A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

Which makes it even more stupid when you did something you never needed to do.

I've not seen the footage (and can't find it on a basic google search just talking head on it), is it obvious splicing or seamless?

Because I've seen plenty of speeches spliced together where there's a clear and obvious time gap between quotes. It normal editing.

 

[dirty harry]

I've not seen the footage (and can't find it on a basic google search just talking head on it), is it obvious splicing or seamless?

Because I've seen plenty of speeches spliced together where there's a clear and obvious time gap between quotes. It normal editing.

The quote:

"Were going to march down to the capitol, and ill be there with you and fight like hell"

They deleted:

"We're going to march down to the capitol to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women..."

The context of the panorama segment was obviously demonising Trumps role in Jan 6th.

I Think it depends on the segment on the doc, if they were discussing it as fact, and neutrally discussing events the splice is a dilly error, but if they were in the middle of demonising him for his actions, its malicious.

I avtually think the edit is probably on par for most reporting of Jan 6th, noone has covered it unbiased, and most places are happy not to consider the entire speach and delete what doesnt fir their narrative, so a BBC editor was probably just emboldened by the climate.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That's part of the issue for the BBC. They are meant to be unbiased, fact based reporting. Fox, GB news etc do exactly what they say on the tin and play for ratings from a base.

If the BBC want to go like Fox or Novara media, let them have at it. Just don't ask everyone to have to pay for it. We can all then scrat around for unbiased news sources or just watch ones that support our bias or beliefs.

Except none of those are even remotely honest about their own bias. I understand the point being made as the BBC is publicly funded, it's just as others have said, the biggest crying is coming from some of the most biased liars out there.

That's also the question of whether the editing is done to portray something different to reality. Given Trumps repeated comments and actions on the day, plus his pardoning of the Jan 6th lot, he clearly didn't have a problem with what happened.

 

[ncurd]

I avtually think the edit is probably on par for most reporting of Jan 6th, noone has covered it unbiased, and most places are happy not to consider the entire speach and delete what doesnt fir their narrative, so a BBC editor was probably just emboldened by the climate.

I think the narrative was quite simple he gave a speech deliberately designed to rile his supporters up (regardless of the exact words he said) to stop a perfectly legal democratic process which he was giving a false narrative to that got completely chucked out of court at every stage.

And even you've done it because this is the actual full quote

"Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."
Actually with the full quote I don't think splicing it and adding the fight like hell quote

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

Is actually changing the context of anything he said so can be justified from editorial standpoint.

 

[Welsh Exile]

That's part of the issue for the BBC. They are meant to be unbiased, fact based reporting. Fox, GB news etc do exactly what they say on the tin and play for ratings from a base.

If the BBC want to go like Fox or Novara media, let them have at it. Just don't ask everyone to have to pay for it. We can all then scrat around for unbiased news sources or just watch ones that support our bias or beliefs.

I expect better from the BBC but it's still not on the same level as the dominion stuff in my opinion. Fox News will say they’re an unbiased, fact based news agency as well.

 

[dirty harry]

I think the narrative was quite simple he gave a speech deliberately designed to rile his supporters up (regardless of the exact words he said) to stop a perfectly legal democratic process which he was giving a false narrative to that got completely chucked out of court at every stage.

And even you've done it because this is the actual full quote

"Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."
Actually with the full quote I don't think splicing it and adding the fight like hell quote

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

Is actually changing the context of anything he said so can be justified from editorial standpoint.

1. I dont want to get into the weeds on Jan 6th, I would call his actions irresponsible, im not as hysyerical as most here, and i certainly recognise parts of the speech where he talks about being peacefull.

2. Lucky im not editing a flagship BBC documentary series lol, i just read the quote from the BBC, and didnt end the 2nd bit because it doesnt matter really, he still said to cheer them on, even if he caveated it with well maybe not some of them.

3. The edit definitely does change the speech, it takes away his legal defence against calling for an insurection. If you eradicate the peaceful elements of the speech, which a lot of organisations are happy to do, its basically a call for violence.
I disagree with most here that hes a low IQ moron, that speech will have been crafted very carefully to rile the crowd up without putting himself in a legal dangerzone, its playing to the threshold, so yes removing those things makes a legal speech illegal.

4. According to the BBC, and most other journalistic based organisations it wasnt justified from an editorial standpoint.
As i said, i think its probably on par for journalistic standards over the last decade, many other organisations have done it, its just the BBC have the integrity to call it out when they are caught doing it, and for that i can applaud them.

 

[Welsh Exile]

1. I dont want to get into the weeds on Jan 6th, I would call his actions irresponsible, im not as hysyerical as most here, and i certainly recognise parts of the speech where he talks about being peacefull.

2. Lucky im not editing a flagship BBC documentary series lol, i just read the quote from the BBC, and didnt end the 2nd bit because it doesnt matter really, he still said to cheer them on, even if he caveated it with well maybe not some of them.

3. The edit definitely does change the speech, it takes away his legal defence against calling for an insurection. If you eradicate the peaceful elements of the speech, which a lot of organisations are happy to do, its basically a call for violence.
I disagree with most here that hes a low IQ moron, that speech will have been crafted very carefully to rile the crowd up without putting himself in a legal dangerzone, its playing to the threshold, so yes removing those things makes a legal speech illegal.

4. According to the BBC, and most other journalistic based organisations it wasnt justified from an editorial standpoint.
As i said, i think its probably on par for journalistic standards over the last decade, many other organisations have done it, its just the BBC have the integrity to call it out when they are caught doing it, and for that i can applaud them.

