• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread BBC news reporting

arthwollipot said:
YouGov is an online self-selection poll.
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
Yes it is. It's an internet based poll.

Don't let the Gov in the name fool you in to thinking it's some kind of official government organisation.

Founder Nadhim Zahawi is Iraqi-born British former politician who served in various ministerial positions under prime ministers Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.
The other founder Stephan Shakespeare is the former owner of the websites ConservativeHome (now owned by Lord Ashcroft)
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s true. Apparently the snap polls involve sending out to a “representative sample” of the population. This is not like one of those polls that say, Elon Musk, likes to put out when he gets his brain-dead sycophants to vote on whether he’s the coolest person in the galaxy or the universe and his muppet followers think it’s the funniest thing since they farted in a crowded lift.
 
Andy_Ross said:
US President Donald Trump has said he has an "obligation" to sue the BBC over the way a section of his speech was edited in a Panorama documentary.

Speaking to Fox News, he said his 6 January 2021 speech had been "butchered" and the way it was presented had "defrauded" viewers.

"They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical."

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump says he has 'obligation' to sue BBC over speech edit

The US president indicates he will go ahead with a lawsuit against the BBC over how his speech was presented by Panorama.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
And if that is the case the BBC has an equal obligation to Arkell v Pressdram Ltd. him. And the UK Prime Minister should be up before the Commons decrying this overt attempt by a wannabe dictator to silence truthful and accurate reporting about him.
 
arthwollipot said:
YouGov is an online self-selection poll.
Click to expand...
No. Actually, for each survey, YouGov draws a nationally representative sample from a large panel of potential respondents and weights final responses to correct for sampling error. Their final results are thus demographically representative of the population with internet access (which is over 95% of the U.S.). FiveThirtyEight gives them a rating of B, which means that their accuracy is above average among polling firms.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump would undoubtedly lose a lawsuit. But that’s not the point, he doesn't want it to go to court.
The point is to bully the publicly funded BBC into offering a significant settlement like he's done to other media companies. It’s a politically charged counter-attack tactic Trump uses fairly regularly to force the media to only report good things about him.
Click to expand...
First off, media companies don't only report good things about him, not even the ones that have settled lawsuits with him. So that's a nonsensical motivation.

Second, I'm not sure why you're so confident that he would lose. I'm not going to argue that he would win, but your confidence seems unwarranted. What's it based on? And if he really had no chance at winning, why would they settle? It's not like they settled for a pittance, that was some real money. Why not just fight it in court and win?

I can actually think of a reason that they might settle even if they thought they could win, but you didn't mention it. And that's discovery. If a case goes to trial, Trump gets to exercise discovery. And what gets turned up during discovery could end up being very, very embarrassing to those companies, even if they don't lose. But frankly, if what they're hiding is that damning, then maybe they deserve to have to pay for it.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, media companies don't only report good things about him, not even the ones that have settled lawsuits with him. So that's a nonsensical motivation.

Second, I'm not sure why you're so confident that he would lose. I'm not going to argue that he would win, but your confidence seems unwarranted. What's it based on? And if he really had no chance at winning, why would they settle? It's not like they settled for a pittance, that was some real money. Why not just fight it in court and win?

I can actually think of a reason that they might settle even if they thought they could win, but you didn't mention it. And that's discovery. If a case goes to trial, Trump gets to exercise discovery. And what gets turned up during discovery could end up being very, very embarrassing to those companies, even if they don't lose. But frankly, if what they're hiding is that damning, then maybe they deserve to have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Even if you think you would win, that doesn't mean it doesn't cost you financially. You can win and still lose out on legal costs etc.

Discovery may be difficult transnationally, the BBC records will be in England not under a Florida court's jurisdiction; conversely Trump's records and US government records will be accessible to the BBC. BBC assets won't be accessible to the Florida court, and UK Parliament might put a block on the BBC paying damages to foreign heads of states in cases brought in that head of state's country's courts*. Even if the court ruled against Trump, the chances of the BBC getting Trump to pay his debt would be low.

*There is a danger here; Putin sues the BBC in Russia, Kim in North Korea, Xi in China, etc. The BBC might survive, but commercial organisations will not if foreign governments with unfavourable documentaries can enforce their own court's penalties on overseas media.
 
The BBC... not biased... not ideologically captured...


