The bbc, again.

silvertop said:
No it hasn't. There is a huge gap between innocent/negligent misrepresentation (e.g. incompetent editing designed to fit the limited time slot) and deliberate falsehood.

(I am not saying it is one or the other. I am saying it has not been proven).

Trump does technically have a legal right to sue. But no serving leader of a democratic state should, in my view, descend to that level. I didn't like it when Mrs Macron did it (although she was actually defamed) and I don't like it now Trump is doing it. It is not statesman like weeping fake tears in public for hurty words and then seeking to personally profit from that ersatz pain. I suppose that is populist politics in a nutshell.

You appear to have taken a side based on who you like rather than what is right and wrong. Thus, did not Florida elect him in? Accordingly, what damage flowed directly from the broadcast in Florida? He suffered none. This is a man with unlimited power and wealth as well as narcissistic personality disorder seeking to eliminate any aspect of the Fourth Estate who does not gush with endless praise about his magnificence.
Click to expand...
You aren't seriously suggesting that the BBC's constant bias and misrepresentation is down to incompetence?

Even by your standards, that is a stretch.
 
silvertop said:
I don't know. Point is, neither do you.

What i can say with some confidence is that your rush to judgement is a product of your partiality against the corporation.
Click to expand...
You are clutching at straws.
 
puncheon_judy said:
The BBC have really handed Trump a smoking gun on this one but it is so unlikely he can win the case. It will be very hard for him to prove actual reputational harm, and that there was any malice behind it. It couldn't have been too harmful at the time of release - he still won the election weeks later. He's flexing to prevent other media outlets from thinking they can besmirch his name without repercussions, and the BBC deserve to have their knuckles wrapped for this one.

Stitching sync together in journalism is an incredibly common process but to do it about a re-electing President in such a damning way is a complete dereliction of duty and quite frankly dangerous.

I've been in enough edit suites where an editor has put something together in the absence of a producer or vice versa, and the team are none the wiser - not to provide excuses for the BBC, this is inexcusable, but it is a common thing to happen at all media companies. I was on one project where an editor had used a sound effect off a Christopher Nolan film without telling anyone and we got landed with a bill of tens of thousands once the tv show went to air.

There is no real way of truly safeguarding against this, if an employee/freelancer is stupid enough to do it then it would be very difficult for a producer to recognise what has happened without being told. Short of going through every original transcript and comparing it against each individual archive clip used in the show before it TXs.

However the BBC is held at a higher standard to other broadcasters, as it should be with its unique funding and 'Reithian values'. It is going to take a while to wash the skidmarks out of their undies.
Click to expand...
Did you read this post Hrolf before responding to mine? Somebody who has actually worked in an edit suite.

That's my guess. An editorial cock up justifying the rolling of senior heads and a public apology..

No more.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So you're seriously going to maintain that editing doesn't change meaning - even though this is is obviously the perfect storm in that it's the sacred BBC against the Demon Trump that's going some.
If the BBC had used CGI to show him firing a gun into the crowd you'd be supporting them on the grounds that it's something he might dream about.
Click to expand...
Of course editing can change meaning! What though was edited? Those clips were not the subject of the programme. The programme’s meaning wasn’t altered in any way at all. They were but an incidental aspect of a bigger story, yet Trump, as usual, sees every story as about him. It was a mistake, the non contemporaneousness of the two clips should have been acknowledged. An apology is more than sufficient.

If the BBC had produced anything showing an imaginary event then that it was imaginary should always be acknowledged, and is. Showing him firing a gun into a crowd, knowing his 5th Avenue claims, as an example of how his mind works, would be perfectly reasonable. Provided it’s acknowledged as just an illustration.
 
silvertop said:
How can saying I don't know be a straw clutch?
Click to expand...
It's amazing what people will believe when it aligns with their political views.
 
Stirlingsays said:
You seem to be forgetting that Americans in Britain and elsewhere would have watched that programme who then would have voted in the election.
Click to expand...
If that argument is accepted by the Court as justification for compensation then the Courts everywhere will be submerged in claims.

He won the election. Even if every American who watched the programme in the UK changed their mind as a consequence it clearly made no difference. In reality it probably changed no minds at all. Less than chats with British citizens whilst here for sure.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course editing can change meaning! What though was edited? Those clips were not the subject of the programme. The programme’s meaning wasn’t altered in any way at all. They were but an incidental aspect of a bigger story, yet Trump, as usual, sees every story as about him. It was a mistake, the non contemporaneousness of the two clips should have been acknowledged. An apology is more than sufficient.

If the BBC had produced anything showing an imaginary event then that it was imaginary should always be acknowledged, and is. Showing him firing a gun into a crowd, knowing his 5th Avenue claims, as an example of how his mind works, would be perfectly reasonable. Provided it’s acknowledged as just an illustration.
Click to expand...
Perfectly reasonable if there was any proof that's how his mind works beyond your prejudice.
You'll be defending their Christmas night offering next.
 
Spiderman said:
Your 3rd paragraph is somewhat bizarre. Did he say those things in the manner that the programme suggested? Why were those 2 clips put together in the first place? Only one logical reason but your logic seems to have been lost in your BBC love in and hatred of Trump. No malice involved 😂 err OK
Click to expand...
It’s not bizarre at all. You don’t get the point. The programme wasn’t about Trump, or his speech. It was about his supporters. The edit was a mistake, but it didn’t alter the overall meaning of the programme. An apology was made for the mistake. Job done.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Do you remember hislm telling his supporters to march peacefully on the Capitol? Probably not since that's the bit that was edited out.
Click to expand...
Of course I do, and in its actual context of an afterthought. The fight, fight fight stands out much more.

It wasn’t that speech that was in focus. It was everything said and done by him and those around him prior to that day. Those clips simply being examples of the rhetoric. Telling the overall story. Not the one Trump, and you it seems, want to divert to. The phrases at the end of a rambling speech. They were but a tiny fraction of the whole.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course I do, and in its actual context of an afterthought. The fight, fight fight stands out much more.

It wasn’t that speech that was in focus. It was everything said and done by him and those around him prior to that day. Those clips simply being examples of the rhetoric. Telling the overall story. Not the one Trump, and you it seems, want to divert to. The phrases at the end of a rambling speech. They were but a tiny fraction of the whole.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Trump. I'm questioning the role of the BBC which isn't to interpret what those in office say and present their idea of what they actually mean. That's no more than propaganda.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
It’s not bizarre at all. You don’t get the point. The programme wasn’t about Trump, or his speech. It was about his supporters. The edit was a mistake, but it didn’t alter the overall meaning of the programme. An apology was made for the mistake. Job done.
Click to expand...
Believe what you like, that it was a genuine mistake. I believe it was intentional
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course I do, and in its actual context of an afterthought. The fight, fight fight stands out much more.

It wasn’t that speech that was in focus. It was everything said and done by him and those around him prior to that day. Those clips simply being examples of the rhetoric. Telling the overall story. Not the one Trump, and you it seems, want to divert to. The phrases at the end of a rambling speech. They were but a tiny fraction of the whole.
Click to expand...
Why does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top