The bbc, again.

Teddy Eagle said:
It is subjective though. When others take this view of the BBC it's not common sense. It's political bias.
Click to expand...
Read what I said!

Whether you believe it or not the BBC not only has a Charter obligation for objectivity it has a well founded reputation for it too. It has a reputation for reliability. Not just with me. It’s far from subjective to trust reputation. It’s common sense to do so.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
I think I know better for the same reason you think you do. It's an opinion and in mine the splicing together of different parts of a speech to create a different meaning wasn't an accident. If there was no malice involved why did they air the same clip twice, years apart, after being told it was wrong?
Click to expand...
Then you have a different opinion not just to me, but to the BBC and, it seems, all its staff. The people who were actually involved.

That’s taking being self opinionated to a new level.

They told the same story twice, because it’s the story. That someone thought it was wrong is neither unsurprising nor important.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Then you have a different opinion not just to me, but to the BBC and, it seems, all its staff. The people who were actually involved.

That’s taking being self opinionated to a new level.

They told the same story twice, because it’s the story. That someone thought it was wrong is neither unsurprising nor important.
Click to expand...
Well, duh. A different opinion to the organisation who aired the clip and it's highest defender? That's neither as controversial or as unique as you choose to believe.
What's important is that they took their interpretation and tried to present it as true. It wasn't. It was deliberate misrepresentation. That you agree with it is nothing more than bias confirmation.
 
He actually looked disappointed with the bbc.
Obviously doesn’t realise how much he is pilloried in the uk. I think he will sue only to protect others who could be affected by the ‘untouchable’ bbc. If 2TK doesn’t say something pretty radical about the bbc behaviour it could affect our relationship with the USA.
Albeit GB news got a 45 minute interview which apparently is exceptional.
Well done GB news I guess.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Well, duh. A different opinion to the organisation who aired the clip and it's highest defender? That's neither as controversial or as unique as you choose to believe.
What's important is that they took their interpretation and tried to present it as true. It wasn't. It was deliberate misrepresentation. That you agree with it is nothing more than bias confirmation.
Click to expand...
As they have carefully and logically explained that’s untrue.

This wasn’t a programme about Trump’s speech! It was a programme which referenced Trump’s speech!

The inappropriate editing of any 11 seconds of an hour long programme is not going to alter the meaning of the entire programme. In fact I can completely understand why the edit was made to add emphasis to the general point. If you listen to what he actually said in the unedited version he was still talking of the need to ensure the election result was overturned. That the request to fight came later doesn’t change that.

Nevertheless the BBC have, on review and judged solely on their high standards, agreed that the editing ought to have been done differently. So have apologised. I am not sure I would have done. Nor do I think some of their staff do.

If I have a bias it is to facts and the truth. The title of the programme was “Trump: a Second Chance?” The summary of it’s content was:-

“For the past two years, Panorama has been following some of Donald Trump's most ardent supporters. They tell Panorama why they want Trump, now a convicted felon, to get a second chance in the White House, while experts analyse his continued appeal.”

You, Trump and other want to concentrate on a small clip that was seeking to identify why people were motivated to go to the Capitol. That clip therefore not even being about Trump!
 
Once again it's those with Wisbech's attitude who cost this country massive amounts of money.

All they care about is themselves and everyone else has to suffer for it......It's all over his politics.

The BBC is full of little WE types, and that's why he defends it so much.

In a way it's appropriate that it's Panorama that's the conduit for all this.....It was always very left wing and so very obvious fodder for the TDS sufferers to use.

If the BBC had sensible people in management this would have never happened.....but it doesn't....Just as with Bob Villian at Glastonbury, the reason this happened is because, what aired, is what they believe anyway.

There's no one right wing, who is in a position of influence to say....'hang on'.
 
Last edited:
cryrst said:
He actually looked disappointed with the bbc.
Obviously doesn’t realise how much he is pilloried in the uk. I think he will sue only to protect others who could be affected by the ‘untouchable’ bbc. If 2TK doesn’t say something pretty radical about the bbc behaviour it could affect our relationship with the USA.
Albeit GB news got a 45 minute interview which apparently is exceptional.
Well done GB news I guess.
Click to expand...
The only reason he will sue is to continue to present himself as a victim. It’s also a useful deflection at a time when he is, yet again, under intense scrutiny.

I trust the BBC will respond as Michael Wolff has to his $1million threat and ignore it. Wolff going further by responding with a counter claim. You must not give in to bullies.

Starmer hopefully will distance himself by correctly telling Trump he has no influence over the BBC.

That Trump favours GBNews isn’t news. He favours all right leaning media and leaders and isn’t ashamed to say so or try to interfere in the politics of other countries. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I am more than happy for GBNews to become his megaphone of choice in the UK. It will ultimately do neither of them any favours. Trump’s reputation here, rightly, being what it is.

Unless they start asking him some awkward questions their own reputation is bound to suffer.
 
steeleye20 said:
If you make an admittance and apologise then I'm afraid legally you are stuffed.

😎
Click to expand...
If you read the whole statement whilst they acknowledge the edit was poorly done and apologise for it they deny it caused any harm, especially as he won the election.

Their position is that no monetary compensation is appropriate, an apology being all that’s necessary.

There are other reasons to, not the least being the very high bar that any defamation claim needs to clear in the USA.

