BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

David49- 10.57. I respect your opinion of BbC liberal leftist bias and your conflation that anyone who holds liberal leftist views this would “support” the BBC.

I have no high regard for Bsdenoch, Farage, Starmer, Davey or Polanski. I do not need any political party or ideology to inform or shape my considerations whether the BBC is corrupted or institutionally biased. I am able to think for myself.

Always supposing one can do links😄😄

It is always useful to see what commentators are saying we don’t operate in a vacuum on GN, and our opinion is always influenced by others. So what others are saying is therefore very relevant.

fancythat

personally I am ok with a back up link. Sometimes.

And yes, this is all my own thoughts.

Unless you are a Prospect subscriber a back up link wouldn't have helped as it is paywalled.

Articles are 'other people's thoughts' too. At least the source of the extract was acknowledged, which is more than happens usually.

I am quite happy to list the previous appointments on the board that have strong links to the labour party.

And look at lemonjams post - good lot of info there.

Typo Byline… if only the same energy could be applied to exposing the editor of the spliced tapes.

Maremia

Does anyone know who Robbie Gibb is, and why it is suggested he should be ousted from the BBC?
Online petition.

Gibb was the Campbell equivalent employed by May.

Can you imagine if Campbell had been given the same post😀😀 the right wing would have had a heart attack.

He needs to go because if his publicly announced bias.

Okay it’s the Byeline Times article?

Shock horror LemonJam
Reported by whom? Evidence?
Name of company etc

“David49-"And BBC supporters should also be challenged on their political stance".

Why? And what is your criteria for a "BBC supporter" anyway?”

Because I believe that the BBC has a liberal leftist editorial bias supporters would want that to continue, and there are plenty of liberal leftists on GN.

Gibb's appointment to the BBC board was supported by The Conservative Party political advisor who according to the press "pressed for months" for Gibb to become part of the BBC Board. He has current accusers calling for him to be removed for pushing claims of BBC institutional bias from his own biased perspective. The BBC chair Shah refutes the claim of institutional bias.

Gibb was the Downing Street Director of Communications and worked for Teresa May, Conservative PM. I understand he is friends with Michael Prescott. Precott is a political right wing lobbyist, and was appointed to his BBC advisory position under the influence of Gibb.

Reported 11/11/25 Prescott's company is being paid 100s of thousands dollars by US tech and media giants with close ties to Trump- to whom they have devoted millions of dollars.

Does anyone know who Robbie Gibb is, and why it is suggested he should be ousted from the BBC?
Online petition.

David49-"And BBC supporters should also be challenged on their political stance".

Why? And what is your criteria for a "BBC supporter" anyway?

There are Gransnetters that are posting on this issue NOT from any party political stance- using facts and evidence base in posts, from a stance aiming to be measured, fair and rational, none partisan, proportional and intentionally NONE political on this BBC issue.

The OP contends that the BBC has always been bias and corrupt. You seem to be suggesting that any one who posts with a different view is a "BBC supporter" and you who even further to state their political views should be challenged. Just why?

personally I am ok with a back up link. Sometimes.

And yes, this is all my own thoughts.

Whitewavemark2

This

“ The veteran BBC Panorama reporter John Ware has been using the archives of the Daily Telegraph—the paper which has accused the BBC of “materially misleading” editing—to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy.
He quotes the Telegraph’s own chief reporter, Robert Mendick, on 7th January 2021: “Trump threw on the whole, messy heap a burning match. And throughout the day he kept throwing on more. A clenched fist, and a call for action.”
Ware moves onto the former prime minister as quoted in the Telegraph on 8th January: “BORIS JOHNSON has ‘unreservedly condemned’ Donald Trump for encouraging protesters [Ware’s emphasis] who stormed the Capitol building in Washington DC. The Prime Minister said the US president had been ‘completely wrong’ to cast doubt on the outcome of the election and to encourage the ‘disgraceful’ behaviour that resulted in four deaths…”
Then Ware quotes the Telegraph’s own columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on 8th January: “The putsch has failed….the desecration of Capitol Hill by Trump mobs—on explicit incitement by the president [his emphasis]—speaks for itself.”
For good measure, he adds the Telegraph’s own Ben Riley-Smith on 13th January, referring to Trump’s “incendiary speech to supporters” prior to the “mob that stormed the US Capitol last week”.
It would be amusing for the BBC to use the Telegraph’s own reporting to bolster the case that Trump did, indeed, bear significant responsibility for the carnage that followed his speech. Indeed, numerous rioters subsequently testified that they had been motivated by Trump’s words.
All in all, Trump doesn’t have much of a case and if BBC chair Samir Shah has any sense, he’ll announce that not a penny of licence fee payers’ money will go to furnishing the Donald J Trump Library.
Show the Americans what a British backbone is made of! Show weaselly US broadcasters how it’s done! Even Nigel Farage should cheer that on”

Prospect
Rushbridger

When you say "this", does that mean you agree with every word of what you posted?

Personally, if I want to read an article from elsewhere I would.

Most times, [not all], I come onto this forum to read the thoughts of other people.
Not newspaper articles.
Or links come to that.
But I have been known myself to link to something or other.

Galaxy

They are also left wing feminists and lgb groups but don't let that worry anyone.

Also a whole host of other pressure groups, disabled, policing, environmental, and still find money to expand the economy.

