BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

“ Had any other TV channel done this they would have been closed down.”

What utter nonsense.

Ah well. you'll be happy then I guess?

I re- watched the BBC edited speech by Trump.

I watched the whole of January 6th live, at the time, and the message I took from Trumps speech on the day, was exactly the same as the edited BBC piece, as did the murderous mob who caused mayhem and insurrection as Trumps behest.

All media from tv, radio to all newspapers edit. It’s what they do. At the time it was not questioned although people would be aware of the edit.

It was the message that was important in this instant which was “fight like hell”

It was shocking at the time and continues to be so, however much push back from the Trump supporters. History cannot easily be re-written, when it is so shocking as Jan 6th

Quite right Primrose53 an apology is needed as is more future oversight and vigilance.
This isn’t just about Trump, the deception could have been around anyone who made speeches and there was more regarding bias as well.We expect better from the BBC who we have to pay a licence fee to.

There is editing, which is removing content due to time issues, but this was splicing , to alter the meaning of what he said. Totally unnecessary anyway because the content was shocking enough. It was not the BBC's place to 'enhance' it.

Despite the apology, written by the Chairman, Tim Davie remains silent, displaying his contempt for his viewers and licence payers.

Whitewavemark2

I re- watched the BBC edited speech by Trump.

I watched the whole of January 6th live, at the time, and the message I took from Trumps speech on the day, was exactly the same as the edited BBC piece, as did the murderous mob who caused mayhem and insurrection as Trumps behest.

All media from tv, radio to all newspapers edit. It’s what they do. At the time it was not questioned although people would be aware of the edit.

It was the message that was important in this instant which was “fight like hell”

It was shocking at the time and continues to be so, however much push back from the Trump supporters. History cannot easily be re-written, when it is so shocking as Jan 6th

100% agree with everything you say here, Wwmk2.

To believe that anything that isn't 'live', on any channel whatsoever, is still completely unedited is utterly ridiculous.

Making a fuss about an edit which in no way alters the truth of what happened at the Capitol is opportunist political point scoring.

Wanting to close down the BBC is almost tantamount to wanting to abolish the royals. Both institutions have failed to maintain the standards they should uphold.

That’s the unintentionally funniest original post I’ve seen for ages.

I don’t think the apologists for the BBC would feel the same if they had liked the people and countries that suffered from the deceitful shenanigans.

Splicing is important.

Tuesday.
My roses are all dying

Tuesday
My neighbour is out in his garden with weed killer

Saturday
My roses are wilting

Is very different from: my neighbour is out in his garden with the weed killer: my roses are wilting.

Shocking that this happened.
Who will believe anything the BBC says anymore?
They obviously know they’ve done wrong or they wouldn’t be apologising.
Dangerous idiots.

And yes, the BBC cover ups & lies have been going on for years, they obviously think they can do anything they like.

Of course it is; the words were moved from their context to deliberately alter the meaning. Semantics.
This is an historic speech, notorious not iconic, and doubtless will be scrutinised many times in the future.

And the usual patronising defensive comments that everything is edited does not mean that it is right. Cutting to reduce content is one thing; splicing to alter the meaning is wrong, which is why there is so much concern.
There are always those who will accept lies, as long as they support their views.

I do not think the meaning of what he was saying was altered at all. That was clear at the time and is clear now. I do think the editors might have been better advised to make a small separation between the edited sections.

But he said what he said - nothing can get around that .....

There was no doubt about Trump's intention to cause the riot. I'm sure a lot of splicing and editing goes on with other news channels and always has.
If it had changed what actually happened then that would be wrong but Trump wanted people to protest.

If editing is used to change a story then that is another matter.

There are always those who will accept lies, as long as they support their views

Exactly.

Killing the messenger in the hope of killing the message is a new take on things.

The messenger died some time ago, so no one pays much attention to the message.

The Trump supporters clearly don’t agree

I am against doctoring a speech as relevant and important as POTUS Trump’s.

Anything doctored is obviously not what the orator delivered at the time.

For historical accuracy the speech in its entirety should have been aired.

The BBC was negligent in the accuracy of the programme.

All inaccuracies should be called out, whether one agrees with the political stance or not.

All programmes that contain speeches like this are edited - the BBC cannot fill a programme with one speech that had already been broadcast at the time.

All media outlets do this all the time.

Luckygirl3

All programmes that contain speeches like this are edited - the BBC cannot fill a programme with one speech that had already been broadcast at the time.

All media outlets do this all the time.

There should be an announcement that any edited speech in its entirety can be heard/seen on the broadcasters website, with a link

This should prevent any controversy as to biased editing.

Now there’s no excuse to believe, as gospel truth, any news bulletin. We have been warned. The BBC should be congratulated.

When a body has cancer, you cut it out. You don't euthanise the whole person,