BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

I wonder if the government have a say in the appointment of the director general of the BBC? Tim Davies was a Tory, so it will be interesting to see what happens next.

What I’d like to see in future is a similar standard of scrutiny over documentary and news programmes applied to all media outlets, which would sort the wheat from the chaff very quickly.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Well well well.

Tim Davie resigns from the BBC.

The buck stops at the top.

He probably knows that there are more skeletons in the BBC’s cupboards.

I for one doubt Tim Davie would have resigned as Director General of the BBC if The Telegraph had just been ‘stirring the pot’!

Well well well.

Tim Davie resigns from the BBC.

It’s not just the Trump issue, it’s all the other stuff the BBC has covered up over the years like Martin Bashir interviewing Princess Diana and lying to her, the awful Jimmy Savile business, Huw Edwards filth and much more.

It is simply very wrong that this huge corporation has got away with it for decades.

AGAA4

I would say it's a work of art to splice together a coherent sentence from Trump.

In the midst of this rather tetchy thread that made me laugh, AGAA4 😂
Thank you

Thank you LemonJam.
Thank you for giving us the perspective.
The BBC is not blameless, but it still scores higher than The Telegraph, which is stirring the pot about this issue.
Yes, question the integrity of reports, but do it for all media, including GB News.

The programme was 'bought in'.
The solution is very simple.
Don't buy from that company again.

Martine Croxall was one of the newscasters today, so she is still there. Didn't realise she was in trouble.

To echo GrannyGravy13 being concerned at BBC bias and supporting splicing of different sentences together to make a new unuttered sentence is not showing sympathy or support for Trump. I have no sympathy for the man himself at all, he's brought damnation on himself by his own words and acts, nobody needed to falsify and 'gild the lily' Rather it is wanting the highest unbiased ethical standards, especially important in our national broadcaster funded by a compulsory licence fee on those who may not even avail themselves of any of its output. For those saying other outlets lie, distort etc consider the weight you give to these other outlets. Take a story by the BBC and the Daily Mail that was at odds, who did/would most posters on GN believe/side with? Goodness people apologise when the only link they can supply to a story is the DM one. More people will be questioning the integrity of the BBC. I've been doing so for some while prompted in no small part by their reluctance to accept scientific reality over an ideology, and subsequent fudging of the truth.
The BBC is so in thrall to transgender ideology Martine Croxall's complainants included from her own colleagues! She has been reprimanded by the corporation at lightening speed, other complaints either get ignored, dismissed or languish for months.

I would say it's a work of art to splice together a coherent sentence from Trump.

Brilliant Casdon 😂 😂

www.youtube.com/shorts/CngVzkRTGIM
The true Trump speech….

Yes I do think the Truth will come out and No I don't think any other TV channel who did this would be closed down. Yes I do think the BBC has shown Bias over the years as do all media outlets. No I dont thin the BBC is "corrupt" it has far too many checks and balances in place, including close, transparent, overt intention to abide with OFGEM standards. Does the BBC make mistakes- yes of course.

TRUTH SO FAR: There is no doubt the short video clip extracted from the 1 hour Panorama programme 'Trump: A second chance" was spliced. I've tried to access any link to watch the whole programme to check whether this splice was acknowledged during the programme and to understand the overall steer of the programme ie was it fair and balanced overall or unduly biased overall. However it's not available on BBC I player. I look forward to the BBC's response by tomorrow's deadline to the Parliamentary Select Committee.

There is another angle to this story aside from BBC bias- which is an important issue. i.e. that the leaking of Michael Prescott's memo to the DT are part of a concerted effort to undermine the BBC as its heads into crucial talks with the government over the removal of its charter as a UK public service Broadcaster with public service obligations.

Michael Prescott's report was leaked to The Telegraph a right wing newspaper just in time for these crucial possible removal of the BBC Charter. Another reason why I look forward to the BBC's response tomorrow.

FACT: The majority of media outlets edit/splice/clip Trump's speeches ( including the White House) as he has such a discursive, rambling, chaotic communication style. The key issue is the EXTENT of BIAS, if any, that results and whether this is .habitual, intentional and systemic in any media outlet or occasional editorial decisions that are incorrect/ put right/ apologies made if they slip through the net/if there is a net.

FACT- all media outlets show BIAS to a lesser or greater degree as editorial decisions are made by humans, This includes The Telegraph who reported on Michael Prescott's memo. As evidence please feel free to google " Bias and Credibility Media Bias/Fact Check" for any individual UK named media source. Eg mediabiasfactcheck.com/gb-news-uk, mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph, mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc - etc for any named me3dia outlet.

That will result in a detailed report for you showing extent of right or left centre views/bias and "High" level of Fact Reporting for your chosen outlet. E.g.
1) BBC scores "High" on Fact Reporting, with some "left centre" bias rather than left centre views ( a continuum).
2) The Telegraph Scores "Mixed" ( i.e. below even "mostly factual") on fact reporting and is much further along the bias continuum going towards extreme Right centre views,
3) GB News "Extreme" right views and "Mixed" ( i.e. below even "mostly factual") on fact reporting,
4) Daily Mail "Low' ( even below mixed!) on fact reporting- and firm "Right" views,
5) Guardian "High" on fact reporting and towards "Left of Centre" on views, Channel 4 News "High' fact finding and a bit towards left of centre views.

