BBC Faces £4BN Trump Lawsuit Crisis; Starmer Backs Reforms

The BBC is reeling from a deepening scandal as US President Donald Trump vows to sue the broadcaster for up to $5 billion (£3.8 billion) over a misleading edit of his January 6, 2021, speech in a Panorama documentary. The clip unintentionally implied Trump incited the Capitol riot, prompting the BBC's apology on Thursday and the resignation of former director-general Tim Davie and BBC News head Deborah Turness. Trump, speaking on Air Force One Friday, dismissed the apology as insufficient, claiming the edit proved the BBC is "fake news" and that UK citizens are outraged. He plans to file the lawsuit next week, rejecting compensation offers.

 

Full Story HERE

lol Good luck with that, but anything to keep the public eye off ‘the files’, eh!

Let us suppose (and I think it unlikely) that an American (Florida) court finds against the BBC and awards these damages (and costs?). Should the BBC refuse to pay (and I think they should) just what will happen? Any sanctions in the USA are frankly unlikely to cost the BBC, and by extension the British taxpayer, anything remotely like £4 billion. I suppose that they could close down their broadcasting activities in the US, but there is always the internet; they could expell correspondents perhaps, I seem to remember Apartheid South Africa  and The Soviet Union did something like that but it didn't really work then, and now our connected world provides both the BBC and the interested British consumer with a myriad of sources.

 

Not a good look for the Land of The Free! The BBC, whatever one might think of it (and I am hardly uncritical) remains a largely trusted broadcaster with a global reach.

It sures looks like BBC sycophant's  we're trying to influence the election  of 2024 , coming out with  a deep  fake News  manipulation in that documentary only 8 days away  from the USA Nov 5th .2024 elections,time will tell during the lawsuit.   Hopefully Trump can continue his successful string of making the leftist news and tech industry pay for their behavior again. 

 

"The BBC is following the US establishment media down the path to irrelevance".

 

"The era of media fragmentation is under way. Establishment media faces waning relevance in a more competitive, if cacophonous, media environment".

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-following-us-establishment-media-165202678.html

Ah,  the BBC getting caught out with it's monkey business.

Nice.

 

 

 

 

Starmers reportedly contacting Trump to tell him the bbc needs to " Get there house in Order " I'm sure Trump will take notice what lap dog Starmer says.

5 hours ago, riclag said:

It sures looks like BBC sycophant's  we're trying to influence the election  of 2024 , coming out with  a deep  fake News  manipulation in that documentary only 8 days away  from the USA Nov 5th .2024 elections,time will tell during the lawsuit.   Hopefully Trump can continue his successful string of making the leftist news and tech industry pay for their behavior again. 

 

"The BBC is following the US establishment media down the path to irrelevance".

 

"The era of media fragmentation is under way. Establishment media faces waning relevance in a more competitive, if cacophonous, media environment".

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-following-us-establishment-media-165202678.html

Try to influence the US election with a program which is normally not diffused in the US? That's ridiculous accusation! 

I see this a bit differently. The UK PM calling for the BBC to get their house in order is actually underlining 20 years of a 'thousand cuts' the BBC has had to deal with. The BBC had its house well in order before that slash and burn nonsense. Now, BBC like some other news agencies and TV networks, are forced to hand the work of making 'their' documentaries and entertainment to third-parties (contractors) who will cut corners and produce these programmes cheaper. But cutting corners has precisely the outcome we just witnessed. Should BBC have been more careful in double-checking all the edits? Yes. Is it possible their senior staff get too stretched and just trust a contractor with a good track record? Yes. Does that let them off the hook? Unfortunately not.

26 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

I see this a bit differently. The UK PM calling for the BBC to get their house in order is actually underlining 20 years of a 'thousand cuts' the BBC has had to deal with. The BBC had its house well in order before that slash and burn nonsense. Now, BBC like some other news agencies and TV networks, are forced to hand the work of making 'their' documentaries and entertainment to third-parties (contractors) who will cut corners and produce these programmes cheaper. But cutting corners has precisely the outcome we just witnessed. Should BBC have been more careful in double-checking all the edits? Yes. Is it possible their senior staff get too stretched and just trust a contractor with a good track record? Yes. Does that let them off the hook? Unfortunately not.

