The bbc, again.

[ASCPFC]

It's the BBC. More will inevitably leak out over the next while. Depending on how much we're allowed to know. Starmer might even decide to look strong on this, with his wonderful usual ability to read the British public. Almost his superpower.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I question why this story has broken now?

Yesterday possibly the most important Panorama investigation I have ever watched was aired. Headlined “Trump and the Tech Titans” it examined how Trump’s rise was bankrolled by the multi billionaires of Silicon Valley and the way they are remaking the US system in their own interest. It looked specifically at Peter Thiel, a PayPal founder, democracy sceptic and early endorser of Trump. He has been almost exclusively behind JD Vance’s rise and is said to control him. He is worth around $30 billion and believes that democracy is holding back technology and needs to be replaced by a billionaire class run autocracy. It is him, and others, who have convinced Trump to launch his own crypto in order to cash in. Theil now owns Palantir Technologies which produces data analysing software used by the military to identify and track individual targets. It’s being used by Ukraine, has probably been given to Israel and is being used by ICE to track those they believe are illegals.

These guys have no respect for the law, democracy or their constitution. I was unaware just how deeply embedded they, and their placemen, are inside the second Trump administration. This is corruption in plain sight which really ought to concern everyone.

So is the release of the BBC “story” about editing out Trump’s words deliberately timed to try to divert attention from this much, much more important one and yet another attempt by the right to discredit the BBC?

It certainly smells like it! You can watch last night’s Panorama here:- (Providing, of course, you have a licence!)

Panorama - Trump and the Tech Titans

Silicon Valley’s original disruptors didn’t just change technology - they rewired politics. Panorama investigates the 'PayPal Mafia' and their influence on Donald Trump’s rise to the White House.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The BBC don't agree.

"The Ofcom ruling is in line with the findings of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a significant failing in the documentary in relation to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, which reflects Rule 2.2 of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code," a BBC spokesperson said in a statement in a report published by the outlet.

"We have apologized for this, and we accept Ofcom's decision in full. We will comply with the sanction as soon as the date and wording are finalized."

Of course that was always going to be the official reaction. They won’t, nor could, argue with Ofcom. My comment is my own. Not that of the BBC.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

The BBC edit 2 of Trump’s speeches to discredit him weeks before the US Election while Labour send MP’s and hundreds of their people over to oppose him. More votes for Reform. Good.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Where are the sackings? I'm genuinely wondering would this constitute a crime. It's deliberate deception. I saw the reports and they'd made it entirely believable that Trump was urging violence. Anyone watching it would believe that. With Trump's history, what kind of lawsuit should the BBC expect? I suspect it's incoming right now - like a Shaheed drone to the Polish border.

Rightly so, in my opinion. That he tried to disguise it, or rely on plausible deniability, doesn’t alter the fact that he addressed an angry mob who he had encouraged to believe that an election had been stolen and, instead of calming them and encouraging them to trust the democratic processes, he made them angrier.

We will have to see whether the editing is determined to have been fair and reasonable or not.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Lol - 'their own high standards'

We are talking about the organisation that protected multiple paedophiles for decades, if you remember?

The only consequences were that almost everyone who is sentient hates them, doesn't trust them and never will again.

Untrue. They were fooled by paedophiles for decades, along with many others. Including the right’s favourite sweetheart, Margaret Thatcher.

They were different days. Looking back now the warning signs are only too evident, but then wasn’t now. Excuses were made by many for what would now be instantly condemned as inappropriate behaviour.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So you will agree with the outcome and come back to apologise for trying to defend the indefensible!

I’ll decide that after the “outcome” is concluded. Who makes it and why will play a big role.

If it’s by the government to try to pander to Trump’s vanity or get a concession on tariffs, then no I won’t.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Well we know why don’t we? Of course it wasn’t accurate, it was doctored. But of course, the BBC is the bastion of impartiality which is revered around the world 😂

Editing speeches is not unusual. So long as the meaning is conveyed accurately it’s perfectly normal to do so. With Trump it’s essential given his propensity for repetition, gobbledygook and deviation. Trump wouldn’t last 5 seconds on “Just a Minute”!

