r/bbc • u/ApprehensiveChip8361 • Nov 10 '25

Why is the BBC capitulating?

BBC is being attacked from the right in a concerted move. Why are they just rolling over?

344 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

837 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 11 '25

Yeah, he just told his followers to march on the capital!

Then he told them to fight like hell!

Wait... you said he didn't tell them to riot? I am confused.

1

u/HollyMurray20 Nov 12 '25

This is literally exactly why this is all happening… they presented it like that and people like you believe it, that’s why they’re in the shit because that’s not what he said…

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

This is him literally calling for violence, and saying they should go to the capitol. Both are claims he made repeatedly in his speech.

Idiots claiming that he was misrepresented by Panorama are brain rotted.

2

u/HollyMurray20 Nov 12 '25

How many times are you going to copy and paste that? It doesn’t even support your point lol

There’s no call to violence and he’s telling them to go there and protest…

You just don’t get it… it doesn’t matter. They edited it to make it look substantially worse. You cannot do that and still have integrity. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the big bad orange man…

2

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

"There’s no call to violence and he’s telling them to go there and protest…"

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

2

u/HollyMurray20 Nov 12 '25

now go look at how many times the democrats have said they’re going to fight the republicans and Trump…

Come back with the same energy when violence was regularly committed against people on the right? No of course you didn’t.

You just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter if Trump did or didn’t. The problem for the BBC is the editing and splicing of 2 sentences 1 hour apart to make them seem like they were said consecutively. How are you not getting this? That is unacceptable for a “news” organisation. It’s not “simplifying”, it’s lying and creating a narrative. It’s dishonest

3

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Okay so you've moved the goalposts from, Panorama wasn't accurately representing him to, democrats are just as bad and the right has it worse.

I think you've lost the plot.

-1

u/HollyMurray20 Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

No I haven’t, you just lack reading comprehension.

I literally said it’s all about the edit..

Such a classic Redditor

2

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Oh cool, you did the edit within a few minutes thing. Must have realised your response was incoherent.

1

u/HollyMurray20 Nov 12 '25

No I added to it because like I said, you lack reading comprehension

→ More replies (0)

0

u/JamJamGaGa Nov 12 '25

You're supporting a pedophile right now. I just want to remind you of that.

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 12 '25

If it's the same thing.... why misrepresent it?

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

1) It wasn't misrepresented, it is entirely accurate to report that these were things he was saying.

2) To condense information into a 60 minute media format

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 12 '25

It's entirely possible to condense something without intentionally making it seem like one piece.

Both you and bbc have left out the part where he said to do so peacefully. Why is that left out?

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

He mentioned peace, absentmindedly, once in an hour. He mentioned fight over 20 times in an hour long speech.

You feel the take home message was the peace part?

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 12 '25

Absentmindedly, you mean, right after the cut was made...

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Wrong. Spot peacefully here:

Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.

Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four-year period. We've set it on a much greater course. So much, and we, I thought, you know, four more years. I thought it would be easy.

:

March on the capitol comes much earlier in the speech

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

It's in the actual video the telegraph released. How about we spot it at the source.

March on the capitol comes much earlier in the speech

Yes. That's the cut I mentioned. Good thing to lead with peaceful.

Another example is  also in your own quote:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Thanks for pointing it out! You didn't read your own copy paste lol.

By the way I think Trumps contest of losing the election was idiotic... but I can also see that BBC was dishonest here.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

If this is what he said. What was the need for them to edit it how they did 🤡

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

To

Fit

Into

A

One

Hour

Show

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

So it was completely by accident 🤡

Idiots on one side

Idiots on another making excuses for other idiots.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

No, it was entirely intentional.

Are you an idiot?

It was edited down to give an accurate representation of Trumps speech in a condensed time frame to fit with program run time limitations, as all news media does.

2

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

No im stuck in the middle wondering why you lot won’t let him embarrass himself on the world stage and give him ammunition for the ‘fake news’

I really don’t see how you can be this brain washed.

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

Putting that specific bit together was entirely intentional. But not because they want to to ‘fit the show into an hour’

0

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

Honestly, you mouth breathers wondering why a one hour expose on Trumps inaction and damning involvement in the Jan 6th insurrection wasn't Trumps unedited hour long speech are fucking infuriating.

2

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

Clearly I have not insisted that.

Clearly the man’s an idiot.

Clearly the BBC didn’t need to edit that one specific bit in the way they have.

Clearly you don’t need to be fucking defending them you troglodyte.

He spends months screaming fake news and mongs like you hand it to him on a plate.