Perhaps the BBC would have the resources to carry out their core activities properly if they didnt try to fund such a wide aray of "niche channels" whose viewing and listening figures are so low as to be little more than expensive echo chambers for particular pressure or interest groups?

7 hours ago, JAG said:

Let us suppose (and I think it unlikely) that an American (Florida) court finds against the BBC and awards these damages (and costs?). Should the BBC refuse to pay (and I think they should) just what will happen? Any sanctions in the USA are frankly unlikely to cost the BBC, and by extension the British taxpayer, anything remotely like £4 billion. I suppose that they could close down their broadcasting activities in the US, but there is always the internet; they could expell correspondents perhaps, I seem to remember Apartheid South Africa  and The Soviet Union did something like that but it didn't really work then, and now our connected world provides both the BBC and the interested British consumer with a myriad of sources.

 

Not a good look for the Land of The Free! The BBC, whatever one might think of it (and I am hardly uncritical) remains a largely trusted broadcaster with a global reach.

Everybody accuses the BBC (news) of being biased against them.

 

What they always do is toe the line of the current government to a large extent. This can be amplified by the political leanings of whomever is presented/ wrote the report. But at their core they are an organ of government propaganda.

 

For a long time I have found BBC News coverage to be selective. For a recent example, how long was the current slaughter in Sudan going on before it began to be reported on? How goes it in Yemen? Syria? How do they justify repeating the same stories hour after hour while ignoring completely other stories?

30 minutes ago, JAG said:

Perhaps the BBC would have the resources to carry out their core activities properly if they didnt try to fund such a wide aray of "niche channels" whose viewing and listening figures are so low as to be little more than expensive echo chambers for particular pressure or interest groups?

I tend to agree they have too many products - though I don't think they are particularly trying to create echo chambers or pandering to special interest groups. They should focus on their core mainstream programming - news/current affairs (TV, Web and radio/pocasts), and original dramatic series on TV. BBC World is also important, as is selected language programming for overseas listeners - though they could try to dump costs of the latter onto the Home Office instead.

8 hours ago, candide said:

Try to influence the US election with a program which is normally not diffused in the US? That's ridiculous accusation! 

As posted on different BBC-Trump topic:

 

This is the original complaint filed by President Trump against ABC and George Stephanopoulos as prepared by the same Miami-based attorney Brito as is handling, so far, the BBC issue (click to enlarge):

And this was posted by the same lawyer in the letter to the BBC:

(click to enlarge)

It ain't going to happen but the BBC will be handing over millions. What will happen though is the MSM are going to be a lot more careful with their fake news reports.

9 hours ago, candide said:

Try to influence the US election with a program which is normally not diffused in the US? That's ridiculous accusation! 

US citizens in Britain.

10 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

US citizens in Britain.

REDUX different topic:

 

 The BBC Panorama program was only available in US via VPN or to registered American voters who were in UK when the Panorama program was broadcast a few days * before the US election and saw it before sending their absentee ballots.

 

* 28 October

 

(click to enlarge)

 

The catch with suing in the UK is that the stat llimits have passed.  Also the way that the government porotects and cow tows to the BBC ir would not be fair.

 

This is not the first time that they have done this.  I am sure there are Brits here that were arund when Martin Beshear did the hit job on Diana and Charles

 

As to is teh BBC credible consider that the issues raised by the whistleblower showed that they were biased in coverage of Gaza and Israel also

 

I think personally if I was a tax payer i would be looking at who my MP is and giving him the word that he needed to push to dump the subsidy and the tax.  Let BBC compete with the other stations  

 

Trump did it with NPR and Pub Broadcasting

 

Canada is thinking about CBC and limiting the money it gets.

 

maybe it is time to dump BBC and let is sink or swim on it's own.

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Everybody accuses the BBC (news) of being biased against them.

