Oh my… the mental gymnastics here are Olympic-grade as usual… 😂 So the defence of the BBC’s creative splicing is now: “It wasn’t meant for American eyes, the topic is old news, and Trump won anyway so who cares if we stitched his words into something he never said?” Fascinating standard of journalism from BBC. Apparently accuracy is optional when the audience is foreign and the election is already in the rear-view mirror. Global broadcaster energy right there: “We only distort speeches for non-US markets. Totally fine. Reputation damage? What reputation damage? He won, didn’t he?” If the cut was clean, stand by it like adults. If it wasn’t, pay up and stop pretending the lawsuit is about “extortion” or “diversion” instead of the rather basic question of whether the BBC broadcast a version of reality that didn’t actually happen. But sure you can keep insisting the real issue is everything except the edit. That strategy’s working brilliantly so far. For me the BBC isn’t a news organisation. It’s a state-adjacent propaganda shop that’s been living high on the soft-power teat for decades. Including the steady drip of American taxpayer money through USAID and similar channels. The moment that particular lollipop got yanked by Trump the wailing started (even before that).
Create an account or sign in to comment