This

“ The veteran BBC Panorama reporter John Ware has been using the archives of the Daily Telegraph—the paper which has accused the BBC of “materially misleading” editing—to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy.
He quotes the Telegraph’s own chief reporter, Robert Mendick, on 7th January 2021: “Trump threw on the whole, messy heap a burning match. And throughout the day he kept throwing on more. A clenched fist, and a call for action.”
Ware moves onto the former prime minister as quoted in the Telegraph on 8th January: “BORIS JOHNSON has ‘unreservedly condemned’ Donald Trump for encouraging protesters [Ware’s emphasis] who stormed the Capitol building in Washington DC. The Prime Minister said the US president had been ‘completely wrong’ to cast doubt on the outcome of the election and to encourage the ‘disgraceful’ behaviour that resulted in four deaths…”
Then Ware quotes the Telegraph’s own columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on 8th January: “The putsch has failed….the desecration of Capitol Hill by Trump mobs—on explicit incitement by the president [his emphasis]—speaks for itself.”
For good measure, he adds the Telegraph’s own Ben Riley-Smith on 13th January, referring to Trump’s “incendiary speech to supporters” prior to the “mob that stormed the US Capitol last week”.
It would be amusing for the BBC to use the Telegraph’s own reporting to bolster the case that Trump did, indeed, bear significant responsibility for the carnage that followed his speech. Indeed, numerous rioters subsequently testified that they had been motivated by Trump’s words.
All in all, Trump doesn’t have much of a case and if BBC chair Samir Shah has any sense, he’ll announce that not a penny of licence fee payers’ money will go to furnishing the Donald J Trump Library.
Show the Americans what a British backbone is made of! Show weaselly US broadcasters how it’s done! Even Nigel Farage should cheer that on”

Prospect
Rushbridger

I agree 100% with Primrose53 👍

They are also left wing feminists and lgb groups but don't let that worry anyone.

“The current BBC detractors are in plain sight, and yes the majority of them are right wing, e.g Farage, Boris, Trump, the Telegraph newspaper, but all BBC detractors should be challenged not on their political stance but on intelligent, measured, well reasoned debate, in the best interests of the UK.”

And BBC supporters should also be challenged on their political stance

The BBC can be shaped and improved to serve the UK broadcasting space well- that could be the way forward to satisfy most....

17.59 "If the BBC decides that it is all a right wing conspiracy to bring them down, and that it is a case of the goodies v the baddies then the BBC will in my opinion, fall. It might not be this year but fall it will".

I share your view Galaxy in so far as focussing on a "right wing conspiracy". It shouldn't and is not the case of the goodies v the baddies, should be more a case of the rational and measured against the reactionary and blaming. Better to focus now on making a case for why a public independent broadcaster is needed and what the alternatives are. Better to focus on providing evidence of the BBC's unusually well respected global reputation for providing reliable news and getting back to doing just that The BBC chair Shah, apologised yesterday for this "editing error". In the context of how others reported- shared their views at the time of Trump and in their view his inciting others to storm the Capitol, this apology should be accepted. Shah quite rightly said the BBC board members have different political persuasions and difference is healthy. Indeed the government of the day has some say in some senior appointments, hence why, when the Conservatives were in power they had 14 years of such say and the current board reflects that. Thus Shah has dismissed the idea of an orchestrated, right wing plot or conspiracy theory Galaxy, you will be pleased to know.

Hopefully Shah will now be assertive and focus on a robust, well thought out response to Trump and then on getting back to business, promoting the BBC, strengthening its performance even more and protecting its overall positive global reputation. Plus to assert the reasons for the BBC to continue, and benefits of the BBC continuing and the risks if it doesn't. There should be intelligent, well reasoned , proportional, debate about the BBC not a witch hunt of any political shade, I agree with you Babs3.

I would suggest if the BBC, as an independent public broadcaster with its positive global reputation and performance standing overall to date, is not there, it creates a vacuum. The risk is that vacuum is then filled by a more politically biased ( of any colour and shade), less factually correct, more politically controlled broadcaster as is increasingly the case in the US. Plus TV viewers will then need to pay a subscription fee, or accept broadcasters funded by advertising revenue or political party donations etc. Political party donations and affiliations, evidently will lead to more impartiality and less factual news reporting than the BBC.

The current BBC detractors are in plain sight, and yes the majority of them are right wing, e.g Farage, Boris, Trump, the Telegraph newspaper, but all BBC detractors should be challenged not on their political stance but on intelligent, measured, well reasoned debate, in the best interests of the UK.

I think Shah has already grasped this.

Maremia

Has anyone seen the excerpts from the AI judgements on Trump's posts on Truth Social?
Not relevant exactly, but in the hunt for what is the Truth, which is a theme on this post.

No where would that be?

Has anyone seen the excerpts from the AI judgements on Trump's posts on Truth Social?
Not relevant exactly, but in the hunt for what is the Truth, which is a theme on this post.

“And what proof would you produce (a 'guess' wouldn't count as conclusive evidence in a court of law) that it was watched by anyone in the US?”

I havn’t any evidence when it was discussed in the US, its likely that it was to some degree and it doesn’t matter when. Trump has to prove that it was and I’m sure that his lawyers will trawl through the media to find the schedules.

The BBC can have their day, or month in court to prove their point, the lawyers will take their (our) money. All that’s needed is an apology for deliberately editing the video to change the sense, which the have admitted.