Election Year or Fear!

[MadAmster]

I think the point here is (or should be) whether the BBC editing significantly changed the meaning of the Trump hour plus long ramble.

Were there people there who believed that Trump wanted them to literally "take the capitol". There were members of groups there, Proud Boys etc, who Trump seemed able to control (think about his stand down and stand by quote).

Move on an hour with the trouble excalating. Trump in the White House watching it all. Various people asking why he wasn't sending the National Guard in and imploring him to act. Sitting on his hands, was that a modern version of Nero playing the lire?

Based om having seen most of the proceedingsthat January 6th, IMO, Trump DID purvey a message of "go get 'em" and the BBC editing did no more than accentuate that.

Is he really as stupid as he sometimes appears or is it an act to keep his MAGA following believing he's the Saviour? When you listen to a 30 year old speech from Trump and compare it to today's word salad outpourings, you may well conclude that he has brain issues, be that Alzheimer or whatever. There is still the possibility that he's actually the world's greatest actor. Maybe even a bit of both. I'm not sure. I am, however, sure that he poses a threat to our way of life.

[ramAnag]

I think the point here is (or should be) whether the BBC editing significantly changed the meaning of the Trump hour plus long ramble.

Were there people there who believed that Trump wanted them to literally "take the capitol". There were members of groups there, Proud Boys etc, who Trump seemed able to control (think about his stand down and stand by quote).

Move on an hour with the trouble excalating. Trump in the White House watching it all. Various people asking why he wasn't sending the National Guard in and imploring him to act. Sitting on his hands, was that a modern version of Nero playing the lire?

Based om having seen most of the proceedingsthat January 6th, IMO, Trump DID purvey a message of "go get 'em" and the BBC editing did no more than accentuate that.

Couldn’t agree more and I’d love any of those who appear so shocked by the BBC’s ‘behaviour’ to comment on that first sentence.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

[swaledale]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

I'm beginning to worry, as yet again I agree with you!

Whoever did that edit at the BBC were fools, there is enough evidence to demonstrate Trump's involvement in the Jan 2020 Capitol attacks, there was absolutely no need to do this. BBC leadership should also have been much quicker in taking responsibility and "owning" the mistake.

I'm somewhat sceptical about the resignations of the DG and News Editor, I'd not be surprised if they haven't already found alternative and possibly higher paid gigs elsewhere in an organisation that doesn't receive so much unfair and detailed scrutiny.

But lets recognise the hypocrisy of the attacks on the BBC from both right wing political actors who dislike having an impartial state broadcaster, whatever its flaws might be and also a self interested media, with Murdoch especially, but Rothermere at the mail constantly attacking the BBC as they don't like the competition for their power of influence.

If Labour suggest or try to make the BBC apologise to Trump, that will piss me off, the orange narcissist should be told to do one!

I can also provide an anecdote as to how in day to day news, the BBC and indeed other broadcasters' edit news to suit an agenda. I was interviewed about an incident which happened at an an organisation I worked for. The interview broadcast on Est Midlands to day bore no resemblance to the actual interview. They swapped some of my answers to a completely different question and didn't broadcast anything I said explaining the incident.

After that I never gave another interview, but issued a short explanatory statement, I wasn't getting hoodwinked again!

[Andy_Faber]

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

They are two different things of course, the entertainment part is a matter of personal taste whereas news and current affairs should be a matter of fact / impartiality not partial interpretation/ personal opinion. The partiality / personal opinion continues, As recently as last eve Katie Razell confirmed she was making a personal statement (derogatory towards the Chairman) live on air on the evening news.

[ramAnag]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

Thank you. A much more sensible response than yesterday evening.

1. I don’t know if they were seeking to ‘give an impression of their own design’. The speech was over an hour long and it was, as ever, edited so that people were informed of the gist of a bitter outgoing President’s rant.
2. It wasn’t a true record of Trump’s speech, but without listening to the entirety of it, how could it have been? Was it deceitful? See MA’s earlier comment with which I agree. Not one of Trump’s words were changed.

Beyond that, I’ve accepted right from the start that some at the BBC have acted ‘foolishly’ and I accept your comments about such behaviour ‘asking for trouble’. Had Trump been misquoted I’d absolutely accept your criticism of the BBC, but he wasn’t.

Question for you or AF. Do you think the BBC clip changed the tone/aim/intention behind Trump’s angry words to a largely disappointed and discontented mob and if so, in what way were the BBC lacking accuracy?

P.S. I’m puzzled by the resignations too. Maybe Swale is correct or maybe they’ve just had enough of the relentless attacks from those on the Right. It’s certainly strange.

[Andy_Faber]

Question for you or AF. Do you think the BBC clip changed the tone/aim/intention behind Trump?s angry words to a largely disappointed and discontented mob and if so, in what way were the BBC lacking accuracy?

If you mean does it change the perception of viewers, yes definitely. If for instance the producers/editors had retained the whole of the first part of the edit, in which Trump almost sounds conciliatory, the tone would have been completely different

If you means would that clip alone have had a different impact to the whole speech, I don't know, I can't put myself in the mindset of someone willing to do harm to people or property, there may be others here more disposed to comment on that

My personal observations, and my jaundiced view of the media is conditioned by these observations, is that the media do this all the time (see my own and Swale's comments above) sometimes to support an agenda, sometimes I'm sure just for buggeration, and it looks like someone is about to get a very bloody nose as a result

[ramAnag]

If you mean does it change the perception of viewers, yes definitely. If for instance the producers/editors had retained the whole of the first part of the edit, in which Trump almost sounds conciliatory, the tone would have been completely different

If you means would that clip alone have had a different impact to the whole speech, I don't know, I can't put myself in the mindset of someone willing to do harm to people or property, there may be others here more disposed to comment on that

My personal observations, and my jaundiced view of the media is conditioned by these observations, is that the media do this all the time (see my own and Swale's comments above) sometimes to support an agenda, sometimes I'm sure just for buggeration, and it looks like someone is about to get a very bloody nose as a result

I’m not sure anyone on here would be willing to do harm to people or property, although I might wish it on two or three current politicians and believe that the world would be a better place without them.

I don’t agree with your first paragraph but that in no way means you’re wrong.

[Andy_Faber]

I?m not sure anyone on here would be willing to do harm to people or property, although I might wish it on two or three current politicians and believe that the world would be a better place without them.

I don?t agree with your first paragraph but that in no way means you?re wrong.

I was referring to football-related rumbles not premeditated violence

Interesting that over the past few days there appears to be a bit of a gloves-off attitude around current and ex BBC journos, I mentioned Katy Razzle earlier, Emily Maitless has pitched in, and 'I can't remember who' has 'outed' The Telegraph as 'right leaning' which of course it is but its breaking a bit of an unwritten rule to do so and will ellicit who knows what level of response

I think Swale suggested that HMG should keep out of the spat with Trump, I disagree simply because Keir Starmer appears to have generated some sort of respect/friendship between them and I think BBC need an ally at the mo

[Geoff Parkstone]

Good news.... bad news

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7rp5zj484o

why there not here?