Have you read the entire transcript? It's like a hour long and is 90% him rambling on. I doubt very much it was carefully crafted. Most of it sounded like he was making it up on the spot.

 

[ncurd]

Have you read the entire transcript? It's like a hour long and is 90% him rambling on. I doubt very much it was carefully crafted. Most of it sounded like he was making it up on the spot.

Its more like every time he found himself pushing the boundaries he'd have someone in his ear piece tell him to caveat it. But also can't help himself if he thinks he's being too nice in saying not everyone.

It was a typical Trump speech his speech writers must tear their hair out at times how much he ad libs.

Lets be clear though it was a call to violence and everyone with ounce of political aptitude could hear what he was telling his supporters to do.

 

[dirty harry]

Have you read the entire transcript? It's like a hour long and is 90% him rambling on. I doubt very much it was carefully crafted. Most of it sounded like he was making it up on the spot.

Not for a long time, he would do hos Trump waffle, butni can guarentee there are plenty of points in there he was very careful to say, lile i said its ensured his aqcuital, ensuring to add 4 or 5 references to being peaceful etc...

Carefully crafted probably wasny the right descriptor though lol

 

[Saintjay]

Trump legal team threatening to sue the beeb. Unless certain conditions are met.

 

[ncurd]

Trump legal team threatening to sue the beeb. Unless certain conditions are met.

They'd struggle any ruling would absolutely destroy any other news organisation to meet their editorial guidelines and could also be sued.

 

[General Melchett]

Trump legal team threatening to sue the beeb. Unless certain conditions are met.View attachment 25005

You're missing a few zeros - it's a bill.

He's infamously litigious and has put many people and businesses to the wall with his army of lawyers over the years - the art of the deal.

 

[Becca]

Trump legal team threatening to sue the beeb. Unless certain conditions are met.View attachment 25005

Make that one billion dollars…

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He doesn't have a leg to stand on. He could extract an apology but there are no damages he could point to. The likes of George Soros could take every right wing media to the cleaners if it's established that this is a $1 billion case.

 

[ncurd]

Good piece

The truth about impartiality at the BBC

And the hysteria of the current "crisis"

goodallandgoodluck.substack.com

 

[dirty harry]

Good piece

The truth about impartiality at the BBC

And the hysteria of the current "crisis"

goodallandgoodluck.substack.com

That was super interesting until he stsrted on his narrative crusade...

Social media spat starting victim, is how i would describe him these days, which is a shame because he writes so well.

Defending the edit because the overall documentary was 'correct' is not a good argument, and then it just descends into an anti Trump diatribe. Doing bad things for good reasons is a dangerous game.

And this is key for me, defend the BBC by all means, argue against Davie leaving (although noone is lol) or that it was a mistake by an editor who genuinely believed it didnt change context (which it absolutely did), but thats not why hes mad, hes mad because Trump won again, and he needs to prove to everyone why Trump is bad.

Noone is able to just discuss the issues, without the obsession of calling Trump bad man, everything must be a global attack by Heir Trump on everyones freedoms in the scariest way possible.

at best this was an error in judgement, and thats probably where i lean, not because the person believed it didnt change context, but because every media organisation this person consumes does the same thing, so they probably just believed it was standard practice, but at worst its a maliciius attempt to frame Trumps words as other than what they were, and frame Trump as legally culpible, for a situation he was aqcuitted of.

Poor time for the BBC as they renegotiate their charter with the government, it wouldnt surprise me if this is used for radical change, and finally ending the license fee. I can imagine that would be a huge win for Starmer, but a grave error for society IMO

 

[General Melchett]

I see Karoline Leavitt wasted no time in telling people to watch GB news instead of BBC news. Good to see how much they value impartial reporting.

I don't know if that Panorama episode is still on iPlayer but as part of their apology and remediation steps the BBC should remove it and replace it with the entire speech unedited and with no commentary.

Legal experts seems to think that British courts wont rule so generously in favour of Trump as American courts. The BBC should maybe offer to donate $1m to the foodbanks of Trump's choosing. Jimmy Kimmel's ratings are through the roof since Trump tried to cancel him.

 

[Saintjay]

Interested to see what the BBC do. Some news channels have rolled over and had there bellies tickled before court. Others are holding firm. Also heard the BBC are getting twitchy about being kicked out of White Press briefings/access etc.

As they are global and have US offices I'm assuming he would have to in theory take the BBC to court in the US. Allegedly he has missed the UK statute of limitations.

With his threat of a $1bn lawsuit against BBC, Trump’s assault on the media goes global

US president’s latest media target comes from across the pond as he continues to scrutinize coverage he does not like

www.theguardian.com

 

[ncurd]

Interested to see what the BBC do. Some news channels have rolled over and had there bellies tickled before court. Others are holding firm.

As they are global and have US offices I'm assuming he would have to in theory take the BBC to court in the US. Allegedly he has missed the UK statute of limitations.

With his threat of a $1bn lawsuit against BBC, Trump’s assault on the media goes global

US president’s latest media target comes from across the pond as he continues to scrutinize coverage he does not like

www.theguardian.com

He'd be taking BBC America to court for broadcasting it? I dont know how he drags a British productions company, broadcasting in Britain to a US court.

 

[General Melchett]

I imagine the BBC America office will be viewed as a branch office. It'll likely be a matter of where the control, decision making and commissioning took place which would be the UK. I could be wrong though.