BREAKING: Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action, according to BBC News.
This follows the allegations of BBC bias over a Panorama edit of a Donald Trump speech.
Call his bluff.
The BBC needs to sue him first in the US, where the high “Actual Malice” standard of defamation applies. Even with that high bar, it’s difficult to defend what they actually broadcast.
A London libel court would throw the book at the BBC.
Looks like the licence fee payers will be contributing to that new ballroom in Washington.
Irrespective of the legal issues, you would need to get a Jury in London to decide in favour of Trump.
Even if that is passed, the Judge would need to decide on the value of the damage to Trump's reputation. And -as far as I can tell- there has never been a libel case against an indicidual in the UK where damages have topped 1m.
So, my instinct, if I were the BBC would be to apologose for the selective editing, but offer no damages, and if Trump wants to sue for libel (and run up millions of pounds of legal fees he will almost certainly not recover), then he is welcome to do so.
Trump will do what he always does in such cases: shout about taking legal action, maybe initiate it, but then quietly drop it when the headlines move on.
Could Trump get a British jury to find in his favour? Might get a decision to agree, but damages, say £1, and no order as to costs, at best.
This pretty well illustrates the BBC's problem. The pool of chancers from whom its board is drawn isn't quite as bad as this, but not are they vastly better.
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
This pretty well illustrates the BBC's problem. The pool of chancers from whom its board is drawn isn't quite as bad as this, but not are they vastly better.
A golden political opportunity has now fallen into Keir Starmer's lap. He can turn around his poll ratings by announcing the privatisation of the BBC, giving shares to all licence fee payers (ready to be taxed by Rachel Reeves).
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Reading the thread, and listening to the edited recording, it is clear the BBC acted egregiously, and your attempts to play it down because it is Trump does you no credit nor anyone else who downplays it or, worse blames everyone but the BBC ( like Reeves who blames everyone else but herself)
This, along with other inexcusable journalism, has understandably put the BBC in the spotlight both here and abroad and sadly handed Trump a coup (please excuse the pun)
Where the BBC goes from here is a genuine question, but certainly it is time to compete with other media and not at the taxpayers expense
To be fair I rarely watch the BBC having stopped watching Panorama, Question Time, and Newsnight years ago and the rest of their output does not interest me
Who would have thought the BBC could have committed such hari kari on itself
What complete rubbish! have you ever watched Fox News? It's par for the course on there and it's the only station Trump will appear on. All TV stations edit. Its not only normal it's alaways done. If you think it gives a wrong impression and showed bias welcome to the world Trump and his pals have created.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Reading the thread, and listening to the edited recording, it is clear the BBC acted egregiously, and your attempts to play it down because it is Trump does you no credit nor anyone else who downplays it or, worse blames everyone but the BBC ( like Reeves who blames everyone else but herself)
This, along with other inexcusable journalism, has understandably put the BBC in the spotlight both here and abroad and sadly handed Trump a coup (please excuse the pun)
Where the BBC goes from here is a genuine question, but certainly it is time to compete with other media and not at the taxpayers expense
To be fair I rarely watch the BBC having stopped watching Panorama, Question Time, and Newsnight years ago and the rest of their output does not interest me
Who would have thought the BBC could have committed such hari kari on itself
What complete rubbish! have you ever watched Fox News? It's par for the course on there and it's the only station Trump will appear on. All TV stations edit. Its not only normal it's alaways done. If you think it gives a wrong impression and showed bias welcome to the world Trump and his pals have created.
I'm not sure saying the BBC acts like Fox news is the defence you think it is...
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
It will be interesting to see how the legal responsibility chain works for this.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Those American numbers don’t wash with UK courts. It would likely be a six-figure settlement with a big argument about costs.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
It will be interesting to see how the legal responsibility chain works for this.
The BBC holds the broadcast licence and are the regulated operator.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
He's not going to get $15bn from the NYT. His case got promptly chucked out, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62n7025wdgo , and he's had to re-file it. Trump performatively sues for these ridiculously large sums. No court has ever awarded him such damages.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
Which independent production company are you pinning it on?
