BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

They have recently confirmed that they do not routinely do so, see this recent FOI response FriedGreenTomatoes2, which I had in mind.
www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/foi/2025/october/monitoring-of-gb-news-and-disinformation.pdf?v=406289
Ofcom will not be able to perform this function unless they are significantly better resourced in future, they are currently reliant on complaints and other media sources rather than their direct investigation resources. One consequence of that is that high profile media outlets with large audience figures are investigated far more frequently than more niche outlets.

Casdon

The whataboutery is no less relevant than either the inane comments or the witch-hunt Rosie51. Has anybody suggested that the BBC is not accountable for what happened? Some of us see beyond the BBC and apply the same level of scrutiny to other media outlets, that is all.

Am very surprised at your attitude Casdon when this is a really important matter of ethics and principles.We expect better of the BBC.
Yes it would be great if all news outlets were 100% reliable too but this thread is about a leaked letter that Tim Davie and other head honchos had known about but did nothing until it came to public attention.It’s no witch hunt it’s about the buck stops here when you head up any organisation.

Maremia

Which newscaster should we check out next?

It’s not a matter of ‘we’ doing anything as we have no knowledge of any wrongdoing until it’s brought to light as in this case with the BBC.

Oreo

Casdon

The whataboutery is no less relevant than either the inane comments or the witch-hunt Rosie51. Has anybody suggested that the BBC is not accountable for what happened? Some of us see beyond the BBC and apply the same level of scrutiny to other media outlets, that is all.

Am very surprised at your attitude Casdon when this is a really important matter of ethics and principles.We expect better of the BBC.
Yes it would be great if all news outlets were 100% reliable too but this thread is about a leaked letter that Tim Davie and other head honchos had known about but did nothing until it came to public attention.It’s no witch hunt it’s about the buck stops here when you head up any organisation.

Quoting one post does not give the full picture of what I was saying Oreo. At no point did I say that the BBC were not accountable.

But you did say ‘inane comments’ and a witch hunt.
It isn’t a witch hunt is it?

Am glad you feel the BBC must be accountable as not everyone on this thread would agree on that it seems.

I have no time for the BBC. What's happened is shocking.

MSM is losing its grip.

Oreo

But you did say ‘inane comments’ and a witch hunt.
It isn’t a witch hunt is it?

Yes, I did Oreo, because if you read all the posts, it’s clear that there are posters on this thread who want to see the BBC lose its role as the national broadcaster, and they brought in all sorts of extraneous information to add to their argument to bring it down, which is a witch-hunt. There are also inane comments, I’m sure you can spot them too.

The BBC hasn’t helped itself in recent years and may well lose its place, the licence fee is very expensive and many people don’t watch it or use the radio either.
It’s a great shame because at least up to recent times it’s been a national treasure.It really must get its house in order now.

And how much do people pay for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc?

I don’t want to lose the BBC, but this
they brought in all sorts of extraneous information to add to their argument to bring it down, which is a witch-hunt
Seems to be the modus operandi for several threads recently. Is it only me who is unsurprised that this thread has followed suit?

Oreo

The BBC hasn’t helped itself in recent years and may well lose its place, the licence fee is very expensive and many people don’t watch it or use the radio either.
It’s a great shame because at least up to recent times it’s been a national treasure.It really must get its house in order now.

It has been explained several times on this thread that the Television licence is not a licence specific to the BBC.

It is a licence for the device which receives television broadcasts. Broadcasts from any of the available channels. The clue is in the name. It is a television licence, not a BBC licence.

The government website tells one exactly that.

www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence

I’m finding it faintly amusing that all these rigid defenders of the need for absolute truth are refusing to recognise the truth about the licence fee.

True. Only 86% of the license fee goes to the BBC.

COOK COUNTY, Illinois, Nov. 9, 2025 (Gephardt Daily) — A former January 6th defendant wanted by Utah law enforcement officials for alleged kidnapping and eight counts of aggravated sexual assault has been taken into custody by a fugitive task force in Cook County, Illinois.

John Emanuel Banuelos, 40, is wanted for the nine first-degree felonies, alleged to have been committed in 2018.

According to a probable cause statement filed in the arrest warrant, issued by the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office, the female victim told a Unified Police detective she was approached at a TRAX station by “Jacob,” later to be identified as Banuelos, on June 8, 2018.

Banuelos invited the woman to his house for a party, and when she arrived, “there was no furniture and no party. (She) said Banuelos began touching her legs, and she told him to stop,” the court document says.

The woman told investigators that Banuelos made her smoke something, and afterward, she could not move her body.

The woman said Banuelos left briefly, then returned and sexually assaulted her multiple times. She said “Banuelos then grabbed her by the shirt and dropped her on the floor, causing her to hit her head. (She) recalled feeling like Banuelos was going to kill her.”

The woman was examined at a hospital the day after the incident, and evidence swabs were taken. On Aug. 5 of this year, CODIS identified Jose Banuelos as a DNA contributor. “Jose” Banuelos is a known alias of John Banuelos, the probable cause statement says.

“The defendant has an extensive violent criminal history in Illinois dating back to 2001,” the Utah warrant says. “The defendant has been arrested at least 20 times for weapons offenses, domestic violence, assault and battery, property damage, resisting arrest, trespassing, obstruction, eluding, and protective order violations.

“The defendant has also been arrested five times in Utah and is currently charged in the Provo Justice Court,” where he failed to appear for hearings in cases related to domestic violence, interfering with an officer and disorderly conduct.

He also has an unresolved case in Salt Lake County based on a domestic violence assault allegation. Warrants also were issued in those cases, the warrant says.