I challenge anyone to find a UK news outlet that scores higher than High in fact reporting (there is a very high category) or bang on mid led of left/right centre views. Editorial decisions are made by human beings so I'm not sure such an organisation does/ can exist. Therefore some bias is a given and the BBC is no outlier or exception. It's a matter of HIERARCHY as to where you can place your trust.

Thus the key issue for me is whether the BBC has systems in place to monitor and check editorial decisions/ mistakes put right when the bias goes too far and apologies made when something is not right.

You can google "BBC Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee minutes 6 March 2025", at which Michael Prescott was present. Editorial risks and Issues were discussed, including reporting of the new US presidency.

MayBee70

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 and MayBee70 I will repeat myself as it’s obvious you haven’t read my post upthread.

Being disappointed at the duplicity of the BBC does not in anyway equate to supporting the current POTUS, or the actions in Washington DC that day which resulted in deaths, injuries and vandalism of the Senate Building.

My point is that the OP gleefully picks up on anything negative about the government etc but I don’t remember any threads started about some of the vile things that Trump has done (and is still doing; daren’t even mention Epstein theelephantintheroom).

It’s bound to be swings and roundabouts when posters have different views on Gransnet, which is how it should be. Sometimes though, when threads are started which throw down the gauntlet by being so biased to one perspective that they make you laugh, or choke on your coffee, you can predict exactly how it’s going to go. This is one of those.

Mollygo

GrannyGravy13

Mollygo every intelligent person on the planet knows that only human females have wombs and therefore incubate and give birth to children.

Pregnant women/woman is of course biologically correct.

Love your dismissal of the lie.
The newsreader shouldn't have had to correct it.

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.

The newsreader did the right thing by correcting the auto cue,
from pregnant people to pregnant women.

Whoever wrote it, should have been intelligent enough to know that it’s only human females that get pregnant.

GrannyGravy13

Mollygo every intelligent person on the planet knows that only human females have wombs and therefore incubate and give birth to children.

Pregnant women/woman is of course biologically correct.

Love your dismissal of the lie.
The newsreader shouldn't have had to correct it.

MayBee70 if you are the government then you have to take the slings and arrows of discontent they come with the job.

There have been numerous threads outlining what Labour have done since they come to power by the way.

There are numerous threads on the current POTUS and his failings.

Epstein is mentioned on the Andrew thread and the one on Ghislaine Maxwell.

If you feel Epstein needs another thread of his own (there was one on his death) start one.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 and MayBee70 I will repeat myself as it’s obvious you haven’t read my post upthread.

Being disappointed at the duplicity of the BBC does not in anyway equate to supporting the current POTUS, or the actions in Washington DC that day which resulted in deaths, injuries and vandalism of the Senate Building.

My point is that the OP gleefully picks up on anything negative about the government etc but I don’t remember any threads started about some of the vile things that Trump has done (and is still doing; daren’t even mention Epstein theelephantintheroom).

I echo what you say GrannyGravy, but there is little chance of any acknowledgement that no-one, repeat no-one, is supporting or criticising Trump; it is the action of the BBC that is criticised.

I was impressed today by Lisa Nandy's straightforward apology for the mistakes made in the process of releasing prisoners.
An open acknowledgement that they had made mistakes, the numbers wrongly released had risen which was not acceptable and an assurance that plans, specified , were being implemented to improve the situation.
An example to her colleagues on the front bench.

Mollygo every intelligent person on the planet knows that only human females have wombs and therefore incubate and give birth to children.

Pregnant women/woman is of course biologically correct.

But I thought it was the BBC kicking up a lot of fuss against its own newsreader for refusing to follow the party line?

The latest BBC row is about someone correcting ^pregnant people* into pregnant women.
Seems there are shrieks of horror from some of the GBP about the BBC telling the truth as well.

Whitewavemark2 and MayBee70 I will repeat myself as it’s obvious you haven’t read my post upthread.

Being disappointed at the duplicity of the BBC does not in anyway equate to supporting the current POTUS, or the actions in Washington DC that day which resulted in deaths, injuries and vandalism of the Senate Building.

MayBee70

Wonder if the OP has ever posted about some of the things Trump has done eg making fun of a disabled person, eluding to a woman reporter being on her period? And yet we’re expected to be horrified that the précis of a speech made by him ( I use the word speech lightly as most of what he says is incoherent ramblings) might give the wrong impression. Which imo it didn’t given that he released the people responsible from prison as soon as he could. Where’s the sympathy for the people that died that day? Only sympathy for the orange one it seems .

Yes - this!

I am a very law abiding person, but I want to stop paying my license fee, I do watch streamed BBC programmes. In light of yes another apology warranted by the BBC for another biased report, I am considering breaking the law and cancelling my licence fee direct debit.

Maybe if the BBC had paid any attention to the people on their side very gently saying er there is a problem here then they wouldn't have to be dealing with their enemies delighting in this, I have as is probably clear zero sympathy.