Wiki says it is produced by "BBC Factual", which doesn't sound independent or accurate..
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
While that's true, the BBC is ultimately responsible for what it broadcasts. If it wants to turn around and sue the production company in turn, it is free to do so.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Those American numbers don’t wash with UK courts. It would likely be a six-figure settlement with a big argument about costs.
Indeed: and given Trump's habit of stiffing his lawyers over bills, he might struggle to find a barrister to represent him in the UK.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Sure it will.
The orange thug needs to prove damages. There are none here.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
While that's true, the BBC is ultimately responsible for what it broadcasts. If it wants to turn around and sue the production company in turn, it is free to do so.
Quite. And isn’t a lot of the fuss that when it was drawn to the attention within the BBC there was no consequences.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
It will be interesting to see how the legal responsibility chain works for this.
The BBC holds the broadcast licence and are the regulated operator.
Does the buck stop with them automatically? Sounds to me as if our learned friends will be frantically examine precedent, contract law and the contracts in question…
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Those American numbers don’t wash with UK courts. It would likely be a six-figure settlement with a big argument about costs.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Those American numbers don’t wash with UK courts. It would likely be a six-figure settlement with a big argument about costs.
No, it isn't. Show me a libel case that Trump has won. He has a long track record of losing or dropping cases.
There is no possibility of bringing a case in the US, because US libel laws are much more in favour of free speech. (Also, what would happen to US poliical advertising if people weren't allowed to use quotes out of context?)
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
Which independent production company are you pinning it on?
Wiki says it is produced by "BBC Factual", which doesn't sound independent or accurate..
It's entirely possible that BBC Factual subcontracted all - or even a portion - of a show to an outside production company.
She’s going to agree to an expensive welfare cost that is not widely supported by the electorate, but is a totem of the labour movement, to ram through a manifesto breaking series of tax changes. Parliamentary party management is more important than the good finances of the country.
There is no possibility of bringing a case in the US, because US libel laws are much more in favour of free speech. (Also, what would happen to US poliical advertising if people weren't allowed to use quotes out of context?)
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
He has, though, succeeded in extorting large payments in the US. It's pretty likely he'll try something similar here.
Those who are impressed by Gavin Newsom should read about the Camp Fire, which occurred while he was lieutenant governor to Jerry Brown, and about to become governor:
The 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California's Butte County was one of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California history. The fire began on the morning of November 8, 2018, when part of a poorly maintained Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission line in the Feather River Canyon failed during strong katabatic winds. Those winds rapidly drove the Camp Fire through the communities of Concow, Magalia, Butte Creek Canyon, and Paradise, largely destroying them. The fire burned for another two weeks, and was contained on Sunday, November 25, after burning 153,336 acres (62,050 ha). The Camp Fire caused 85 fatalities, displaced more than 50,000 people, and destroyed more than 18,000 structures, causing an estimated US$16.5 billion in damage.
Three notes: Yes, it's from Wikipedia, which is less trustworthy these days, but this article does contain most of the facts.
Two, but not this one: Apparently, the Brown/Newsom administration did not send helicopters in to rescue those trapped by the fire.
Three: In some states of the US, power companies are so heavily regulated it is best to think of them as arms of the state. So any PGE failures can be at least partly ascribed to the Brown/Newsom administration.
There are reasons rural voters have turned against Democrats.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Reading the thread, and listening to the edited recording, it is clear the BBC acted egregiously, and your attempts to play it down because it is Trump does you no credit nor anyone else who downplays it or, worse blames everyone but the BBC ( like Reeves who blames everyone else but herself)
This, along with other inexcusable journalism, has understandably put the BBC in the spotlight both here and abroad and sadly handed Trump a coup (please excuse the pun)
Where the BBC goes from here is a genuine question, but certainly it is time to compete with other media and not at the taxpayers expense
To be fair I rarely watch the BBC having stopped watching Panorama, Question Time, and Newsnight years ago and the rest of their output does not interest me
Who would have thought the BBC could have committed such hari kari on itself
What complete rubbish! have you ever watched Fox News? It's par for the course on there and it's the only station Trump will appear on. All TV stations edit. Its not only normal it's alaways done. If you think it gives a wrong impression and showed bias welcome to the world Trump and his pals have created.
