The bbc, again.

[Forest Hillbilly]

I noticed. For quite a long time i thought Trump had encouraged rioters to storm the White House. I actually believed Trump was fanning the flames. that stayed with me a very long time,...until this case was brought against the BBC. I have a habit of recalling stuff I see on the media, particularly words coming directly from a politicians mouth, and in the context they are made.
How many other people who saw that BBC 'production' were left with the feeling they had witnessed Trump encouraging rioters ?
It was a shockingly bad edit. So bad (by professionals and their approval/audit system), that it would appear to be deliberate defamation. I care not about the politics. This was a blatant manipulation of facts by a trusted news corporation (lie) . Newspeak is already with us.

 

[ASCPFC]

I noticed. For quite a long time i thought Trump had encouraged rioters to storm the White House. I actually believed Trump was fanning the flames. that stayed with me a very long time,...until this case was brought against the BBC. I have a habit of recalling stuff I see on the media, particularly words coming directly from a politicians mouth, and in the context they are made.
How many other people who saw that BBC 'production' were left with the feeling they had witnessed Trump encouraging rioters ?
It was a shockingly bad edit. So bad (by professionals and their approval/audit system), that it would appear to be deliberate defamation. I care not about the politics. This was a blatant manipulation of facts by a trusted news corporation (lie) . Newspeak is already with us.

I believed it when I saw the documentary. I thought he was incredibly lucky to not get done. Then, when I saw the unedited footage, I completely understood. I couldn't believe how misleading it was. Crazy.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It was entirely impartial!

I don’t know how often I need to point out that it was a programme about the motivations of the Capital rioters. Not about Trump.

So much so that no one even noticed the edit, until Mr Prescott brought it to the attention of the right wing media who then decided there was an opportunity to bash the BBC again.

The BBC didn’t notice. No viewer noticed. No politician noticed. No one in the media noticed. Trump didn’t notice. No MAGA sycophant noticed.

Why? Because it was typical of what he said, both then and since, about those events. It fitted. As part of the programme it made the point. With hindsight a fade should have been between the clips because that would have avoided all the subsequent bs. Not because it altered the point being made.

That this could be considered as impartial speak volumes.
So was it a happy accident or a calculated decision to splice the two parts together? You're happy with what they did because it confirmed your bias but how content would you be if they constantly did the same thing?

 

[georgenorman]

That this could be considered as impartial speak volumes.
So was it a happy accident or a calculated decision to splice the two parts together? You're happy with what they did because it confirmed your bias but how content would you be if they constantly did the same thing?

Don't waste your time. Wisbech will continue trolling and spouting nonsense in the face of reality.

 

[Glazier#1]

I noticed. For quite a long time i thought Trump had encouraged rioters to storm the White House. I actually believed Trump was fanning the flames. that stayed with me a very long time,...until this case was brought against the BBC. I have a habit of recalling stuff I see on the media, particularly words coming directly from a politicians mouth, and in the context they are made.
How many other people who saw that BBC 'production' were left with the feeling they had witnessed Trump encouraging rioters ?
It was a shockingly bad edit. So bad (by professionals and their approval/audit system), that it would appear to be deliberate defamation. I care not about the politics. This was a blatant manipulation of facts by a trusted news corporation (lie) . Newspeak is already with us.

Did say so on here?

 

[Glazier#1]

I believed it when I saw the documentary. I thought he was incredibly lucky to not get done. Then, when I saw the unedited footage, I completely understood. I couldn't believe how misleading it was. Crazy.

Did you say so on here?

 

[ASCPFC]

Did you say so on here?

Yes, I mentioned this before.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That this could be considered as impartial speak volumes.
So was it a happy accident or a calculated decision to splice the two parts together? You're happy with what they did because it confirmed your bias but how content would you be if they constantly did the same thing?

It’s not “considered” impartial. In the context of the programme it couldn’t be anything else but impartial. It wasn’t about Trump!!!

Only those who think it was about him could think differently.

Any bias of mine plays no role whatsoever in that. If the BBC made a programme about Trump’s character and included those two clips without a fade, then an accusation of bias would be defensible. Not for this programme.

 

[Glazier#1]

Yes, I mentioned this before.

How was it received by others?

 

[ASCPFC]

How was it received by others?

