC is required by Charter to be impartial in its coverage, and there is no clause exempting odious people.

Because if I cannot trust the BBC to tell the truth then I don’t know what the point of them is.

The BBC is not a state mouthpiece. Well, unless you count Kussenberg and her continual soft pedalling of the last Conservative government.

They are consistently assessed for bias and if you care to look at the overall picture of their reporting they will have Government ministers, including the Prime minister being challenged and questioned over policy etc. People are always arguing over whether they are treating one side or the other fairly but no matter the colour of the government, they act largely impartially. So far here we keep being told about two particular issues, representing three pieces which were broadcast (Trump-panorama, and two Gaza documentaries, both of which are stretching to show a bias) across millions of hours of output in a year and people are jumping up and down to claim a left wing bias.

It is entirely a place of ignorance and privilege to call it a government mouthpiece when you compare it to actual state broadcasters in places like Russia, China, North Korea, where their state media controls the entire news and entertainment narrative.

If you don’t like it, don’t watch it, but let’s stop catastrophising what is a really tiny story, whipped up by competing media outlets who would love to see the BBC brought down for their own commercial gain.

Damages are based on the damage - how on earth has trump been damaged by this editorial decision? He might win but I can’t see him being awarded more than £1

There’s lots of things I’d change about the BBC , but it’s one of the best recognised and internationally trusted brands in the world. No one who cares about our country wants it destroyed.

That is the crux of it, that’s the condition for the licence fee which other media doesn’t get. Institutionalised bias means it’s not delivering.

I'm fully supporting the BBC on this one. Trump has a history of enriching himself by sueing news outlets. For someone who supposedly believes in free speech, it's incredible hypocrisy. Yes the BBC screwed up. But this is a direct attack on a British institution and on all of us who pay the licence fee.

is entirely a place of ignorance and privilege to call it a government mouthpiece when you compare it to actual state broadcasters in places like Russia, China, North Korea, where their state media controls the entire news and entertainment narrative

I'm the first to agree the BBC issues aren't on the scale of such places, @boredzelda, but stand by my remarks about it being a government mouthpiece inasmuch as administrations
enjoy undue influence via their control of the licence fee

Besides, on a simpler level, what's the point of them if they can't even honour their own charter and prefer to peddle lies?

BBC is guilt but so is Trump, who has been convicted in New York this spring on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush-money payment made to a porn star before the 2016 presidential election. (Also sounds like he enjoyed the child escort services of Jeffrey Epstein)

I am objected to a UK organisation paying any compensation to a convicted felon.

Trump cares only when it benefits him, he certainly does not care about upholding the quality of impartial media coverage. Listen to the podcast Trump so get a feel of what that man is capable of and how much he actually cares about the truth in media.

Control of the licence fee

How much control of the licence fee do they actually have? To suggest this gives them influence over the day to day running of the organisation would be akin to suggesting a nurse is influenced by the government when deciding whether to do obs on a patient.

The glaringly obvious reason this particular error wasn’t a deliberate attempt by a left wing government to influence the BBC is, the programme aired in October 2024. It was in production for over a year. The final edits would be in the can by the time Labour came to power.

The programme was very Trump positive over all. Would we suggest there was a right leaning bias during the Conservative government?

The glaringly obvious reason this particular error wasn’t a deliberate attempt by a left wing government to influence the BBC is, the programme aired in October 2024. It was in production for over a year. The final edits would be in the can by the time Labour came to power

Quite right again, @boredzelda l, but I wasn't singling this particular instance out when mentioning government influence - more thinking of the bigger picture around what effects controlling income can have, even though the licence fee isn't their only income stream

Not sure the government/nurse analogy works though, in that it's not nurses making overall management decisions.
That would be the trusts, etc, and they very definitely are subject to government interference

I agree that the BBC were wrong in this case and it’s right that they apologised.

However, any former president would have accepted the apology and moved on.

Trump is a petulant toddler and a greedy twat and he’s only suing because he wants to control the media and make a fortune on the side. He has the morals of an alley cat and I despair of how many people seem to think what he’s doing is ok.