Nothing shows BBC bias like its gushing over men in women’s sport ​
..... And yet to BBC Sport, Hubbard was not an impostor open to criticism, but a trailblazer to be cherished.​
“The reluctant history-maker”: this was how it headlined a saccharine profile of Hubbard during the 2021 Games. “Hubbard’s selection as the first trans athlete in an individual sport,” the article said, “goes a long way towards changing centuries of sporting tradition.” The backlash was immediate, from licence fee payers outraged at the soft-soap treatment of a scandal and at the use of such ideological terms as “cis women”, treating women as a subset of their own sex. So did BBC Sport redress the imbalance? Hardly. It threatened to report dissenters to the police.​
​
Six months ago, a BBC piece on the Football Association’s decision to restrict women’s football solely to those born female – featuring a quote from an anonymous source that the move was a transgender ban “on the sly” – was written by an openly trans reporter. The BBC’s repeated reaction when challenged on its stance is to claim that it always reports a “wide range of views”.​

No bias there chaps.... amirite?
 
Planigale said:
Even if you think you would win, that doesn't mean it doesn't cost you financially. You can win and still lose out on legal costs etc.
Click to expand...
Which makes sense for small settlements. Doesn't make sense for large payouts.
Planigale said:
Discovery may be difficult transnationally, the BBC records will be in England not under a Florida court's jurisdiction
Click to expand...
This depends somewhat on where a suit would be filed, and I don't think I've seen anyone indicate where such a suit would be filed (if it ever is filed). But BBC America exposes the BBC to US court jurisdiction.
Planigale said:
; conversely Trump's records and US government records will be accessible to the BBC.
Click to expand...
True. I don't think Trump has much to hide in this regard. Discovery doesn't get you access to everything, only relevant things. In the BBC's case, it would be basically all records of how the edit was made, who made decisions about it, what they discussed, etc. In this case it might grant the BBC access to any recordings of the events of the day and maybe even documentation about the speech drafting process, but I don't think Trump is going to balk at delivering that.
Planigale said:
BBC assets won't be accessible to the Florida court
Click to expand...
Some of them are, but not all of them. Again, BBC America is a thing.
Planigale said:
, and UK Parliament might put a block on the BBC paying damages to foreign heads of states in cases brought in that head of state's country's courts*. Even if the court ruled against Trump, the chances of the BBC getting Trump to pay his debt would be low.

*There is a danger here; Putin sues the BBC in Russia, Kim in North Korea, Xi in China, etc. The BBC might survive, but commercial organisations will not if foreign governments with unfavourable documentaries can enforce their own court's penalties on overseas media.
Click to expand...
There is no danger here. Either Trump takes the BBC to court in the UK, and the case is tried under UK law, or he takes them to court in the US under US law and the BBC's financial exposure is due to BBC America, and the limit of that exposure is the size of BBC America. There is no risk that UK courts will enforce US law in the UK.

I do not believe that the BBC has any significant assets in either China or Russia, but if they do, those assets are at risk of seizure regardless of anything to do with this potential case.
 
Nessie said:
Delighted to see that the BBC is going for Trump;

"Epstein alleged that Trump 'spent hours' with one of his victims, as thousands of documents released"
Click to expand...
The victim in question is Virginia Guiffre, who has never claimed Trump did anything wrong. The BBC is participating in a smear job again, but this time their hands are legally clean.
 
jt512 said:
Sorry, but that is pure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. The blatant "progressive" bias of the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) has been painfully obvious for years and is now well documented, as is the long-running systematic failure of the BBC's leadership to deal with the problem. The corporation's director general and the CEO of its news division don't resign over quickly corrected isolated errors.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Ah yes the "blatant "progressive" bias" so documented by that paragon of neutrality, The Telegraph....
 
Ziggurat said:
The victim in question is Virginia Guiffre, who has never claimed Trump did anything wrong. The BBC is participating in a smear job again, but this time their hands are legally clean.
Click to expand...
I’m someone who thinks that the Epstein stuff is almost certainly overblown. Initially used by your side to smear Democrats, it has suddenly become a tool by Democrats to smear Trump. So while I agree, I have no sympathy.

Also, I find Virginia Giuffre to be a literally incredible source of anything given how much we know she has lied in the past.

That said, that fact also goes both ways, and the fact she said Trump did nothing could also be considered incredible.

There is also this, reported in the same BBC 🇬🇧🥰 article:

It appears top administration officials are meeting today with one of the signatories, Lauren Boebert of Colorado.

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky is a co-sponsor of the petition. The other two are Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

Greene - a firebrand conservative - has recently stepped up her criticism of Trump on a range of subjects.

The president in his recent Truth Social post on the Epstein matter called out members of his own party, saying "only a very bad, or stupid, Republican would fall into that trap" of supporting further Epstein inquiries.
Click to expand...

Why is Trump trying to stifle any further investigation? If he has nothing to hide then why be so desperate?
 
Ziggurat said:
The victim in question is Virginia Guiffre, who has never claimed Trump did anything wrong. The BBC is participating in a smear job again, but this time their hands are legally clean.
Click to expand...
It is evidence that Trump knew his best friend for 15 years preyed on underage girls and was around when it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom