BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

Have you swallowed a hyperbole pill ronib? People are allowed to feel differently to you, you know - and even, yes, to to feel that the right wing media are having a field day which is verging on the irrational. I’m not going to engage in a pointless debate with you about this, just accept our views are different.

Are you actually suggesting that the current government is corrupt and can’t be trusted to protect the BBC with new appointments? Casdon

Why is there a need to see everything in terms of left and right wing? Surely an acknowledgement of wrong doing is what this is all about? Like biggest mistake….

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

It it really relevant exactly when, my guess it was shortly after the Panorama programme was screened, I’m sure Trumps lawyers know exactly when and where and they are using it as a bluff to get the BBC to back down and apologize. Two senior executives have resigned, that would not have happened if there was no merit in the case.

ronib

Trump must not be silenced either. He has been wronged by this country and this country needs to make amends.
How anyone can justify the wrong decisions made by the BBC is actually quite terrifying to me.

How can you think this? trump is the biggest, whiniest man baby on this planet. Please stop with the faux being terrified, you are not convincing anyone. And using Conservative Woman as a news source is frankly pathetic.

Oh Ronib, are you not aware that everything is categorised according to Left and Right, although very little is said about Left at present?
The agenda is to repeat as many times as possible that the 'enemy' in Davies' delightful phrase, is right, right -wing, far -right, extreme right wing , and then suddenly, fascist and Nazi.

Some one posted a very long and very detailed analysis of right, left and centrist recently, and it bears about as much relevance to identifying people's political group as market researchers assigning people to socio-economic bands depending on what colour toilet paper, and now sanitary ware they have in their house.(White is tops in case you are interested.)
Sad really.

It's a researched fact that the Overton Window has moved a long way to the right in the past 10 years.

Sad really.

I can't say I'm sorry Tim Davie has gone. He was wrong for the BBC and had no journalistic experience. I have heard him answer viewers complaints and was not impressed.

There will be a shake up now and hopefully the BBC will be better run.
The demise of the BBC would not be good for this country.

I am totally confused by your comments IOMGran. In fact it’s pretty scary to read your comments. Do you not read Conservative Woman ?

Ronib 13.12- "The top tier had been told 6 months ago about biassed editing and remained silent." The top tier- BBC Editorial standards committee- did receive and discuss Michael Prescott's report. Re his specific, personal concern about the editing of Trump's this was heard and not everyone agreed with his personal views- just as there are polar opposite views on Gransnet. The minutes of this committee are available transparently- just google if you wish to read. Not all members of the committee agreed it was an impartial edit, just as it's clear on Gransnet some think it was an untrue, impartial edit- others Gransnetters think it was a fair, truthful edit. Same as BBC I guess- though it did decide, weighing up the risks, to be defensive and apologise. The committee did however consensually agree that as no concern was made by viewers or any other parties AT THE TIME OF BRADCAST- that it had not thus not raised undue concern by viewers or other parties. A not irrational assumption. The frenzy has only blown up in retrospect and as a result of Prescott's opinions in a memo being purposely leaked to a very right wing newspaper that has long been a BBC detractor. As a result of no complaints, no concerns of any nature being raised AT THE TIME it was consensually agreed by the Committee that no specific further action was required. Again not an irrational assumption. There was not "silence" as such just a considered consensual deciosn no action was required.

Similarly on Gransnet some members are "shocked" by the edit- some think it "didn't alter his meaning at all" and that Trump was inciting insurrection. Similarly polar opposite opinions. Many will agree Trump is divisive and polarising. So you can understand the complexities, nuances, polar opposite opinions and difficulties editing and reporting on Trump's speeches generally let alone this 70 minute speech.

Trump now threatening to sue the BBC raises the ante even more (we have Farage to thank for that, for phoning Trump on Friday night to stir the pot fully aware of Trump's propensity to sue media outlets). The BBC, as UK's independent public broadcaster, is now at greater risk, arguably, more than it ever has been before. The Charter is imminently to be discussed. Questions whether, and if so, how its current public funding model continues is to the fore front.

