The bbc, again.

[Wisbech Eagle]

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.

That we can agree about! Our difference being that I am certain they didn’t and don’t do that, whilst you, and others here, apparently think they do.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

That we can agree about! Our difference being that I am certain they didn’t and don’t do that, whilst you, and others here, apparently think they do.

But that's been the basis for your defence over the Trump speech. Never mind what he actually said this is what he meant.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Believe what you like, that it was a genuine mistake. I believe it was intentional

Not only have they said it was a mistake they have explained how it probably happened. What those sticking their knives into the BBC conveniently overlook, is that nobody seems to have noticed, other than Mr Prescott, that the mistake happened.

Why was that? For me it’s obviously because in the context of the programme what Trump was heard saying was precisely the message he had been delivering for many weeks. That the election had been “stolen”, that Congress should refuse to ratify it and that his supporters needed to fight like hell to ensure they did. He knew for a long time that a lot of his more aggressive support groups were going to turn up that day and try to force Congress to revoke the election. It was all over social media. He did nothing at all to dissuade them.

 

[The Dolphin]

The BBC - someone working for them or maybe more than one person - did this on purpose.
It is typical of the crap that they report.
Trump won't win his case from a legal standpoint but he can tie them up in paperwork for years and it will cost us all a fortune.
Whoever did it should be publicly named and shamed.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Not only have they said it was a mistake they have explained how it probably happened. What those sticking their knives into the BBC conveniently overlook, is that nobody seems to have noticed, other than Mr Prescott, that the mistake happened.

Why was that? For me it’s obviously because in the context of the programme what Trump was heard saying was precisely the message he had been delivering for many weeks. That the election had been “stolen”, that Congress should refuse to ratify it and that his supporters needed to fight like hell to ensure they did. He knew for a long time that a lot of his more aggressive support groups were going to turn up that day and try to force Congress to revoke the election. It was all over social media. He did nothing at all to dissuade them.

Sure. It was a pure accident that the edit made it look as though he said something he hadn't and didn't indicate that any cuts had been made.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But that's been the basis for your defence over the Trump speech. Never mind what he actually said this is what he meant.

It’s not. The reasoning is very straightforward. The programme wasn’t about Trump or his speech. The short clips from the speech being used as examples of why and how his supporters believed what they did. The edit should have been made clear, that mistake being acknowledged, but in the context of the overall analysis that the programme made it was irrelevant, because he did say those things. He said similar things on many other occasions. The BBC just used those two clips.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It’s not. The reasoning is very straightforward. The programme wasn’t about Trump or his speech. The short clips from the speech being used as examples of why and how his supporters believed what they did. The edit should have been made clear, that mistake being acknowledged, but in the context of the overall analysis that the programme made it was irrelevant, because he did say those things. He said similar things on many other occasions. The BBC just used those two clips.

Without the intervening qualifying statements. That he might have said similar things in the past doesn't excuse anything except to anyone who pities Trump without pause.
Try taking Trump out of the equation and consider if this defence would be remotely plausible.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Sure. It was a pure accident that the edit made it look as though he said something he hadn't and didn't indicate that any cuts had been made.

But he did say things like that many times in the days prior to Jan 6th. As I expect the BBC team to show in Court. The BBC chose to make the point with those two clips, which should have been separated with a fade and a voice over “later in the speech”. It was an error but there is zero basis to claim harm..

Once again, the subject wasn’t Trump. It was what motivated the rioters.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Without the intervening qualifying statements. That he might have said similar things in the past doesn't excuse anything except to anyone who pities Trump without pause.
Try taking Trump out of the equation and consider if this defence would be remotely plausible.

Taking Trump out and replacing him with almost any another public figure would make a difference.

Not to the validity of any claim. That’s nonsense whoever might be involved. The difference being that nobody other than Trump would attempt to play the victim, try to divert attention from his own corruption and extract money from and silence his critics.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

But he did say things like that many times in the days prior to Jan 6th. As I expect the BBC team to show in Court. The BBC chose to make the point with those two clips, which should have been separated with a fade and a voice over “later in the speech”. It was an error but there is zero basis to claim harm..

Once again, the subject wasn’t Trump. It was what motivated the rioters.

Saying things like it are not the same as saying it and there is zero evidence it was accidental beyond the fact it was the sacred BBC responsible. How many opinions have been formed because of similar editing "errors" on their part?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Taking Trump out and replacing him with almost any another public figure would make a difference.

Not to the validity of any claim. That’s nonsense whoever might be involved. The difference being that nobody other than Trump would attempt to play the victim, try to divert attention from his own corruption and extract money from and silence his critics.

And this is true because?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And this is true because?

It will either be the reason why the claim is withdrawn on advice from his lawyers, or the Judge rules that the case be dismissed or, in the unlikely event that it gets decided by a Jury, the BBC wins.

If the BBC want to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the clips were merely indicative of the attitude which provoked the attack then they could always call as a witness the man who conducted the most thorough investigation into it. They call Jack Smith as an expert witness!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It will either be the reason why the claim is withdrawn on advice from his lawyers, or the Judge rules that the case be dismissed or, in the unlikely event that it gets decided by a Jury, the BBC wins.

If the BBC want to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the clips were merely indicative of the attitude which provoked the attack then they could always call as a witness the man who conducted the most thorough investigation into it. They call Jack Smith as an expert witness!

How does that fit with the accidental hypothesis?

 

[silvertop]

It's amazing what people will believe when it aligns with their political views.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

You took the words out of my mouth.

And it seemingly applies to you as much as anyone.

Although, I'm more inclined to think that you are just full of s***.

 

[Badger11]

Saying things like it are not the same as saying it and there is zero evidence it was accidental beyond the fact it was the sacred BBC responsible. How many opinions have been formed because of similar editing "errors" on their part?

The BBC keeps making mistakes, how many do they have to before someone say it's not a mistake but incompetence or plain bias.

How many times has the BBC made a mistake and said something positive about Trump, Farage or Robinson when it wasn't true. I don't remember them apologising for a positive spin on a story about a right winger.

Apologising for antisemitic, pro Hamas, pro trans, pro DEI etc, seems to be a monthly occurrence.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

If only Huw Edwards was at the helm of BBC news, I think things would be different.

 

[Glazier#1]

And it seemingly applies to you as much as anyone.

Although, I'm more inclined to think that you are just full of s***.

Oh dear.

Typical. At least with me you just privately messaged me to say, and I quote, "You're an a** hole".

Now you go public. You've run out of ideas, mate. Dear oh dear.

 

[beak]

Oh dear.

Typical. At least with me you just privately messaged me to say, and I quote, "You're an a** hole".

Now you go public. You've run out of ideas, mate. Dear oh dear.

I've used the ignore button so cannot read his one contribution that is reiterated ad infinitum.

 

[Spiderman]

Not only have they said it was a mistake they have explained how it probably happened. What those sticking their knives into the BBC conveniently overlook, is that nobody seems to have noticed, other than Mr Prescott, that the mistake happened.

Why was that? For me it’s obviously because in the context of the programme what Trump was heard saying was precisely the message he had been delivering for many weeks. That the election had been “stolen”, that Congress should refuse to ratify it and that his supporters needed to fight like hell to ensure they did. He knew for a long time that a lot of his more aggressive support groups were going to turn up that day and try to force Congress to revoke the election. It was all over social media. He did nothing at all to dissuade them.

Oh that’s alright then 🤦‍♂️