• 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

GB News presenter


Lee Harris
@LeeHarris
BREAKING: Trump CONFIRMS he will be filing a lawsuit against the BBC "probably this afternoon/tomorrow morning".
I want Trump to financially destroy the BBC so comprehensively that it can't survive in its current form.
Absolutely wonderful news.
Trump is NOT backing down!
 
The BBC has said it will defend a $5bn (£3.7bn) lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump against the BBC over an edit of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama documentary.

A BBC spokesperson said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case."

"We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings."

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC says it will defend Trump defamation lawsuit over Panorama speech edit

The US president has requested $5bn (£3.7bn) in damages, according to court documents filed in Florida.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Andy_Ross said:
Donald Trump's $10bn claim against the BBC refers to Liz Truss

"No less an authority than the United Kingdom’s former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, discussed this bias, the need to hold the BBC accountable, and the BBC’s pattern of actual malice"

...snip...
Click to expand...
Well it is true - there is no less of an authority as Truss, on any subject.
 
a_unique_person said:
In all the cases that have been settled it was politically expedient to settle. No one wants to get on his wrong side and defeat him. Anything would be an option for his revenge.
Click to expand...
In all the cases settled there were external political reasons to settle. A court of law would swiftly have thrown all the cases out as lacking any legal merit, same as with this one.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Donald Trump's $10bn claim against the BBC refers to Liz Truss

"No less an authority than the United Kingdom’s former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, discussed this bias, the need to hold the BBC accountable, and the BBC’s pattern of actual malice"
Click to expand...

There literally is no less an authority than Liz Truss.
 
The simplest argument for the BBC to make is that the edit didn't change the truth (and the truth is always a rock-solid defence in any slander or libel lawsuit).

And that truth is, while the edit was ill advised, it didn't change what the Panorama documentary was implying, which was that The Fat Orange Turd incited the January 6 protesters to attack the Capitol, and which according to the bipartisan investigation by the House, is exactly what he did!

I would expect the BBC to call every member of that committee as witnesses - its especially important to get the two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to testify.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The simplest argument for the BBC to make is that the edit didn't change the truth (and the truth is always a rock-solid defence in any slander or libel lawsuit).
Click to expand...
Too late to say that when they already apologised for the edit.

Their best defence is that Trump suffered no harm from it. He's suing in Florida as it's too late to sue in the UK. The programme wasn't available in Florida and (I gather) he would have to show the FL court he suffered reputational harm there because of it.
 
Last edited:
To slightly divert the thread. this is something that the BBC does that very few other agencies could do. They have identified a con man taking advantage of dying children in the developing world. I think very few agencies other than the BBC would take on issues in the developing world, have the resources to trck them across the globe. Identify the con man and chase him across Israel, Canada and the USA. I find this a heart breaking story. It is worth spreading so that the person who is earning millions off dying children is identified and reported to local law enforcement. It is also a justification for the BBC.

You should read it as an example of excellent journalism.

www.bbc.co.uk

Children with cancer scammed out of millions fundraised for their treatment, BBC finds

Huge amounts appear to have been raised for seriously ill children who never received the money.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Planigale said:
To slightly divert the thread. this is something that the BBC does that very few other agencies could do. They have identified a con man taking advantage of dying children in the developing world. I think very few agencies other than the BBC would take on issues in the developing world, have the resources to trck them across the globe. Identify the con man and chase him across Israel, Canada and the USA. I find this a heart breaking story. It is worth spreading so that the person who is earning millions off dying children is identified and reported to local law enforcement. It is also a justification for the BBC.

You should read it as an example of excellent journalism.

www.bbc.co.uk

Children with cancer scammed out of millions fundraised for their treatment, BBC finds

Huge amounts appear to have been raised for seriously ill children who never received the money.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: BBC dropped their investigation of Jimmy Savile. Maybe spending UKian TV license fees on diligently reporting scandals far from Albion's shores, rather than telling their own citizens about the fox in their own henhouse isn't the virtue you think it is.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Too late to say that when they already apologised for the edit.
Click to expand...
Not really.

"sorry if you were offended by what we did"

Does not mean we think we did anything wrong

Also, apologies are not made under oath..
Jack by the hedge said:
Their best defence is that Trump suffered no harm from it. He's suing in Florida as it's too late to sue in the UK. The programme wasn't available in Florida and (I gather) he would have to show the FL court he suffered reputational harm there because of it.
Click to expand...
23 million people in Florida, and not one of them saw the Panorama doco when it was broadcast .. because none of the are expats with a VPN and access to BBC iPlayer?
 
Last edited:
You never know which smartcooky is going to turn up. On the one hand, you may have this one, insisting that the BBC were completely truthful and merely made a slight editing issue... and there is no way Trump can win against the truth!
smartcooky said:
The simplest argument for the BBC to make is that the edit didn't change the truth (and the truth is always a rock-solid defence in any slander or libel lawsuit).

And
that truth is, while the edit was ill advised, it didn't change what the Panorama documentary was implying, which was that The Fat Orange Turd incited the January 6 protesters to attack the Capitol, and which according to the bipartisan investigation by the House, is exactly what he did!
I would expect the BBC to call every member of that committee as witnesses - its especially important to get the two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to testify.
Click to expand...
Or the one in which he excoriates the BBC for "misleading the public" in a way in which there was "NO excuse", and in their "jewel in the crown" Panorama...
smartcooky said:
Good, and about time!

No matter how much people might despise the serial liar we know as The Fat Orange Prolapsed Anus (and I despise him as much as any of the lefties on this forum) there is absolutely NO excuse for what the BBC did - willfully allowing the airing of footage they KNEW was intentionally edited together for the purpose of misleading the public.... in ANY documentary program, let alone their jewel in the crown, Panorama.
Click to expand...
...and there is no way Trump can lose!
smartcooky said:
In the meantime, we now know the BBC is going to apologise to The Fat Orange Turd for what they did.
I hope that appeases him enough that he won't sue them, because he will be the only winner - under UK law, it would be a slam dunk win for him.
Click to expand...
 
smartcooky said:
23 million people in Florida, and not one of them saw the Panorama doco when it was broadcast .. because none of the are expats with a VPN and access to BBC iPlayer?
Click to expand...

From the article linked above:

One claim in his filing is that viewers watched via virtual private networks (or VPNs). Even if that is correct, did that happen in significant numbers to cause him reputational damage and can the BBC really be held responsible for the behaviour of unlawful users of its services?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom