BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

No, the BBC needs to stick more closely than ever to the terms of its charter, particularly impartiality.
Trump is volatile, impulsive, powerful and dangerous.
The BBC have handed him the means to attack Britain through their own stupidity.
When dealing with a megalomaniac it is essential that the rules are obeyed even if he ignores them otherwise any defence particularly on moral grounds is lost.

winterwhite

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.

. . . and I would suggest that the apology should contain a reference to how it is ALWAYS wrong to broadcast a misleading account of important news coverage - illustrated by an absolutely genuine and unedited clip of one of Trump's undeniable lies, one which has been publicly proved to be false and is known to be so by the entire world (except by Trump, of course)

Agreed Elegran!

Elegran

winterwhite

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.

. . . and I would suggest that the apology should contain a reference to how it is ALWAYS wrong to broadcast a misleading account of important news coverage - illustrated by an absolutely genuine and unedited clip of one of Trump's undeniable lies, one which has been publicly proved to be false and is known to be so by the entire world (except by Trump, of course)

The Panorama programme was bought from an independent company, yes, but it was BBC staff who edited it.

The BBC had commissioned an outside production company, October Films, to make the programme, which was due to air in January.

The company was involved in the Panorama documentary about Trump which has triggered a major row at the broadcaster, though was not responsible for the editing of the speech, which was done by BBC staff.

BBC

The BBC is culpable, not the film company.

Trump’s aim, as with all his law suits against US media, is to silence those journalists who challenge and question his actions.

Do they try defamation as well?
And deceipt?

Trump’s aim, as with all his law suits against US media, is to silence those journalists who challenge and question his actions.

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

There are many who say the BBC did report the truth in this programme, ie that overall, Trump's 70 minute speech incited insurrection exhorting people to fight and storm the Capitol. Such a long 70 minute speech overran the time available for the programme therefore it was edited. picking out parts from being and 50 minutes later towards the end, ie an editing decision, accused of being impartial and corrupt.

Reporting "the truth" on any of Trump's unwieldy, chaotic, whatever adjectives you seek to ascribe, poses challenges for news reporters and broadcasters. Trump has sued the media in the US on many occasions, for reporting decisions he does not like, in an effort to suppress, control, silence, build his authoritarian power base, etc as others have outlined.

On this occasion the BBC has admitted it's editing error.

Trump did actually say the words, therefore it is not slander and the words are not untrue....

David49

MaizieD

David49

Although the BBC did not broadcast to the US, the BBC version of the speech was rebroadcast widely by other media including Fox News. The BBC should stop messing around, apologize and end the controversy

The BBC itself often rebroadcasts news featured by other media, blatantly biased AlJazzera news from Gaza would be an example of that, mostly with a disclaimer.

When was this rebroadcasting of the Panorama version of the speech, in the US David?

Broadcast Details in the U.S.

This is the AI response I found

“In the U.S., the documentary was not directly broadcast by the BBC. However, coverage and discussions about it were prevalent across various news outlets and platforms, especially on cable networks like Fox News, where Trump himself addressed the issue and echoed his claims regarding the editing.”

I have no idea how accurate it is but clearly did happen

Crazy politics, Crazy president

the question is not that it happened, but when it happened.

The programme was not available in the US. It 'could' have been taken to the US by someone making the effort to download and record it in the UK and take it to the US at the time it was broadcast, but as there were no comments or complaints about it until this furore, well over a year after it was broadcast here in the UK, it would be very hard to prove that it was seen in the US before now. And the fact that it ,'might' have been seen in the US at the time it was broadcast is germane to the litigation letter sent by Trump's lawyers.

Perhaps you could ask AI precisely when all this viewing in the US happened.

It wasn’t an error, does anyone actually believe that? It was a deliberate splicing of two different speeches which put together gave a different meaning to them.
Are we really going to brush that off?We all know what Trump is like but we don’t want to go down the road of sly journalism.

Allira

Elegran

winterwhite

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.

. . . and I would suggest that the apology should contain a reference to how it is ALWAYS wrong to broadcast a misleading account of important news coverage - illustrated by an absolutely genuine and unedited clip of one of Trump's undeniable lies, one which has been publicly proved to be false and is known to be so by the entire world (except by Trump, of course)

The Panorama programme was bought from an independent company, yes, but it was BBC staff who edited it.

The BBC had commissioned an outside production company, October Films, to make the programme, which was due to air in January.

The company was involved in the Panorama documentary about Trump which has triggered a major row at the broadcaster, though was not responsible for the editing of the speech, which was done by BBC staff.

BBC

The BBC is culpable, not the film company.

Do you have a source for that statement about the BBC staff editing the documentary?

Is this common BBC practice, that BBC staff edit programmes made for them by independent production companies?

Allira

^Trump’s aim, as with all his law suits against US media, is to silence those journalists who challenge and question his actions.^

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

Exactly!

It’s highly unlikely MaizieD that the BBC airs anything not checked for veracity beforehand that was made by an outside company.Anything could be in it.

Oreo

Allira

Trump’s aim, as with all his law suits against US media, is to silence those journalists who challenge and question his actions.

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

Exactly!

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

Oh yes? Do you believe in fairies, too?

MaizieD

Oreo

Allira

Trump’s aim, as with all his law suits against US media, is to silence those journalists who challenge and question his actions.

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

Exactly!

If they report the truth then they have nothing to to fear.

Oh yes? Do you believe in fairies, too?

In fact quite the opposite. That is exactly why Trump loathes the BBC, - it reputation for integrity, balance and truth is respected throughout the world.

Does it make mistakes?

Yes.

Should we be surprised?

We are fools if we are surprised, given the enormous level of output.

Saying all that, given that the charter is up for renewal, now is the time to ensure that the BBC retains its reputation by looking at the composition if the board and revisiting the Reith principles to see if they are still relevant.

I think that they are, and that the bbc does indeed largely adhere to them.

Infantile MaizieD tut tut.

There’s an interesting article on Conservative Woman asking for a number of BBC management to resign. Shah especially. I don’t think the BBC has understood quite the mess it has created.

ronib

There’s an interesting article on Conservative Woman asking for a number of BBC management to resign. Shah especially. I don’t think the BBC has understood quite the mess it has created.

I don't think that people understand how very hard 'the right' are working to destroy the BBC.

It's sad that so many people are cheering them on.

I am right of centre, the BBC have definitely screwed up on several occasions recently.

I want them to sort themselves out, adhere to their Charter and continue being funded through the TV Licence

It’s quite ironic, given the people whose blood they are baying for are on the right. I wonder if it’s occurred to them that the current government will have more influence on the new appointments. Probably not.

Well, may God help them if they mess up again.
[and I mean this].

Casdon

It’s quite ironic, given the people whose blood they are baying for are on the right. I wonder if it’s occurred to them that the current government will have more influence on the new appointments. Probably not.

I couldn’t care if they were left, right or upside down, if they (employees and management not the organisation) have done wrong and gone against the BBC’s charter (standards of accuracy and verification) then they should go.

Sorry GrannyGravy13, I wasn’t replying to you, the ‘they’ I was referring to was Conservative Woman, but we posted at the same time.

Casdon 👍

Casdon. It’s beyond belief why anyone would support the existing management team in the BBC. It’s time for a fresh approach from a new management team surely? Why are you defending this appalling situation Casdon? The top tier had been told 6 months ago about biased editing and remained silent.
Did you read the article in Conservative Woman?