 

[Spiderman]

Untrue. They were fooled by paedophiles for decades, along with many others. Including the right’s favourite sweetheart, Margaret Thatcher.

They were different days. Looking back now the warning signs are only too evident, but then wasn’t now. Excuses were made by many for what would now be instantly condemned as inappropriate behaviour.

Try telling Sadiq Khan that

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Unbelievable

You wouldn’t believe anything positive about the BBC!

People down rabbit holes can rarely see the light!

 

[Spiderman]

Editing speeches is not unusual. So long as the meaning is conveyed accurately it’s perfectly normal to do so. With Trump it’s essential given his propensity for repetition, gobbledygook and deviation. Trump wouldn’t last 5 seconds on “Just a Minute”!

Was this edited to convey it accurately? Of course not, sooner or later you may come to accept that BBC have a lot to answer for

 

[Spiderman]

You wouldn’t believe anything positive about the BBC!

People down rabbit holes can rarely see the light!

Probably better that not being able to see anything negative about them, despite overwhelming evidence of regularly breaking impartiality guidelines

 

[Spiderman]

I’ll decide that after the “outcome” is concluded. Who makes it and why will play a big role.

If it’s by the government to try to pander to Trump’s vanity or get a concession on tariffs, then no I won’t.

And here we have it

 

[cryrst]

I’ll decide that after the “outcome” is concluded. Who makes it and why will play a big role.

If it’s by the government to try to pander to Trump’s vanity or get a concession on tariffs, then no I won’t.

You won’t anyway as it’s not in your MO to believe anyone but Wisbech eagle. Funny how your group of friends and family are so like minded though. That would mean two things in reality. You are either a bully or a bull shitter.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Was this edited to convey it accurately? Of course not, sooner or later you may come to accept that BBC have a lot to answer for

That’s, hopefully, for the professional regulators to determine. Not for politicians trying to flatter a narcissist.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

You wouldn’t believe anything positive about the BBC!

People down rabbit holes can rarely see the light!

And this is what you said after your comment to me… (if it’s what you want to hear you’ll accept it. If not, you won’t. How predictable zzzzz)

Wisbech Eagle said:
I’ll decide that after the “outcome” is concluded. Who makes it and why will play a big role.

If it’s by the government to try to pander to Trump’s vanity or get a concession on tariffs, then no I won’t.

 

[eaglesdare]

Essentially the bbc doctored Trump's speech to fabricate a direct incitement to violence that never existed just before the elections last year.

Thankfully they failed in thier attempts at election interference. And we have had a glorious year so far of the return of Trump.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You won’t anyway as it’s not in your MO to believe anyone but Wisbech eagle. Funny how your group of friends and family are so like minded though. That would mean two things in reality. You are either a bully or a bull shitter.

Hopefully I am neither!

My family are all very independently minded. They come to their own conclusions. I don’t influence my friends but it’s natural that those who share attitudes tend to get on better than those who don’t. Racist Dave isn’t my mate!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And this is what you said after your comment to me… (if it’s what you want to hear you’ll accept it. If not, you won’t. How predictable zzzzz)

Wisbech Eagle said:
I’ll decide that after the “outcome” is concluded. Who makes it and why will play a big role.

If it’s by the government to try to pander to Trump’s vanity or get a concession on tariffs, then no I won’t.

People down rabbit holes have already decided what their verdict is. I will wait, in the light, to see what transpires. If our regulator decides, unimpeded by political interference, that the BBC erred, and issues a reprimand, then I will accept it.

If Trump is placated with another bribe, as he was when Paramount decided to settle the defamation law suit for $16 million just so their merger was approved, then no I won’t.

Trump is corruptly enriching himself on a weekly basis, yet people here still defend him. It’s incredible that anyone is quite so naive.

 

[martin2412]

Hopefully I am neither!

My family are all very independently minded. They come to their own conclusions. I don’t influence my friends but it’s natural that those who share attitudes tend to get on better than those who don’t. Racist Dave isn’t my mate!

What about Gullible Gilbert or Blinkered Brian ?