Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

In a spirit of discussion rather than contradiction.

Are you sure this was ‘willfull misquoting’ and not just editing?
Trump said every word that the BBC clip showed. There was just a large part of his speech which presumably those responsible for editing decided was uninteresting.
I don’t know for sure but I’d imagine this happens regularly because the majority of political speeches are boring and too time consuming for the majority of people watching news slots.
Perhaps this was edited/doctored in an unsatisfactory way, I’m not sure, but I don’t think it constitutes ‘misquoting’.

Not just misquoting, also misleading, as the reel shows Trump supporters marching on the White House after his speech whereas the clip used was from BEFORE his speech.

[ramAnag]

Not just misquoting, also misleading, as the reel shows Trump supporters marching on the White House after his speech whereas the clip used was from BEFORE his speech.

Okay, we don’t see things quite the same way. Not the first time, won’t be the last. I can see how you think what the BBC did was misleading, but misquoting I genuinely don’t get.
Perhaps I’m being dim, but he did actually use those words. I get that they were about fifty plus minutes after the first bit and that that is down to the editing - or what those who support him would call doctoring - but the BBC did not change his words and he did actually use the word ‘fight’ 18 times in that emotive speech, so how would you explain what you think his intentions were.

[Andy_Faber]

Okay, we don’t see things quite the same way. Not the first time, won’t be the last. I can see how you think what the BBC did was misleading, but misquoting I genuinely don’t get.
.

Amusingly, to me at least, this happened to me recently, in The Guardian of all places. I'm often asked for soundbites on music topics and dropped my guard badly, when asked to contribute regarding a particularly protective genre, by insisting on neither use of a pseudonym nor not to be quoted directly. So my two soundbites, originally offered many minutes apart as part of an 'on the one hand this but on the other hand that' response, were offered much closer together and only offering the negative perspective. There haven't been any death threats, but I've had some pretty terse observations on the piece as a whole and my role in it.

I won't be suing

Oct 20th if you don't believe this anecdote

[ramAnag]

Amusingly, to me at least, this happened to me recently, in The Guardian of all places. I'm often asked for soundbites on music topics and dropped my guard badly, when asked to contribute regarding a particularly protective genre, by insisting on neither use of a pseudonym nor not to be quoted directly. So my two soundbites, originally offered many minutes apart as part of an 'on the one hand this but on the other hand that' response, were offered much closer together and only offering the negative perspective. There haven't been any death threats, but I've had some pretty terse observations on the piece as a whole and my role in it.

I won't be suing

Oct 20th if you don't believe this anecdote

AF, please stop with the ‘if you don’t believe this anecdote’ stuff. I’ve challenged your anecdotes two or three times, the two I remember being about false passports and flag pole ‘hijacking’ where you live. They didn’t ring completely true and you went on to accept that both were either flawed or enormously exaggerated. It’s not like I accuse you of lying all the time or doubting all your stories.
I don’t, but if we’re going to have worthwhile exchanges, which I think the BBC ones have been, then let’s ditch the self pity. It’s a forum. You and I are more likely to disagree - politically - than agree but that doesn’t mean I never believe you.

[Andy_Faber]

AF, please stop with the ?if you don?t believe this anecdote? stuff. I?ve challenged your anecdotes two or three times, the two I remember being about false passports and flag pole ?hijacking? where you live. They didn?t ring completely true and you went on to accept that both were either flawed or enormously exaggerated. It?s not like I accuse you of lying all the time or doubting all your stories.
I don?t, but if we?re going to have worthwhile exchanges, which I think the BBC ones have been, then let?s ditch the self pity. It?s a forum. You and I are more likely to disagree - politically - than agree but that doesn?t mean I never believe you.

No, you'll have to put up with it

[ramAnag]

No, you'll have to put up with it

Really? Are you nine years old?

I can ‘put up with it’, not my problem, just think it’s spectacularly childish.
We’ve had/are having, a sensible and respectful disagreement about the BBC. That’s how it should be and what, as our moderator, I’d have thought you’d want.
A forum is nothing without disagreement but ceaselessly carrying round a chip on your shoulder about a challenge/disagreement from what must now be about a year ago helps no one.