I basically spoke about how it looked true enough when I saw the programme. Pretty much no different to my post above. I think maybe steeleye liked it or something like that. It does look true if you only see the BBC edit. Which is the point of the whole thing really. Also the way it was presented on all of our news channels made it look true as far as I could see.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It’s not “considered” impartial. In the context of the programme it couldn’t be anything else but impartial. It wasn’t about Trump!!!

Only those who think it was about him could think differently.

Any bias of mine plays no role whatsoever in that. If the BBC made a programme about Trump’s character and included those two clips without a fade, then an accusation of bias would be defensible. Not for this programme.

It wasn't about him even though the programme was called Trump: A Second Chance and the edit was to a speech he gave.

 

[Glazier#1]

Did say so on here?

So, did you?, Forest Hillbilly?

I see your laugh under my question; does it signify 'You must be joking, of course I didn't'?

 

[ASCPFC]

How was it received by others?

You do realise we're not a uni party/ hive mind. However much it may seem like it sometimes. We're probably your average guy in the pub, if such still exists. We can get a bit lairy but we also forget about it the next day. Usually. Nearly all of the regulars have disagreed at various times.

 

[silvertop]

Don't waste your time. Wisbech will continue trolling and spouting nonsense in the face of reality.

Reality?

Wisbech doesn't know.

Neither do you.

 

[silvertop]

You do realise we're not a uni party/ hive mind. However much it may seem like it sometimes. We're probably your average guy in the pub, if such still exists. We can get a bit lairy but we also forget about it the next day. Usually. Nearly all of the regulars have disagreed at various times.

That's it (I hope). As objective an assessment as can be achieved. The Man on the Miami Omnibus.

 

[georgenorman]

Reality?

Wisbech doesn't know.

Neither do you.

It's bleedin' obvious what happened.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It wasn't about him even though the programme was called Trump: A Second Chance and the edit was to a speech he gave.

It was called that simply because it aired during the run up to the 2024 election. It tried to analyse what motivated people to vote for someone like Trump. It’s better explained here:-

Trump: A Second Chance? review – why his rise, and his return, make total sense

From Front Row Joes wanting control to the leader of the Proud Boys wanting to ‘make America hate again’, this documentary interviews Trump fans – and takes more time than most films to show why his popularity runs so deep

www.theguardian.com

So it wasn’t about him at all. It was about why someone like him can command such loyalty. Anything that featured him in it was there to shine a light on that conundrum.

I can understand this being too subtle for Trump to comprehend, but not you.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It was called that simply because it aired during the run up to the 2024 election. It tried to analyse what motivated people to vote for someone like Trump. It’s better explained here:-

Trump: A Second Chance? review – why his rise, and his return, make total sense

From Front Row Joes wanting control to the leader of the Proud Boys wanting to ‘make America hate again’, this documentary interviews Trump fans – and takes more time than most films to show why his popularity runs so deep

www.theguardian.com

So it wasn’t about him at all. It was about why someone like him can command such loyalty. Anything that featured him in it was there to shine a light on that conundrum.

I can understand this being too subtle for Trump to comprehend, but not you.

Oh, right. It was about someone like him and the circumstances around someone like him and how others react to someone like him but not actually about him.
None of which explains why the need was felt to edit two parts of a speech together. They could have paraphrased it without showing the accompanying film.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Reality?

Wisbech doesn't know.

Neither do you.

Really?
You guys still supporting the left really are clutching at straws these days. Their tactics have been exposed and their credibility destroyed.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Oh, right. It was about someone like him and the circumstances around someone like him and how others react to someone like him but not actually about him.
None of which explains why the need was felt to edit two parts of a speech together. They could have paraphrased it without showing the accompanying film.

I am no more either the producer or the editor of that Panorama programme than you are but I have tried to explain what I suspect happened several times.

They probably had a number of short clips taken from that speech saying the kind of things he had been saying for weeks which continued afterwards. They decided to use a couple but overlooked the need to introduce a fade between them because they weren’t contemporaneous. Whether the overlooking was simply an accident, or considered unnecessary because the point it made was perfectly valid within its context, is unknown. It wasn’t noticed on final editing because it appeared so typical of him. The editor didn’t notice and nor did anyone else until much later.

The BBC decided, in their wisdom, to apologise for an error of judgement. Probably a Board decision which was not supported by the staff involved.