“An episode of the Panorama documentary TV series misled viewers when it edited a speech by Trump, making it look like he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol on 6 January 2021”
In fairness, the unedited speech urged violence…
Hard to imagine this unedited speech line wasn’t meant to rile people up - “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,”
Yup. I remember sending people the transcript when they were trying to say “Yeah, he didn’t mean violently…”
Uh… did you read the transcript? 🤔
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
I mean, there was really no need to edit anything. The Truth is bad enough. Just report that, people!
You kinda have to edit trump to get him to form a complete sentence.
Let’s see… Trump lost. Therefor, he had no business being there the day votes were being verified by Congress.
He had no business being there ANYWAY.
And Congress didn’t “verify” anything. It was a rote formalism with about as much real power regarding the election as the coronation of the king of England.
Fair enough. In hindsight, my argument was assuming a lot but you get the gist.
I watched the entire J6 “rally” in real time. The message was coded, but clear. That mob was doing exactly what the people on stage wanted it to do.
If anything, you’d have to edit their speeches in order to not show that they were urging that crowd to fight.
Ugh, they apologized to this asshole.
Good luck during discovery, pedo
Yeah, let’s hear what Jack Smith has to say, live in front of Congress before saying BBC misrepresented anything…
How dare they hear the dog whistle?!
You can’t sue people from prison, silly rapist.
You kinda can in the US. Dunno about civilized countries.
He did do that, we all know he did that. I’m beyond sick at these motherfuckers who keep refuting reality.
I think the Beeb has told him to get stuffed, on the money. They know he’s as potent as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor at this point.
For the same reasons…
Wait til bro gets a Chris Morris edit
Mr Prescott, who until June 2025 was an independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, also highlights serious problems with BBC Arabic’s reporting on Gaza, in which it apparently gives extensive space to the views of Hamas.
I was curious what this meant, so I read the relevant section and while some of the arguments seem suspect, there were definitely massive red flags with the policies of BBC Arabic.
Haven’t read the US election part yet, but the points raised in the intro don’t sound coherent.
EDIT: The US election part is a lot less convincing. They should have explicitly stated that they are combining two separate sections from the speech, but the argument seems more like a technicality. Some other minor points were fair, but there were a lot of incoherent arguments. One example.
The BBC sometimes fell into using, without attribution, contested language such as “reproductive rights”. This signals to many BBC viewers, particularly those in America, a biased mindset.
Reproductive rights isn’t a contested term.
Meanwhile they busily edit anything a Democrat says to indicate something other than what the context of the statement was.
