The bbc, again.

[eaglesdare]

BBC issues grovelling apology after doctoring Donald Trump speech TWICE but says 'no case for defamation'

The broadcaster confirmed the Panorama programme would never appear again 'in any form'

www.gbnews.com

2 apologies today. First Lowe and then Trump.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

See what happens when you think you know what others mean? I don't despise the BBC; I just don't see why I should pay them in order to watch their competitors.

Actually I didn’t say you despise them! I said people like you do! Nevertheless if that was offensive I apologise.

You don’t pay them to watch their competitors. You pay for a TV licence which helps support the independence of the BBC, it being considered in our national interest that it be kept independent. There are now ways to watch competitors and avoid the licence. Just not live or any BBC. Those ways may well justify a new funding model being introduced which will close that loophole and make sure the BBC remains properly funded.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So now we have the response to Trump. Which I am gratified to read makes many of the points I have in this thread.

Well done, BBC! Polite, factual but firm.

BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

Lawyers for the US president have threatened to sue the corporation for $1bn (£759m).

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Actually I didn’t say you despise them! I said people like you do! Nevertheless if that was offensive I apologise.

You don’t pay them to watch their competitors. You pay for a TV licence which helps support the independence of the BBC, it being considered in our national interest that it be kept independent. There are now ways to watch competitors and avoid the licence. Just not live or any BBC. Those ways may well justify a new funding model being introduced which will close that loophole and make sure the BBC remains properly funded.

No need to apologise when it was my misunderstanding.
There's not much doubt the funding model will change and if it means no more need fines of up to £1000 for not having a license then good.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That warming period reached its peak 10000 years ago.

The last glacial period ended 11700 years ago. The next one is predicted to be in 10000 years. That puts us roughly in the middle of the warming period.

I’m not sure where you are getting your 10000 years from. It only started 1700 years before that.

The Earth had actually been 10 to 15 degrees hotter on the past. Not that it’s any consolation. Best get some air con installed.

 

[Spindle]

I don’t watch it. Because when I have I dislike the approach.

For me they aren’t a news channel. They are the daily propaganda outlet for the Tories and now increasingly, Reform.

How do you know if you don't watch it? Did the BBC say?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

How do you know if you don't watch it? Did the BBC say?

To be fair I don't listen to James O'Brien because whenever I have heard him his whole approach is annoying but am somewhat aware of his output.

 

[Spiderman]

To be fair I don't listen to James O'Brien because whenever I have heard him his whole approach is annoying but am somewhat aware of his output.

Surely not a biased approach, how dare he

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Surely not a biased approach, how dare he

Not just his bias - there's also his voice of pretend sympathy, his Kevin Maguire style huffing and puffing and the way he cuts callers off short when he can't dispute their points. I guess Nick Ferrari does something similar and I don't listen to him either.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

BBC saying they've apologised to Trump, but won't pay compensation.

Let's see what the lawyers think, because apologising can be taken as an admission of guilt.
BBC just making it worse for themselves

 

[Badger11]

BBC issues grovelling apology after doctoring Donald Trump speech TWICE but says 'no case for defamation'

The broadcaster confirmed the Panorama programme would never appear again 'in any form'

www.gbnews.com

2 apologies today. First Lowe and then Trump.

Trump will view the BBC apology but refusal to pay compensation as "opening negotiations". I expect his lawyers will now build a case much as they did with the American news outlets he threatened to sue.

At some point they will share the dossier with the BBC who will have to decide if it is worth going to court or settling.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Some piss-taking journalists and editor, hiding in the corporation, safe in the knowledge they won't be held financially accountable.

The only real questions left to answer are

How much ?
Who's paying ?

 

[Spiderman]

They just make their own speeches full of preconceived ideas!

The BBC don’t. Nor do they edit others to tell their ideas. They don’t have ideas. They report the truth, as they perceive it. If they need to edit a speech to distill the truth from it that’s good journalism. Finding the essence of any story is what is its true purpose.