Every legal opinion I have heard is that Trump has no chance of winning a case. So the only reason to settle would either be political pressure, which I hope won’t happen, or to eliminate costs, which I hope the BBC will resist.

Trump doesn’t care if he wins or loses. This isn’t about money for him. It’s about him reframing himself as a victim when it is obvious he is not.
 
will the offices of the BBC have the 'Recievers & Managers' drafted in ? doing a fire-sale of the furniture, computers and microwave ovens ? quick quick get them before they are gone


Of all the great achievements of Trump, to fv.ck the BBC would be surely the most legendary !!!! and lets set the attack-dog onto RTE next please.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
will the offices of the BBC have the 'Recievers & Managers' drafted in ? doing a fire-sale of the furniture, computers and microwave ovens ? quick quick get them before they are gone


Of all the great achievements of Trump, to fv.ck the BBC would be surely the most legendary !!!! and lets set the attack-dog onto RTE next please.
Click to expand...

We may just see the RTE anti trump rhetoric dialled massively now 🤭 not that I watch or follow rte at all these days.
 
I just watched part of the GBNews fawning interview with Trump. A part was enough because of the tone. It was giving him the opportunity to tell more lies without any come back. No difficult questions.

I thought Fox was bad but this was awful. For example:-

Trump didn’t know who the Telegraph is. Nor did he know who owns the BBC and was told it was primarily funded by the taxpayer.

So not only is Trump a liar the interviewer is feeding him more lies too.

Yet some here are pleased that GBNews are getting access!

Will the BBC now sue GBNews for this piece of misinformation and demand compensation for the damage to their reputation?

Do we really want this kind of ar*e licking style to represent our media, just because Trump can live with it?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
If you read the whole statement whilst they acknowledge the edit was poorly done and apologise for it they deny it caused any harm, especially as he won the election.

Their position is that no monetary compensation is appropriate, an apology being all that’s necessary.

There are other reasons to, not the least being the very high bar that any defamation claim needs to clear in the USA.

Every legal opinion I have heard is that Trump has no chance of winning a case. So the only reason to settle would either be political pressure, which I hope won’t happen, or to eliminate costs, which I hope the BBC will resist.

Trump doesn’t care if he wins or loses. This isn’t about money for him. It’s about him reframing himself as a victim when it is obvious he is not.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think Trump can win any big wonga from the BBC. If I understand correctly, the timescales in the UK for a legal claim have passed and the programme was not shown in the US (although it may have been available on the internet to US viewers; I don't know about that aspect). Consequently, if it did go to court I think it would be settled outside, probably with a token $1 in damages, just so Trump can say he has 'won'.
I think this is more about the Epstein files to make sure that he is not the only one berated by the media and that perhaps others 'dilute' the overall effect; particularly Clinton, who may be in the firing line big time.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
As they have carefully and logically explained that’s untrue.

This wasn’t a programme about Trump’s speech! It was a programme which referenced Trump’s speech!

The inappropriate editing of any 11 seconds of an hour long programme is not going to alter the meaning of the entire programme. In fact I can completely understand why the edit was made to add emphasis to the general point. If you listen to what he actually said in the unedited version he was still talking of the need to ensure the election result was overturned. That the request to fight came later doesn’t change that.

Nevertheless the BBC have, on review and judged solely on their high standards, agreed that the editing ought to have been done differently. So have apologised. I am not sure I would have done. Nor do I think some of their staff do.

If I have a bias it is to facts and the truth. The title of the programme was “Trump: a Second Chance?” The summary of it’s content was:-

“For the past two years, Panorama has been following some of Donald Trump's most ardent supporters. They tell Panorama why they want Trump, now a convicted felon, to get a second chance in the White House, while experts analyse his continued appeal.”

You, Trump and other want to concentrate on a small clip that was seeking to identify why people were motivated to go to the Capitol. That clip therefore not even being about Trump!
Click to expand...
And you are happy to see the BBC misquote anyone they want in order to reinforce your opinion. They might as well have a report saying "Ignore what he actually said because what he really meant was..." And you could nod sagely and congratulate them on their honesty.
 
The potential for damage to the British economy here and not just to the BBC (licence payer) is very real.

Wisbech types are a disaster for this country.

GBNews can at least show Trump that we aren't all TDS lunatics.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I just watched part of the GBNews fawning interview with Trump. A part was enough because of the tone. It was giving him the opportunity to tell more lies without any come back. No difficult questions.

I thought Fox was bad but this was awful. For example:-

Trump didn’t know who the Telegraph is. Nor did he know who owns the BBC and was told it was primarily funded by the taxpayer.

So not only is Trump a liar the interviewer is feeding him more lies too.

Yet some here are pleased that GBNews are getting access!

Will the BBC now sue GBNews for this piece of misinformation and demand compensation for the damage to their reputation?

Do we really want this kind of ar*e licking style to represent our media, just because Trump can live with it?
Click to expand...
I’d love to see them try 😂. They have done more damage to their own reputation than anyone else has.
BBC never conducted “fawning” interviews? Have they never arsed licked anyone? Of course they have, as do all news channels it’s how they get “exclusives”.
With your well documented hatred for all things Trump and now you have added GBNews to your “naughty” list, your assessment of the interview will come as no surprise to anyone on here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top