BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

Lewis Goodall’s take on it:

goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Extract:

There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place. The conclusion that Trump was instrumental in that violence is borne out from the impeachment House and Senate votes, which though below the threshold of conviction were bipartisan, and the subsequent Congressional inquiry into the events of the riots which set Trump’s role out in meticulous detail. Trump then proceeded to make clear how un-seriously he took the violence by pardoning everyone involved, many of whom have spoken to the authorities and explicitly said that the only reason they were there that day and did what they did was because of Trump. These aren’t opinions, these are facts and if the BBC cannot robustly defend itself on that basis then it is truly lost. The tragedy of this fiasco is that it has played into Trump and MAGA’s hands, both in seeking to gag news organisations they dislike (see the legal threats to American broadcasters and newspapers) but in helping them to erase the truth about what happened that day and Trump’s central role in it. How’s that for impartiality?

Also see last night’s Newsnightcontributions from FT’s Gillian Tett, Nick Watt and CNN”s Brian Stelter.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002m270/newsnight-trump-vs-the-bbc

ronib

But there’s a real possibility that the US government could sue the BBC for unlawful interference in another country’s elections and I can’t see one billion dollars being sufficient compensation. As well as defamation? Also the case won’t be heard in the UK but in Florida I think. Bring it on?

Such patriotism! You must be so proud!

AGAA4

ronib

The BBC brought this calamity on its own head. Don’t expect the hapless taxpayer to foot the bill.

Trump will find it difficult to sue now. He has to abide by UK law and he is out of time. His case can't be heard in Florida as the programme wasn't broadcast in the US. We will see.

Ah, I must eat my previous words. I've just read lawyer commentator Joshua Rosenburg's post on this and he says that Trumps lawyers are claiming that the Panorama programme could have been watched in the US because of the wonders of the internet and so the BBC can be sued in Florida (a Republican State) with massive damages claimed. Rosenburg seems to think that the BBC might negotiate a lesser sum and pay up.

Of course, this is blackmail that has worked well on US media companies who want to avoid the possibility of enormously expensive law suits going against them.

Oh dear...

Grandmabatty

And David claims that it is a 'fact' of the political leanings of BBC despite offering no factual evidence to support his opinion.
No surprise there.

The views expressed on GN are well to the left of center, most of you support the BBC in your responses which does not surprise me at all

WWM2 11.59 and PaynesGrey 12.53- great posts.

Trump may need to prove to a Florida court the broadcast programme was "actually" watched in America rather than "could" have been watched for a case to be heard- step 1. He has 2 years from date of Broadcast, October 2024 before running out of time.

As the key premise of Trump's threatened legal claim is defamation, the court may determine it must have 'actually been watched', in order to meet the threshold to prove damage to his reputation and standing as a result.

Trump then has further hurdles, as he did say the words but 50 minutes or so apart. Further there is one school of opinion that over the 70 minute speech that Trump was exhorting the crowd to fight. Therefore the BBC as a broadcaster, if that view was honestly held, was not defaming Trump. Thats is the crux of the edit being allowed at the time. Trump has already faced legal proceedings in his own country for inciting insurrection the outcome of that same 70 minute speech, so it could be argued the BBC broadcast, allowing such an edit some time after those proceedings was nothing new and could not possibly have damaged Trump as a result.

Aside from Rosenburg there appear to be more lawyers offering their opinion that Trump's case is unlikely to proceed/be successful.

However, this matter now has global spotlight and the BBC has to decide how to respond to Trump's threats and demands by tomorrow. The past 7 days the BBC has been defensive.

Trumps' demands on the BBC, deadline tomorrow, are huge. If the BBC caves in to all of them the world will be a huge step closer to all media outlets fearing to publish anything derogatory, or even potentially defaming from Trump's personal perspective, for fear of similar reprisals. EVERY SINGLE programme edit of Trump globally will likely become more defensive rather than on principles of impartiality and an honest effort to be truthful. That will be negative for democracy world wide and Trump will be even more emboldened and authoritarian, whatever you think about the BBC.

