21 hours ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

One might surmise those legal analysts were on the ball, as Trump has no reputation to uphold to begin with. 

The quip that Trump has no reputation left to damage is somewhat witty and a partisan favorite—but in a U.S. courtroom, it’s flimsier than wet tissue paper.

27 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes, the BBC definitely do not want it to get that far....'discovery'.. it would expose what they really think about President Trump and I'm sure it's not 'pretty'??

 

I think the risk for the BBC is that they're probably not just doing it to Trump.  How many other stories have they manipulated disingenuously?  I'm specifically thinking Ukraine and Gaza and inflatable boats, just to name a few.

 

Edit:  And don't even get me started on "net zero", the "safe and effectives" and arresting people for hurty words.

 

 

Just more ridiculousness from the silliest man on planet earth, and certainly the most litigious man in the past century. 

 

I doubt that he has sufficient self-awareness to realize how much of a goon he appears to be, to the vast majority of people around the world. 

23 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

It was obviously a deliberate act, to change the narrative! And it did!

ever noticed how their "errors of judgement" never favour the right, always the same Clearly not errors at all    they think we are stupid

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I think the risk for the BBC is that they're probably not just doing it to Trump.  How many other stories have they manipulated disingenuously?  I'm specifically thinking Ukraine and Gaza and inflatable boats, just to name a few.

 

Edit:  And don't even get me started on the "safe and effectives" and arresting people for hurty words.

 

 

do you think nigel farage gets fair coverage ?    lol

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I doubt that he has sufficient self-awareness to realize how much of a goon he appears to be, to the vast majority of people around the world. 

 

Only to people with the syndrome.  Hey, maybe they can use that as a diagnostic test...

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

so who do they employ that leans to the right as far as the likes of emily maitlis and robert peston  lean / leant to the left?    The likes of dimbleby and paxman etc were truly unbiased and did not try to force any of their personal views on their audience ever.   The newer crew do this at every opportunity, 

 

people with "right wing" views are just as entitled to complain about things as those with left wing views, are they not?

 

Nick Robinson, Guto Harri, Craig Oliver were (and may well still be) Conservative supporters.

 

Political Editors Chris Mason and Laura Kuenssberg have been accused of being right-leaning. Personally, I don't see it. Imo they are both impressively impartial.

 

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s have no more of your accusations of Brit Bashing Jonny.

 

How can it be an accusation when they actually did the dirty deed? 

52 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Just more ridiculousness from the silliest man on planet earth, and certainly the most litigious man in the past century. 

 

I doubt that he has sufficient self-awareness to realize how much of a goon he appears to be, to the vast majority of people around the world. 

I suppose using the courts to defend himself is not what you seek. It does not fit the persona of a goon. What is he supposed to do to make you happy? Blow up the BBC building? 

9 minutes ago, thesetat said:

I suppose using the courts to defend himself is not what you seek. It does not fit the persona of a goon. What is he supposed to do to make you happy? Blow up the BBC building? 

Real men with good self esteem tend to be able to overlook something like that, especially when they're in a position of being a world leader, people are constantly coming at you from all different directions and it's pretty ridiculous to try to sue every one of them, which is what this absolute circus clown tends to do. 

20 hours ago, daveAustin said:

The big difference is the BBC covers the gamut of TV making, it’s not just news. I’d be up for a big change with how the news is generate and made non-bias again, but to close it down (ain’t gonna happen) would lose all the great TV… dramas & natural world etc. That side of it is nothing to do with the Trump nonsense. Those others you cite can’t hold a candle to the bbc. 

What the  government should do is define what is public broadcasting content, decide budget and how public broadcasting content is funded decide platform's freeview and internet

Put public broadcasting content out to tender 

For the rest of the BBC spilt it up into seperate entity's

BBC Sports

BBC Entertainment

BBC News

These should be funded through advertisement and Pay per view

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Is that why they spliced 2 parts of Trump's speech together to make it sound like he was inciting a riot? 😄

Guess the Jan. 6th rioters at the US Capitol misunderstood his intent also after listening to his words ...

Legal experts across the board concur that Trump has little chance of success with his absurd arguments and financial demands, but of course it has nothing to do with money. He is sueing the BBC for the same reason he is taking a number of news organisations (incluing the New York Times) to court: so that he can intimidate the media and alongside the likes of his pal Musk, subvert information and take control of the narrative. To its immense credit the BBC is having none of his self-serving bluster, narcissism, and bullying tatics.

 

6 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Guess the Jan. 6th rioters at the US Capitol misunderstood his intent also after listening to his words ...

Yes, indeed. The House of Representative's January 6th committee alredy concluded that Trump used his speech to incite a riot.

43 minutes ago, thesetat said:

I suppose using the courts to defend himself is not what you seek. It does not fit the persona of a goon. What is he supposed to do to make you happy? Blow up the BBC building? 

Personally I don't understand why he need to sue as he won the election so no personal reputation was damaged and the ridiculous amount of 5 billion is simply put him in a very bad light. BBC has been sued many times and even by the Queen and the Thathcher government and most times retraction or an apology was the outcome. Sir Cliff Richard sued and won and awarded something like 100k pound. He is a demented bully.

I hope my president destroys these stammering sniveling liberal types at the bbc 

 

he will be doing the Brits a favor 

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

do you think nigel farage gets fair coverage ?    lol

I wish he would, wouldn't be very positive for him.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I wish he would, wouldn't be very positive for him.

in your opinion,   to which you are of course entitled

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes, the BBC definitely do not want it to get that far....'discovery'.. it would expose what they really think about President Trump and I'm sure it's not 'pretty'??

Discovery is a 2-way street.

 

As to it not getting that far, it may not get any farther than Team Trump not being able to PROVE anyone in Florida a saw the doco prior to the 2024 election.

 

"Immense likelihood" won't cut it.

29 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Personally I don't understand why he need to sue as he won the election so no personal reputation was damaged and the ridiculous amount of 5 billion is simply put him in a very bad light. BBC has been sued many times and even by the Queen and the Thathcher government and most times retraction or an apology was the outcome. Sir Cliff Richard sued and won and awarded something like 100k pound. He is a demented bully.

 

Do you think we'd all be discussing a $100K lawsuit?  Trump is a master of trolling lefties and using the media to his advantage.

 

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, the entire western world can't ignore the BBC's duplicity.  Maybe now, the British people will demand better from their mandatory payments.

 

Besides, Trump doesn't need the money.  And if he just sued for $100K, the BBC could just pay it and dodge any kind of discovery.  They can't do that if it's $5-10 billion.

29 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Personally I don't understand why he need to sue as he won the election so no personal reputation was damaged and the ridiculous amount of 5 billion is simply put him in a very bad light. BBC has been sued many times and even by the Queen and the Thathcher government and most times retraction or an apology was the outcome. Sir Cliff Richard sued and won and awarded something like 100k pound. He is a demented bully.

Perhaps you are correct. But the BBC has been withholding information, changing information to make you against something, or outright lying to their viewers to get people worked up or against somebody or something happening for many years now. Those public apologies never fazed them. They continued to do this without  fear of repercussions. A retraction can not fix all the damage they do when they are not honest and open about the news. Especially when they alter things to make you believe their side of the story rather than the truth. 

5 billion will never be paid out. We all know this. It is a statement and will run shivers down the spines of those who profit from the BBC should a monetary penalty such as this be imposed. Trump does not need the money for sure. But the BBC's loss of it will surely hurt them and perhaps persuade them to start telling the truth in the news they send out to the world. Hopefully, it gets their licenses cancelled and shuts them down completely. 

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit,

Unless the BBC decides to counter-sue.

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit,

Unless the BBC decides to counter-sue.

 

They could do that.  If only it wasn't so blatant that they cut and spliced deliberately changing the meaning.

 

There's not even any question whether they did it or not.  Just how much the damages are.  They may even decide "zero".  But they won't decide that the BBC didn't do it.  That's in the history books.

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

They could do that.  If only it wasn't so blatant that they cut and spliced deliberately, changing the meaning.

They would counter-sue maybe of Trump's AI comment. But again you folks are discussing issues that may never get that far.

 

From the complaint:

 

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking.

 

If it's the CBS 60 minutes suit or the ABC Stephanopoulos suit, that the broadcast IN FACT was viewed is not an issue.

 

How do they PROVE the fact will be likely in pretrial motions.

 

But as to the IN FACT comment above, if there was a voting age eligible voter in Florida who subscribes to or watches the BBC news content of any sort by any means, would that person be someone who also watches MSNBC or someone like in The Villages who watches FOX and the other right leaning channels.

 

Just my conjecture but, since this whole issue started last month, it would seems obvious that the BBC is going to claim nobody actually watched it so they ought to find someone who did, and fast.

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Do you think we'd all be discussing a $100K lawsuit?  Trump is a master of trolling lefties and using the media to his advantage.

 

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, the entire western world can't ignore the BBC's duplicity.  Maybe now, the British people will demand better from their mandatory payments.

 

Besides, Trump doesn't need the money.  And if he just sued for $100K, the BBC could just pay it and dodge any kind of discovery.  They can't do that if it's $5-10 billion.

Defamation lawsuits has been Trump long standing repertoire. That is fine as an individual protecting his reputation but not as a President. He is seen as undermining democracy when one of the cardinal responsibilities of the media in our democracy is to report on a President and often criticize him. His bullying of the media by this kind of ridiculous amount is a public relation disaster for him. 

 

Duplicity of the media is not the exclusivity of BBC. All media ventured into dubious reporting and got sued even Fox and Newsmax. 

23 hours ago, Palatus said:

 The BBC has put out billions of hours of broadcasts over a 100 year lifespan 

Thera are 876000 hours in 100 years.

28 minutes ago, thesetat said:

Perhaps you are correct. But the BBC has been withholding information, changing information to make you against something, or outright lying to their viewers to get people worked up or against somebody or something happening for many years now. Those public apologies never fazed them. They continued to do this without  fear of repercussions. A retraction can not fix all the damage they do when they are not honest and open about the news. Especially when they alter things to make you believe their side of the story rather than the truth. 

5 billion will never be paid out. We all know this. It is a statement and will run shivers down the spines of those who profit from the BBC should a monetary penalty such as this be imposed. Trump does not need the money for sure. But the BBC's loss of it will surely hurt them and perhaps persuade them to start telling the truth in the news they send out to the world. Hopefully, it gets their licenses cancelled and shuts them down completely. 

We just have to wait and see how this lawsuit plays out. BBC claimed there was no malice in the edit and Trump not harmed as he was elected. In addition, the program is not widely distributed in US. IMO don't think this lawsuit has legs. 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Personally I don't understand why he need to sue as he won the election so no personal reputation was damaged and the ridiculous amount of 5 billion is simply put him in a very bad light. BBC has been sued many times and even by the Queen and the Thathcher government and most times retraction or an apology was the outcome. Sir Cliff Richard sued and won and awarded something like 100k pound. He is a demented bully.

BBC paid  Sir Cliff Richard £210,000 in damages plus £2m towards his legal costs plus 

The BBC, which also paid £315,000 to South Yorkshire Police for legal costs

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-49576940

Just now, vinny41 said:

BBC paid  Sir Cliff Richard £210,000 in damages plus £2m towards his legal costs plus 

The BBC, which also paid £315,000 to South Yorkshire Police for legal costs

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-49576940

Thanks for the correction. Those amount a far cry from 5 billion USD. 

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Thanks for the correction. Those amount a far cry from 5 billion USD. 

If the case reaches jury stage  the amount may be higher than 10 billion USD as the juries in the infowars case awarded higher costs that what the plaintiffs were requesting