Other opinions exist. I believe the point was, BBC knowingly doctored/spliced a speech. Do you have any evidence GB News have done similar? So when BBC “edit” it’s brilliant journalism, IF GB News did it, it would be what? ( no proof they have ever done so)

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Some piss-taking journalists and editor, hiding in the corporation, safe in the knowledge they won't be held financially accountable.

The only real questions left to answer are

How much ?
Who's paying ?

Once it’s decided how much they’re paying Trump, everyone should cancel their license fee.

 

[ASCPFC]

BBC saying they've apologised to Trump, but won't pay compensation.

Let's see what the lawyers think, because apologising can be taken as an admission of guilt.
BBC just making it worse for themselves

I do wonder about jurisdiction here but know nothing about it legally. In other words, can journalists say stuff about political figures from abroad, even if it's true or not, without the jurisdiction of British courts? I think you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I.

 

[eaglesdare]

I do wonder about jurisdiction here but know nothing about it legally. In other words, can journalists say stuff about political figures from abroad, even if it's true or not, without the jurisdiction of British courts? I think you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I.

I do wonder if the show was shown in the US on the BBC? Trumps team would have a stronger claim then?

Edit: I asked grok and it said it was only available to UK viewers.

 

[silvertop]

Oh yes I got mixed up. I used to watch both, not now. But my point still stands. Question Time is ONE hour. BBC News is on 24 hours and biased the whole time. GB News has an opposing view on all night. He or she sits on the right as you look at the tv, everyday night, same place, always one there.

I don't think I recall a Newsnight where they have interviewed someone who you would describe as "left" but not got someone on to balance the view. Same on the Today Programme.

I accept the criticism when it comes to comedy shows, drama, (and more worryingly and current) documentaries, but the news is so along the middle as it is possible to be.

Then again, the point made in the last paragraph is perhaps more serious. An insidious drip-feed of liberal left views that I may be comfy with but which must cause a significant % of the country to switch off. The BBC is supposed to be for us all. That does need to change.

 

[Badger11]

I do wonder if the show was shown in the US on the BBC? Trumps team would have a stronger claim then?

Edit: I asked grok and it said it was only available to UK viewers.

It will be one of the hurdles that Trump's team will have to jump. Just a thought the whole programme may not have been shown but what about the clips on social media?

 

[silvertop]

I do wonder about jurisdiction here but know nothing about it legally. In other words, can journalists say stuff about political figures from abroad, even if it's true or not, without the jurisdiction of British courts? I think you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I.

It would need to be published in that country.

I am not sure what the argument on jurisdiction would be if it is only published as a consequence of the defamation (if that is what it is?) i.e. only being re-published as a consequence of the publicity regarding the defamation? Thus, can the victim (if that is what he is?) mention it, seek publicity for it, cause it then to be viewed millions of times on You-Tube, and then sue for those publications?

I'll leave that to the lawyers.

He would have less difficulty if he sued in London. Then again, would a sitting US President like the optics of wigged and gowned English lawyers determining the matter without TV presence?

He chose Florida as he has a home there, it is in the USA, and (I suspect) has generous libel laws.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It would need to be published in that country.

I am not sure what the argument on jurisdiction would be if it is only published as a consequence of the defamation (if that is what it is?) i.e. only being re-published as a consequence of the publicity regarding the defamation? Thus, can the victim (if that is what he is?) mention it, seek publicity for it, cause it then to be viewed millions of times on You-Tube, and then sue for those publications?

I'll leave that to the lawyers.

He would have less difficulty if he sued in London. Then again, would a sitting US President like the optics of wigged and gowned English lawyers determining the matter without TV presence?

He chose Florida as he has a home there, it is in the USA, and (I suspect) has generous libel laws.

Hasn't the statute of limitations expired in Britain? It's a year here and two in Florida so they don't have much alternative.