This is only rubbish in your eyes because like @Scott_xP you are blinded by your dislike of Trump to not see that the BBC did this all on their own and are reaping the consequences
Like GB news I do not watch Fox news and do not support Trump or Farage or the right, but I can see deflection by those who are trying to defend the indefensible
I would add you were wrong when you said Nandy would appoint the next DG which is entirely the responsibility of the BBC board, but then being wrong is in your DNA
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
Those American numbers don’t wash with UK courts. It would likely be a six-figure settlement with a big argument about costs.
How does "truth is a defence" sit here?
Trump did what he is accused of, but is complaining about the form of the programme.
In my view this has much to do with the BBC being one of the most highly regarded news services in the USA, and Trump's desire to cow media reporting he does not like.
That’s unusually low for his blowhard legal threats.
Of course he will actually drop the lawsuit/settle for 10p.
That, of course, is the game. To settle and to claim victory, and to imply that you won gazillions.
The game has been to be seen to be "fighting" against "attacks", and to raise money off the back of that. MAGA is often about victimhood. Most of the older cases where Trump has sued, he's quietly dropped rather than settled.
The game now is to use the power of the state to bully opponents.
There is no possibility of bringing a case in the US, because US libel laws are much more in favour of free speech. (Also, what would happen to US poliical advertising if people weren't allowed to use quotes out of context?)
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
He has, though, succeeded in extorting large payments in the US. It's pretty likely he'll try something similar here.
He's been able to extort such because he used the power of the state. He could threaten to cut off govt funding etc. That's not an issue for the BBC.
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
Which independent production company are you pinning it on?
Wiki says it is produced by "BBC Factual", which doesn't sound independent or accurate..
It's entirely possible that BBC Factual subcontracted all - or even a portion - of a show to an outside production company.
I checked..
The "documentary" - Trump: A Second Chance? was made by October Films
There is no possibility of bringing a case in the US, because US libel laws are much more in favour of free speech. (Also, what would happen to US poliical advertising if people weren't allowed to use quotes out of context?)
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
What reputation does Trump have that has been defamed?
She’s going to agree to an expensive welfare cost that is not widely supported by the electorate, but is a totem of the labour movement, to ram through a manifesto breaking series of tax changes. Parliamentary party management is more important than the good finances of the country.
The cap was never going to survive any Labour government even remotely worthy of the party's history and purpose. Nor should it.
If reducing child poverty isn't a driving purpose of Labour what is the point?
Far all of those saying call his bluff, if you read the rest of this thread apparently not only is he not bluffing but the Beeb are bang to rights and we should send all of our license fee money to him immediately
If only the BBC hadn't used stupid editing and not said it was edited.
The BBC did not edit Trump's speech. The independent production company that makes Panorama edited Trump's speech. The BBC broadcast Panorama with the edited version of Trump's speech.
Which independent production company are you pinning it on?
Wiki says it is produced by "BBC Factual", which doesn't sound independent or accurate..
It's entirely possible that BBC Factual subcontracted all - or even a portion - of a show to an outside production company.
I checked..
The "documentary" - Trump: A Second Chance? was made by October Films
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
He's not going to get $15bn from the NYT. His case got promptly chucked out, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62n7025wdgo , and he's had to re-file it. Trump performatively sues for these ridiculously large sums. No court has ever awarded him such damages.
It would be an interesting court case. The thrust of the doc (with the dodgy edit) was that Donald Trump tried his utmost by various means culminating in the riotous intimidation of Jan 6th to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election and cling onto power. He'd need to make the case that this is a libellous untruth. It could therefore be a proxy for the trial (on that very charge) that he escaped having due to his re-election. I doubt he'd want that.