There is a post thread on the chat forum- should the BBC be defunded? it all ties in as any ongoing public opposition to the BBC, as a result of the current polarised frenzy regarding this speech edit heightens that risk. Certain distracters, politicians and news outlets are fully aware of this of course and are acting accordingly.

Sir Ed Davey (I am not generally a fan of his) was very good on the attack on the BBC on PMQs I thought today.....

AGAA4

I can't say I'm sorry Tim Davie has gone. He was wrong for the BBC and had no journalistic experience. I have heard him answer viewers complaints and was not impressed.

There will be a shake up now and hopefully the BBC will be better run.
The demise of the BBC would not be good for this country.

I wanted him and Robbie Gibbs gone for reasons of being overt political appointees. I think the entire board should be sacked and reformed from nonparty affiliated people.

ronib

I am totally confused by your comments IOMGran. In fact it’s pretty scary to read your comments. Do you not read Conservative Woman ?

I would rather have my eyes put out with red hot needles that every read the bile on Conservative Woman. Enough with the faux being scared, it's utterly unconvincing. Get a grip.

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

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

Crumbs

Sir Ed Davey (I am not generally a fan of his) was very good on the attack on the BBC on PMQs I thought today .....
As a one-time Lib Dem voter, I am starting to warm to him, and will look out for that.

However, I don't agree with this:
The committee did however consensually agree that as no concern was made by viewers or any other parties AT THE TIME OF BRADCAST- that it had not thus not raised undue concern by viewers or other parties

Viewers did not express concerns because they did not know that the speech had been edited by the BBC. Why would they? The BBC is supposedly trustworthy.

Editing to give a false impression is on a slippery slope to brainwashing and the BBC should be better than that.

Crikey!

We've had our differences, ronib but I hope I've never lowered myself to make an attack like that one by IOMGran.

Today: Trump doubled down on his legal challenge to the BBC. “I think I have an obligation to do it, you can’t allow people to do that,” he said in an interview on Fox News. “I guess I have to. They defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it. This is within one of our great allies, supposedly our great ally.

“That’s a pretty sad event. They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical. They showed me the results of how they butchered it up. It was very dishonest and the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit.”

Trump now pondering on his diplomatic relationship with the UK 🥱.

In an ideal world I would love to see the BBC countersue Trump for defamation- that he by that very speech alone to Fox News, sought to undermine the BBC's well regarded broadcasting reputation ( evidentially demonstrable), accused it of defrauding the public and placed its funding model at risk. All evidence available.

I would in response to his claim- put trump on notice to provide evidence that the BBC " changed" his 70 minute speech, (they edited), put Trump on notice to provide evidence it was his speech was "very calming" it wasn't- evidence shows it lead to a call for his impeachment on the grounds of inciting insurrection, put Trump on notice to prove the BBC's intention was to "sound radical", put him on notice to prove the BBC sought to be "very dishonest"and provide evidence how the BBC "defrauded the public", plus provide evidence of how the BBC "admitted" it defrauded the public.

Trump may realise his published defence will not play out well in forthcoming mid term elections.......

“That’s a pretty sad event. They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical. They showed me the results of how they butchered it up. It was very dishonest and the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit.”

I can't unhear that now, LemonJam!
🤯

I heard Trump's ramblings this morning. I've never heard of a speech being beautiful. It certainly wasn't calming.

The Telegraph has used a handful of BBC errors to claim the corporation is institutionally biased, deceptive and should be defunded

But here's what you won't find splashed across The Telegraph: in 2025 alone, the paper has been forced to publish over 100 CORRECTIONS, clarifications and formal regulatory apologies. These are the kind of breaches that would, id committed by the BBC, spawn days of front-page indignation in The Telegraph otself.

Sounds just like The Guardian.
Renowned (chuckled over by many) at their ‘corrections’.

The BBC has been forced to make 33 corrections to its coverage overall thus year. And yet The Telegraph has a dramatically smaller headcount and output.

Quotes deleted posts. Message removed by Gransnet.