Regardless of outcome, the BBC are going to have to spend significant amounts of our money defending this ridiculous lawsuit, and that would have been unfathomable under any other president in my lifetime (I’m 57)

The full transcript is available here:

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

Over 8000 words were omitted between the first part, which Panorama cut mid-sentence, and the part near the end, beginning 'And we fight ...'

He uses the word 'fight' a lot in this speech. Nowhere is it obvious he means stage an insurrection or commit violence. His words at the beginning, which Panorama cut: 'to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard', suggest the opposite.

In several places he very obviously means 'fight' as in a political fight. For example, he says that Rudy Guiliani, Jim Jordan and the 'House guys' fight. He says of Republican candidates 'we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight.'

Talking about the media, he uses 'fight' several times and obviously means an argument. He says 'But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument.

'Now what they do is they go silent. It's called suppression and that's what happens in a communist country. That's what they do, they suppress. You don't fight with them anymore.'

None of this is to say that Trump is not a dangerous arsehole who was thrilled by the events of Jan 6. I'm not saying that he did not incite those events. The speech as a whole could be seen as covert incitement, although I seem to remember at the time his tweets were considered much stronger evidence than this speech.

What I am saying is that the Panorama splice deliberately misrepresented what he said and completely changed the overt meaning.

I don't expect decent behaviour from Trump. I do expect it from the BBC and one of the most shocking aspects of this whole thing is the number of people who are completely fine with the BBC abandoning accuracy and impartiality as long as the 'victim' is someone we don't like.

You keep bringing it back to Trump. I am perfectly aware of who he is, thank you, but my focus is on the BBC’s behaviour. I refer you back to my earlier point: The BBC is required by Charter to be impartial and there is no clause exempting odious or even criminal people.

If you want to argue that the BBC should be granted the same leaway as other media outlets then I assume you are also arguing for the removal of the licence fee. I wouldn’t support that because I believe in a public service broadcaster and I’m happy to pay for that - but only if I can trust them.

The programme was very Trump positive over all.

Was it? That's not what Grossman's report or Prescott's memo said.

https://archive.ph/F5K38

I don't give a shit what Trump cares about.

I care about upholding the quality of impartial media coverage. I care about truth in media.

It has astonished me to learn how many people only care selectively about those things.

What's even more astonishing is that those who don't care about accuracy and impartiality are the very people arguing that we must defend the BBC because it's accurate and impartial!🙃

Really? I don't know anybody who doesn't pay the fee from age 18-80!

Really ?

Is the fee not per address, not per person ?

If he was to sue them successfully, it would bankrupt the BBC. But then we would be fked because we do need a state broadcaster (which most countries have) and the Govt would end up bailing them out, and we would all be paying for that.

I think what will happen in the end is that he will want to show how magnanimous he is, by agreeing to a massive grovelling apology plus a symbolic peppercorn compensation.

Starmer will be shitting himself and will be blowing smoke to his arse over the phone this weekend.

Yes, because we all know true neutrality is found only on the extreme right 🙄

Of course it's not per person, my point is that the BBC is still relevant amongst all age groups.

The incident re Trump was on panorama which is NOT a news outlet. It is an investigative journalism and current affairs program. BBC news is a different programme. Panorama also did programmes on the fall of prince andrew and undercover in the police - all these episodes were also skewed.

You need to watch these programme with a more critical mindset. Remember this was all assessed in court years ago, despite the fact crowds did 'fight' on the basis of Trump's speech and riot at Capitol Hill which left 5 dead. Trump freed the convicted rioters early 2025.

Panorama is not media outlet - it is a investigative documentary style programme. BBC news is a different programme which you only pay for if you live stream it - online consumption is not covered by the license fee.

Excellent. Nail on head completely. Just wish ppl would take note of what you are saying here, because the outcome for the BBC is not good if Trump succeeds with this madness. Cant believe ANYONE would fall for and endorse his post truth bullshit. You've got to be dumber than a lobotomised amoeba to fall for his bilge.

But the editing/cut and paste of Trumps speech wasn’t a ‘mistake’. It was deliberate manipulation.