Personally, I think Trump shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for libel until he's paid the libel settlement he owes!
I think he should sue the BBC for libel and hopefully like Christine Keeler his reputation for probity and honesty is such he'll be awarded 5p damages.
Regrettably as his administration controls the issue of broadcast licences, they will come to a financial settlement as they will want the US revenue.
He's suing the NYT for $15bn. Any settlement with the BBC will be very financially painful.
He's already been handed his arse on a plate once on the NYT case because:
A legal complaint, the judge said, is not "a protected platform to rage against an adversary". He gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62n7025wdgo
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Newsom is right though. Schumer folded and for not a jot. No concessions on healthcare, the Dems might as well not have bothered. A quick vote in Congress then MAGA Mike shuts down Congress again before any Epstein vote. The Dems have been played by the WH.
And why don't you like Newsom? Yes he's financed by Getty money but that is a hell of a lot less troublesome than Putin money.
I doubt he will survive until 2028. He looks way stronger than anyone else so I expect MAGA Mafia will put a target on his back.
Brave Sir Nigel has been talking to Donald Trump, and Trump is not happy.
FFS the edit was clumsy but the words were Trump's. If there has been no edit Trump would still have been hoist by his own petard. Stupid BBC.
And apparently there was a plan to apologise for the edit without resignation but ex GBNews's Robbie Gibb led a revolt which culminated in Davie's resigning. With friends like Gibb, who needs enemies?
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Newsom is right though. Schumer folded and for not a jot. No concessions on healthcare, the Dems might as well not have bothered. A quick vote in Congress then MAGA Mike shuts down Congress again before any Epstein vote. The Dems have been played by the WH.
And why don't you like Newsom? Yes he's financed by Getty money but that is a hell of a lot less troublesome than Putin money.
I doubt he will survive until 2028. He looks way stronger than anyone else so I expect MAGA Mafia will put a target on his back.
BIB - Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't think that it was Schumer who folded - but 8 random Dems who stopped following Schumer's line? (Now there's a separate point about should he have managed to keep caucus discipline and keep them in line - but that's a different thing)
I am still not sure the optics will work out (alongside other areas). She’s essentially taxing us all more and failing to cut spending at all, because her backbenchers won’t let her.
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Newsom is right though. Schumer folded and for not a jot. No concessions on healthcare, the Dems might as well not have bothered. A quick vote in Congress then MAGA Mike shuts down Congress again before any Epstein vote. The Dems have been played by the WH.
And why don't you like Newsom? Yes he's financed by Getty money but that is a hell of a lot less troublesome than Putin money.
I doubt he will survive until 2028. He looks way stronger than anyone else so I expect MAGA Mafia will put a target on his back.
I don't understand why trying to help GOP out of a massive hole of their own digging over healthcare for their poor, rural voters in time for 2026 is a Dem priority myself.
It's a funny old world when the world's greatest-ever purveyor of bigly fake news is suing the BBC for fake news. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
There is no possibility of bringing a case in the US, because US libel laws are much more in favour of free speech. (Also, what would happen to US poliical advertising if people weren't allowed to use quotes out of context?)
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
He has, though, succeeded in extorting large payments in the US. It's pretty likely he'll try something similar here.
He's been able to extort such because he used the power of the state. He could threaten to cut off govt funding etc. That's not an issue for the BBC.
It is certainly a potential issue for our government.
She’s going to agree to an expensive welfare cost that is not widely supported by the electorate, but is a totem of the labour movement, to ram through a manifesto breaking series of tax changes. Parliamentary party management is more important than the good finances of the country.
Its a smart move.The thing that's pissing one time supporters off is that Labour now look indistinguishable from the Tories.
Even if it costs they need to start showing a difference.......
So while Farage and Kemi want to make life hell for asylum seekers....
........Labour are looking after the nations children..... even those without a third child can spot the difference between the racists and the good guys
Good grief, that's pretty much the entirety of WATO spent on the BBC's Trump speech edit. Is there no other news today? While I'm broadly a fan of the BBC, the corporation's inflated sense of its own importance does irk me.