 

That's because the left gaslight on the issue.

 

Pretty much every time the BBC have a [cough] "error of judgement" it's always on the side of the left. Fake news about Trump, paying Hamas relatives, referring to Hamas as freedom fighters etc. Their "mistakes" are always overt slander of the right or support of leftist causes. 

 

The left only pretend the BBC are right wing so people can make claims like yours. The fact they make this claim while defending them to the hilt just shows they don't believe their own words. It's a tactic which nobody believes.

 

"Well if the left think they are right and the right think they are left, they must be neutral". Absolute nonsense.  

 

I hope Trump sues them into oblivion. The left hope Labour's state funded propaganda wing are untouched. 

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

the BBC will be handing over millions.

Handing over millions of British license payers money? There is absolutely no way and given the context, in that it is Trump trying the change the Jan-6 narrative from the truth, any judge worth their salt and not coerced by the DOJ will laugh the claim out of court or risk their jobs. The BBC's claims were not baseless agenda pushing, just a clumsy edit. Trumps rhetoric still incited the riots as per bipartisan probes which was the overall message from the BBC. Harassment and shakedowns as per normal from the POTUS.

8 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

The BBC's claims were not baseless agenda pushing, just a clumsy edit.

 

It wasn't a "Clumsy" edit.

 

It was a deliberate and cynical attempt to deceive the viewing public. You know, the ones who are extorted to pay for it all. 

 

Their anti Trump / Pro Left agenda is clear for all to see and has been for years. 

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

US citizens in Britain.

The number of US citizens in Britain whose votes may have been influenced by that Panorama programme is realistically so small as to be negligible, certainly nowhere near the number remotely approaching sufficient to justify the damages being claimed; and anyway such a matter would be for the British courts, not for a court in Florida.

 

No this is simply a cash grab; and they won't work, particularly in an international context, if the party being extorted simply refuses to pay up.

34 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

Handing over millions of British license payers money? There is absolutely no way and given the context, in that it is Trump trying the change the Jan-6 narrative from the truth, any judge worth their salt and not coerced by the DOJ will laugh the claim out of court or risk their jobs. The BBC's claims were not baseless agenda pushing, just a clumsy edit. Trumps rhetoric still incited the riots as per bipartisan probes which was the overall message from the BBC. Harassment and shakedowns as per normal from the POTUS.

No millions of British license fee payers' money have been handed over—yet the BBC has already issued a formal apology to President Trump for the Panorama edit, admitting it was an "error of judgment" that gave the "mistaken impression" he directly called for violence on Jan. 6.

They've pulled the documentary from all platforms and seen their Director-General and head of news resign amid the scandal. Far from a "clumsy edit," splicing non-consecutive parts of his speech to falsely portray incitement meets the definition of deceptive editing.

 

Bipartisan probes (e.g., the Senate Homeland Security Committee's 2021 report) explicitly found no evidence Trump incited the riot—his full speech repeatedly called for supporters to protest "peacefully and patriotically." The overall message wasn't neutral reporting; it was a misleading narrative aired days before the 2024 election.This isn't "harassment"—it's accountability.

 

Trump has secured settlements from U.S. networks (e.g., $16m from CBS, $15m from ABC) for similar deceptive edits. The BBC's refusal to compensate doesn't make the claim baseless; it just means the fight may head to court, where public figures can still win on actual malice. License payers deserve better than funding admitted errors that smear a world leader.

Sue these Wokes and Lefties 😡

 

20 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Trump has secured settlements from U.S. networks (e.g., $16m from CBS, $15m from ABC) for similar deceptive edits.

Both of whom have television stations and other broadcast properties that are regulated by the FCC and would require FCC approval for any change of status.

 

Or as FCC Chair Carr put it as to the Jimmy Kimmel dustup:

 

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” 

Impossible to do more harm to Trump's reputation than he has already done to himself. 

56 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's because the left gaslight on the issue.

 

Pretty much every time the BBC have a [cough] "error of judgement" it's always on the side of the left. Fake news about Trump, paying Hamas relatives, referring to Hamas as freedom fighters etc. Their "mistakes" are always overt slander of the right or support of leftist causes. 

