Election Year or Fear!

[SithHappens]

Surely even if he sues he's got to demonstrate what they said damaged his reputation/ was not true.

I know they edited his speech but he said exactly what the edited said just over a longer period.

[Andy_Faber]

Surely even if he sues he's got to demonstrate what they said damaged his reputation/ was not true.

I know they edited his speech but he said exactly what the edited said just over a longer period.

use of edits (written word or video) is a nasty tactic of the press whoever does it/whoever its done to. GP editted an innocent post of rA's recently to demonstrate what can be done. My guess is that a judge would look at that individual incident and determine if it alone defamed Trump, but that's just a guess, as with most of the law we happy (and biased) amateurs know **** all about the statute or case law that applies

[ramAnag]

use of edits (written word or video) is a nasty tactic of the press whoever does it/whoever its done to. GP editted an innocent post of rA's recently to demonstrate what can be done. My guess is that a judge would look at that individual incident and determine if it alone defamed Trump, but that's just a guess, as with most of the law we happy (and biased) amateurs know **** all about the statute or case law that applies

Bit of a difference, AF. If I remember correctly, and I’ve got better things to do than search back, GP rearranged my words in his form of edit to make them mean something entirely different.

The BBC didn’t do that. Their edit was one of time. What we saw Trump saying is exactly what Trump said. The BBC cut out a chunk of his speech (fairly standard practice I suspect) so that it looked as if what he said was continuous. It wasn’t and, to that extent, it was misleading, but what we heard him say is what he said.

He’s also said very defamatory things about the BBC so why there isn’t a counter claim I’ve no idea. Think there should be.

[swaledale]

use of edits (written word or video) is a nasty tactic of the press whoever does it/whoever its done to. GP editted an innocent post of rA's recently to demonstrate what can be done. My guess is that a judge would look at that individual incident and determine if it alone defamed Trump, but that's just a guess, as with most of the law we happy (and biased) amateurs know **** all about the statute or case law that applies

Whilst I don't disagree that the media can and do edit material to suit their own agenda, I've expereinced BBC East Midlands Today doing just that, it is a fact that most articles, programmes ect. are edited for various legitimate reasons, such as fitting an article on a page or within a programme's "run time" or merely to remove irrelevant waffle from an interview.

Your correct in that we amateurs don't know the detail of case law, I'd object to the accusation of bias, on the basis that dafamation is about damage to reputation, and its a fact that Trump's reputation is hardly unblemished, whatever one may think about him, many of his actions, words and indeed insults are a matter of record.

I've copied part of this precis from a lawyer on this subject below which might make things clearer. INFORRMS BLOG is you want to read all of it. And no thats NOT a typo!!

"However, this by no means ensures that a defamation claim by Trump would succeed. Trump must meet set requirements to prove that the footage was actually defamatory. He would face significant difficulties doing so in both England and the US.

First, Trump’s existing reputation is hardly unblemished, and includes court findings of fraudulent conduct, ***ual assault (subject to ongoing litigation in the US), and impeachment for inciting an insurrection against a democratically-elected government (he was later acquitted).

Furthermore, he won the 2024 US election within a fortnight of the episode’s broadcast. It would therefore be difficult for his lawyers to prove that he suffered reputational harm from this Panorama episode.

Truth defences are also available in both jurisdictions. These protect a defendant whose allegations contain minor inaccuracies, as long as the “sting” of the libel – in this case, that Trump’s speech contributed to the storming of the Capitol – is true."

The other pertinent point here, is that Trump and indeed other wealthy individuals, will instigate legal action of this kind, not becuase they believe they ahve a case, but because they have the resources to do so (and are not bothered by the financial implications of losing) in the expectation that the weaker less wealthy organisations or individuals will settle out of court being unwilling or unable to meet the significant costs of legal action. Justice and truth doesn't come cheap!!

Trump also has a history of using his position and wealth in the US to sue media companies and other busineses who often settle the case, becuase they want US government approval for a merger or acquisition or the granting of a licence to broadcast etc. Truly the tactics of a pseudo mafia boss, bullying an organisation to bden to his will, not becasue he has a point, but becuase his office and wealth mean he can.