The BBC loves nothing more than looking at its own navel.
The Trump issue is mostly a distraction from the more serious impartiality issues around Gaza, transgenderism, climate, where there’s a clear capture of the organisation from lobby groups and young staff.
I am not clear from anywhere what 'impartial' coverage of Gaza/Israel and allied issues could possibly look like. Example. There is widespread disagreement as to a vast range of facts in both recent and older history. (Eg should Israel be treated as a nation state in the same way that, say, France is treated, or should it be treated as occupied territory properly belonging to other groups with other names.)
Does 'impartial' coverage allow 'moral facts'? Whether there are moral facts has been bitterly contested at least since the 18th century.
A related point. In an age of infinite media sources, the BBC is caught between two stools. Other outlets are more interesting because they allow themselves to be more sharply polemical (eg Simon Marks, LBC's USA man, though in his case IMO just as true if not truer). The BBC tries to do comment, but has to be balanced and we know in advance it won't come to sharp decisive conclusion. Many of its problems stem from its understandable departure from old fashioned news, as once there was in newspapers, where there was an absolutely decisive line between news/facts and editorial comment. The BBC does comment all the time. Even in actual news bulletins. Our appetite for it is insatiable.
There is also the problem that facts are expensive and opinions are free. See the internet passim for the daily outpouring of this truth.
About 20 years ago there was a study done om media bias. The researchers tried to pull together a news item on Israel/Palestine and to do it in as bare bones a manner possible. Literally, just the agreed facts from both Israeli and Palestinian press.
They showed the video to 50 or so students in Israel and Palestine.
Without exception, every single one of the students thought it biased. Why? Because they felt that it was unfair to present their side's actions without the appropriate justifications. It wasn't unbiased, they thought, unless it explained why the Israeli government / Palestinian protestors acted as they did [Delete as Appropriate].
I think about that study a lot, because it shows both how incredibly hard impartial news is to generate, and that we humans don't really want impartial news.
The BBC has been pretty even handed over the years. They've regularly platformed spokespersons from both sides telling the most egregious lies.
There are several sorts of impartiality. One is LBC's - to get presenters of very differing slants occupying daily slots. Another is for presenters to be impartial but to get two lying distorters on different sides either to argue or one after the other while wasting our time.
There is a third, which the BBC is well placed to do instead, which is highly professional and expert reporting of what government and parliament are actually doing, especially what they are covering up, and what is actually occurring in the UK and the world.
Two things: when a politicians evades answering a fair question, the evasion should be the story. It shouldn't be the BBCs job to just allow them to do it.
Political interviews should be mostly pre recorded so that we don't have to listen to non answers. A short report detailing the issues they evaded is enough.
In parliament they are obliged not to mislead. So report that properly. In selec t committee they can be required to answer. Report properly on those.
Most journalists need a lot more training in how to frame questions, and how to get properly informed when interviewing. It's hard work. (Neil and Husain should run a course.)
I am still not sure the optics will work out (alongside other areas). She’s essentially taxing us all more and failing to cut spending at all, because her backbenchers won’t let her.
Whilst we all enjoy excellent services. Hm
We did vote for said backbenchers. (OK, not individually for many of us, but as a nation.) Isn't that how democracy works?
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
David, they only care about saving their own skins and lucrative positions. The only option that is viable is large cuts in spending , they can tinker about with tax but what they should be doing is simplifying tax big time and taking an axe to spending. That is what happens to ordinary people when they max out their credit cards etc. Sheer lunacy but they will be well insulated.
Comments
Tell the greedy liar to do one.
The pool of chancers from whom its board is drawn isn't quite as bad as this, but not are they vastly better.
BBC Breakfast inviting on Kelvin MacKenzie to talk about integrity and standards in journalism. 🤯🤯
https://x.com/JamesPearceLFC/status/1987808395055808995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzyC_rPzwJM
(Causing death by dangerous driving, one day after passing test.)