If he succeeds on that case can be heard in Florida, as a result of lawye

Sorry- Disregard the last line- edit not completed in full..

I think Trump has to prove that he was defamed by the BBC broadcast but he did actually incite the riot. The full speech was clear in goading Republicans to fight or they won't have a country.

Prnblem is David, if the BBC is not defended, what are we left with? Commercial MSM, owed by foreign billionaires. Don't fancy that.

lemonjam I return the complement 13.21.

It really pains me to think how much Donald Trump must be enjoying the prospect of bringing down the BBC. I just hope that he will not be able to do so.

I think it was a grave error on the part of the BBC to let this edited speech go out and the BBC should take responsibility for allowing this to happen but, given how unpopular Trump is worldwide, I don't think this programme can have done any more to damage Trump's reputation than he has already done by his own actions.

I, for one, who not like to see the end of the BBC and all it represents and has represented over the years just because they upset Trump.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

For Maizie, read the Paynes-Grey post. It has a great deal of commonsense, and more accurate points than several sad cases on here have stated.

Thank you, PaynesGrey for putting my thoughts into such clear words.
I repeat what I have said before - if the left wing think that the BBC is to the right, and the right wing think that it is too far to the left, then it's probably doing well.

ronib

The BBC brought this calamity on its own head. Don’t expect the hapless taxpayer to foot the bill.

So who, in your opinion, should ‘foot the bill’ in Trump’s potential Billion £ lawsuit against a British institution that you’re so eager to see happen?

If the Panorama programme had not been used with a lie Trump couldn’t sue

DrWatson

For Maizie, read the Paynes-Grey post. It has a great deal of commonsense, and more accurate points than several sad cases on here have stated.

Err. Why am I singled out for a mention?

PaynesGrey didn't write it that post, you know. Lewis Goodall did.

Neither did Wwmk2 write hers, She posted part of an article by Alan Rusbridger, Prospect editor (I don't dare tell posters what he edited before taking on Prospect )

I'm not trying to detract from either posters, I'd have done ethe same. I'm perhaps highlighting the fact that well known commentators can be worth reading and passing on.

^ the BBC might negotiate a lesser sum and pay up.

Of course, this is blackmail that has worked well on US media companies who want to avoid the possibility of enormously expensive law suits going against them.^

I think they will have to.

Why it is blackmail, I have no idea.

Someone posted about def amation having to be proved.
Cant see how that is going to be difficult!

Trump may need to prove to a Florida court the broadcast programme was "actually" watched in America rather than "could" have been watched for a case to be heard- step 1. He has 2 years from date of Broadcast, October 2024 before running out of time.

Is the 2 year limit the US limit, LemonJam?. The UK limit is 1 year.

Lawyer blogger David Allen Green believes that the grounds for litigation are weak. He also points out that the programme, both its first broadcast and subsequent 'on demand' was only watchable on Iplayer, which cannot be accessed in the US. So for anyone to have seen it in the US it would have had to been a downloaded recording made in the UK and taken back to the US. He thinks that it would be difficult to prove that anyone in Florida had seen it.

Anyway, DAG's blog is here and it includes a comparison of the Panorama 'splice' with the original Trump speech and a transcript of the litigation letter sent by Trump's lawyers to the BBC:

davidallengreen.com/2025/11/a-close-look-at-trumps-1-billion-claim-against-the-bbc/#respond

The Panorama programme was bought from an independent company which should never be used again. A sincere apology should be made to Donald Trump for unprofessional journalism which was not spotted by BBC staff. There I think the matter should end.

MaizieD, yes it’s my understanding USA time limit is 2 years from date of event.

There’s no statute of limitation in the USA for treason…… don’t know if it stretches to that?

It varies from state to state between 6 months to 3 years- Florida, where Trump is making his claim it is 2 years…..

Look up treason ronib it’s a charge against an individual who betrays their own nation. It’s not applicable.

I think the charge is defamation? Ludicrous really.

I would have thought he could win easily.
But I am not a lawyer.