 

The left only pretend the BBC are right wing so people can make claims like yours. The fact they make this claim while defending them to the hilt just shows they don't believe their own words. It's a tactic which nobody believes.

 

"Well if the left think they are right and the right think they are left, they must be neutral". Absolute nonsense.  

 

I hope Trump sues them into oblivion. The left hope Labour's state funded propaganda wing are untouched. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

This is in essence 1 current affairs programme getting it badly wrong. They were rightly called out for it by the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board and rightly so, the Director-General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness fell on their swords, with the latter saying '“In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

 

Firstly this was a self-governed investigation by Michael Prescott, a former journalist who was an independent consultant to the BBC and secondly both these senior BBC figures took full responsibility for something that they had NO INVOLVEMENT with personally but with the utmost of integrity felt ' the buck stops here'. Many right wing media could only dream of having the integrity required to do what these individuals have done so quickly.

 

And you should be embarrassed encouraging a sitting POTUS to 'sue them into oblivion'. Never in the history of America has a sitting POTUS sued as much as Trump has (especially the media) and you for some bizarre reason and the rest of the MAGA brigade think it's something to be admired. He's a fragile man-baby, trying desperately to change the narrative away from the Epstein files which in turn is just making him look more guilty than ever before.  

No money will be paid nor should it. The case has no legal merit and is just a bullying tactic. Indeed, Trump has a long history of mostly failed litigation. When the boot is on the other foot he always cries foul, and is currently using the Supreme Court to try to get out of paying the woman he sexually assaulted in a changing room. If nothing else, its another distraction from his inexplicable reluctance to release the Epstein files. What a class act! His evangelical base must be so proud.

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

This is in essence 1 current affairs programme getting it badly wrong. They were rightly called out for it by the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board and rightly so, the Director-General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness fell on their swords, with the latter saying '“In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

 

Firstly this was a self-governed investigation by Michael Prescott, a former journalist who was an independent consultant to the BBC and secondly both these senior BBC figures took full responsibility for something that they had NO INVOLVEMENT with personally but with the utmost of integrity felt ' the buck stops here'. Many right wing media could only dream of having the integrity required to do what these individuals have done so quickly.

 

And you should be embarrassed encouraging a sitting POTUS to 'sue them into oblivion'. Never in the history of America has a sitting POTUS sued as much as Trump has (especially the media) and you for some bizarre reason and the rest of the MAGA brigade think it's something to be admired. He's a fragile man-baby, trying desperately to change the narrative away from the Epstein files which in turn is just making him look more guilty than ever before.  

 

Trump splicing.

Gaza documentary bias.

Bob Vylan performance.

Tavistock reporting bias.

Prescott memo.

Lineker antisemitism.

Martine Croxall disciplinary action.

Brexit coverage. 

 

I could name loads more. 

 

Funny how their "mistakes" are always asymmetric. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

No money will be paid nor should it. The case has no legal merit and is just a bullying tactic.

 

Yet the BBC already admitted it, apologized and "resigned" 2 people. 

 

 

 

Funny how Mr. Trump can claim the BBC tried to tip the scales on the election when -- prior to the election --few or maybe no eligible US voters in USA or elsewhere saw it.

13 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

For a recent example, how long was the current slaughter in Sudan going on before it began to be reported on? How goes it in Yemen? Syria? How do they justify repeating the same stories hour after hour while ignoring completely other stories?

Simply not true. Let's take Sudan for example. The current war started in April 15, 2023 and on the 17th April, the BBC led with this story  https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-65294795

 

Then pretty much every day thereafter there was at least one story about Sudan including this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65311470 and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65300690 and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65284948 and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65325382. 

 

On fact the BBC have been one of the very few mainstream media's to shine light on the troubles in Sudan. Now I'm pretty sure that's the same for Yemen and Syria but I can't be bothered trailing through old BBC reports to prove this point as well. 

 

Your bias doesn't hold up to the very simplest of scrutiny.