The FBI identified John E. Banuelos as the person pictured in this photo, taken at the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. See additional photos and evidence collected by the FBI here.

Banuelos was formerly accused of firing a gun during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol during the electoral vote count. At that time, he was listed in FBI documents as a resident of Summit, Illinois.

“Just after taking office in January, the president issued pardons for nearly 1,500 individuals who were charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol,” an NBC News article noted.

“Banuelos correctly predicted in court in May 2024 that Trump would be elected and pardon Jan. 6 rioters,” the article says.

“President Trump’s going to be in office six months from now, so I’m not worried about it,” Banuelos said, according to a court transcript.

As of Sunday, Banuelos remains listed among those in custody at the Cook County jail in connection with the Utah warrant.

Trump pardoned this man. And now everyone’s grovelling to him. And let’s not forget it all happened because Trump refused to believe he had lost the election.

Well, Tim Davie has done the decent thing and resigned. The BBC has completely lost all credibility. Now we are going to take everything they state with a pinch of salt. Let us hope he is replaced by someone with higher standards......and perhaps they will get everyone back into suits and ties. I hate the current 'casual' look as though people have been dragged in on their free time.

And exactly who is the unfortunate editor or team of editors involved in the splicing of the Trump film? Were they freelance? On whose authority, if any was the alteration agreed? How often does this happen one wonders?

This is a shame really as I grew up thinking you could trust BBC news.
Clearly not.
And people moan about GB news.

People have every right to moan about GB News.
How does AI Google rank them, as 'truth' tellers?
Yes, Oreo, we do have a part to play in monitoring MSM, by reporting bias, homophobic, racist comments.
How else does Ofcom know?

MaizieD

Oreo

The BBC hasn’t helped itself in recent years and may well lose its place, the licence fee is very expensive and many people don’t watch it or use the radio either.
It’s a great shame because at least up to recent times it’s been a national treasure.It really must get its house in order now.

It has been explained several times on this thread that the Television licence is not a licence specific to the BBC.

It is a licence for the device which receives television broadcasts. Broadcasts from any of the available channels. The clue is in the name. It is a television licence, not a BBC licence.

The government website tells one exactly that.

www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence

I’m finding it faintly amusing that all these rigid defenders of the need for absolute truth are refusing to recognise the truth about the licence fee.

Most of the money collected by tv licensing goes to the BBC .
If anyone is interested just google ‘ who gets the money for the tv licence’.
I find it faintly amusing that you didn’t know the money was almost all given to the BBC.

Reading this thread I have come to a number of conclusions, but first I would like to my two-penn’oth worth into the fray, largely entirely swimming against the thread tide.

The resignations - (whilst I might welcome Davies resignation for different reasons) were entirely unnecessary. The leaked memo - should have undoubtedly been dealt with in May when the person/company responsible for the panorama programme should have taken the flak from the inevitable fallout, although even that could have been avoided if at the start of the programme, -which was about the violence and Trumps hand in it - they had explain that some stuff had been edited. Panorama is not a news programme and it’s content therefore was subject to the type of editing anyone would expect.

In my opinion much of the criticism is certainly politically and rival media motivated as can be seen by the evidence put forward by the spokespersons for the Telegraph, GB News etc. on this thread.

It is no coincidence that the BBC s charter renewal is about to go under scrutiny, and if one looks back each time this has happened in recent years there is an almighty pushback from media rivals who dish the dirt. Their preference is for the destruction of the BBC entirely in its present form. A move imo of such philistinism and idiocy it is breathtaking.

Lastly i think everyone is aware of Trumps opinion of the BBC and his intent to control the media content in the USA and now apparently the BBC, as I have no doubt that alongside other stuff this move by the BBC is appeasement in order that it continues with its lucrative market in the USA .

Saying all that I know that nothing is perfect and the BBC should come under particularly close scrutiny because of its place in British society. I am always annoyed at the level of airtime Farage is given compared to the other smaller political parties for example.
In view if the upcoming renewal of the charter, I think that now would be a good time to re-think exactly what we all want from the BBC.

Of course there is bias in other television output just as there is amongst the other media output. But I think that the BBC whilst subject to a lot of OTT hyperbole at the moment, has on the whole kept to its stated standards.

I note that the Telegraph editor is triumphantly tooting that Trump has thanked them for attacking the BBC.

The BBC will have to stop acting like the TV arm of the Guardian.

Oreo

MaizieD

Oreo

The BBC hasn’t helped itself in recent years and may well lose its place, the licence fee is very expensive and many people don’t watch it or use the radio either.
It’s a great shame because at least up to recent times it’s been a national treasure.It really must get its house in order now.

It has been explained several times on this thread that the Television licence is not a licence specific to the BBC.

It is a licence for the device which receives television broadcasts. Broadcasts from any of the available channels. The clue is in the name. It is a television licence, not a BBC licence.

The government website tells one exactly that.

www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence

I’m finding it faintly amusing that all these rigid defenders of the need for absolute truth are refusing to recognise the truth about the licence fee.

Most of the money collected by tv licensing goes to the BBC .
If anyone is interested just google ‘ who gets the money for the tv licence’.
I find it faintly amusing that you didn’t know the money was almost all given to the BBC.

Where the money ends up is completely irrelevant. Knowing what I do about government finance I strongly suspect that what you belive is just an accounting fiction, anyway.

But the fact, truth, call it what you will, is that it is your TV set that is being licensed.

Excellent post at 8.39, Wwmk2. 👏👏👏

Thank you WhiteWave. The fact that The Telegraph and Johnson are the 'cheer leaders' has significance.

Oh the irony. Johnson leading a campaign to get at the truth!