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
31m
NEW: Rachel Reeves signals she intends to remove the two-child cap *in full*
"I don't think a child should be penalised because they're in a bigger family through no fault of their own," she tells BBC.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar
Wiki says it is produced by "BBC Factual", which doesn't sound independent or accurate..
(As, politely, are Labour)
The orange thug needs to prove damages. There are none here.
His cheerleaders - like yourself - have not changed their opinions of him. The rest of us likewise always felt like this about him:
https://x.com/sirDukeDevin/status/1987681434778079696
No doubt he'll try to exert political pressure on our government in the same way he has on various US commercial entities.
He should be resisted.
He's welcome to sue in London. But he's not going to get 1bn. Or even 10m. Or even 1m.
Of course he will actually drop the lawsuit/settle for 10p.
Parliamentary party management is more important than the good finances of the country.
It's pretty likely he'll try something similar here.
Three notes: Yes, it's from Wikipedia, which is less trustworthy these days, but this article does contain most of the facts.
Two, but not this one: Apparently, the Brown/Newsom administration did not send helicopters in to rescue those trapped by the fire.
Three: In some states of the US, power companies are so heavily regulated it is best to think of them as arms of the state. So any PGE failures can be at least partly ascribed to the Brown/Newsom administration.
There are reasons rural voters have turned against Democrats.
Like GB news I do not watch Fox news and do not support Trump or Farage or the right, but I can see deflection by those who are trying to defend the indefensible
I would add you were wrong when you said Nandy would appoint the next DG which is entirely the responsibility of the BBC board, but then being wrong is in your DNA
Trump did what he is accused of, but is complaining about the form of the programme.
In my view this has much to do with the BBC being one of the most highly regarded news services in the USA, and Trump's desire to cow media reporting he does not like.
The game now is to use the power of the state to bully opponents.
The "documentary" - Trump: A Second Chance? was made by October Films
https://octoberfilms.co.uk/about/
More likely to be 10p here.
If reducing child poverty isn't a driving purpose of Labour what is the point?
A legal complaint, the judge said, is not "a protected platform to rage against an adversary". He gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62n7025wdgo
And why don't you like Newsom? Yes he's financed by Getty money but that is a hell of a lot less troublesome than Putin money.
I doubt he will survive until 2028. He looks way stronger than anyone else so I expect MAGA Mafia will put a target on his back.
FFS the edit was clumsy but the words were Trump's. If there has been no edit Trump would still have been hoist by his own petard. Stupid BBC.
And apparently there was a plan to apologise for the edit without resignation but ex GBNews's Robbie Gibb led a revolt which culminated in Davie's resigning. With friends like Gibb, who needs enemies?
Whilst we all enjoy excellent services. Hm
Maybe i am missing something?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
dag
@davidallengreen.bsky.social
· 7m
My post on President Trump threatening to sue the BBC will up tomorrow morning.
https://bsky.app/profile/davidallengreen.bsky.social/post/3m5bynk4gkk2n
NEW THREAD
Even if it costs they need to start showing a difference.......
So while Farage and Kemi want to make life hell for asylum seekers....
........Labour are looking after the nations children..... even those without a third child can spot the difference between the racists and the good guys
There is a third, which the BBC is well placed to do instead, which is highly professional and expert reporting of what government and parliament are actually doing, especially what they are covering up, and what is actually occurring in the UK and the world.
Two things: when a politicians evades answering a fair question, the evasion should be the story. It shouldn't be the BBCs job to just allow them to do it.
Political interviews should be mostly pre recorded so that we don't have to listen to non answers. A short report detailing the issues they evaded is enough.
In parliament they are obliged not to mislead. So report that properly. In selec t committee they can be required to answer. Report properly on those.
Most journalists need a lot more training in how to frame questions, and how to get properly informed when interviewing. It's hard work. (Neil and Husain should run a course.)
It's very good. Gill doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I have linked it elsewhere.
* A note to the lawyers, he has been convicted.