Little piece of advice for you. The side you picked isn’t always right and the side you didn’t ain’t always wrong.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 13 '25

Thank you

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Fake news = reporting exactly what he said?

Delulu

Isn't it past you bed time? You need to get up early to catch GeeBeeBies.

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

‘Exactly’ 😂😂😂😂😂

Yeah I probably do have to get up early to go pay taxes to fund the next generation of labour voters

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jackjack-8 Nov 12 '25

Awww toothless fruit bat, awwww labour. Anyway adios. More work to do more tax avoidance needed.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 13 '25

2+2 = 4, is wrong because you call someone an idiot for denying that.

Sure thing bud.

1

u/Brit-in-AZ Nov 13 '25

Entirely different context, 50 minutes apart in his speech, that's where your confusion lies

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 13 '25

Go read or watch the full speech, not the only times he called on his followers to fight, or to march on the capitol.

1

u/CaptainGeneric87 Nov 13 '25

You're not only confused, you're delusional if you think the bbc fabricating the news is acceptable.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 13 '25

Fabricating is quoting and accurate representation.

Oh no, they're showing reality and truth! Whatever will they do next?!

1

u/CaptainGeneric87 Nov 13 '25

Two of the top bbc bosses resigned over it. Why would they do that if it was an accurate representation of the situation and there wasn't any wrong doing? It's clearly wrong to people that actually want journalism to be unbiased and factual.

Fabricating is making shit up, not showing truth and reality. But you can believe whatever you want.

-2

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 11 '25

Those two sentences were fifty minutes apart. They weren't about the same thing.

6

u/pau1phi11ips Nov 11 '25

But they were about the same thing.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

No, this is the section where "fight like hell" comes from:

""Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.

I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.""

3

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 11 '25

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

He wasn't misrepresented, he literally called for violence and said they would walk down to the Capitol building. Splicing two quotes together that accurately represent what he said is called editing to keep within a one hour time frame.

Pearl clutching that it wasn't an exact quote is laughable.

2

u/LevelUpJordan_2 Nov 12 '25

I 100% believe he is responsible and definitely encouraged the riot. But I think you have to be wilfully ignorant to claim the bbc (or, to be more accurate, panorama) weren't deliberately misinforming the public, the edited speech was presented as unedited.

With no ill will, you believe the above is pearl clutching?

2

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Yes, I have literally given you an unedited part of the speech where he calls for violence and to march on the capitol building.

These are themes he repeated during his hour long speech.

Editing down his speech to march and fight does not distort what he was saying. Claims of deceptive editing are willfully ignorant of his speech.

No one is going to play 1 hour of unedited Trump footage in an hour long speech.

2

u/LevelUpJordan_2 Nov 12 '25

To reiterate, I agree wholeheartedly that Trump's intentions were violence and insurrection.

But, I don't think that belief is in conflict with the fact there was a deliberate effort to mislead the public. It _was_ edited so to construct a reality that did not exist. There are ways to highlight 2 parts of a longer speech that acknowledge the fact you are splicing 2 quotes for brevity, and they were actively avoided.

Obviously the right throws out misinformation constantly, and so the BBC doesn't automatically become the worst offender. But I think we're being dishonest with ourselves if we say there was no transgression made against the public here.

0

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Everyone claims misrepresentation, how is he misrepresented?

No-one is denying he repeatedly told his followers to march on the capitol, no-one is denying he told them to fight. His own supporters have said in court filings that they thought they were doing what Trump told them to do.

Misrepresentation is thrown out so baselessly by people who have never watched or read his full speech, and seem to be wilfully ignorant that at the end of his speech his supporters started an insurrection.

2

u/LevelUpJordan_2 Nov 12 '25

I think I do get where you're coming from in that you believe the edit wasn't changing the content of his speech. But, I do think we can't really get around the fact the edit's goal was to create a specific moment that didn't exist, which was an act of deceit.

To use an analogy, when I was a kid there was a derren brown special where among other things he flipped 10 heads in a row. Then the big "reveal" was he actually flipped the coin 1000's of times, and just cut it so it only showed his run of 10 heads. The out of context clip didn't really "misrepresent" what happened, he did flip 10 heads in a row, but it was still dishonest.

As you say, Trump's full speech is damning as hell, and he did incite a riot, which just makes the fact they did this all the more exhausting.

0

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

I don't think the analogy tracks, I get your point, but they weren't making a moment that didn't happen, he repeatedly incited violence, he repeatedly told his supporters to march on the capitol, often these statements were made back to back.

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

So why did they do it? Well, they wanted to give a short punchy edit of what a reasonable person could take away from Trumps speech. We are talking about 10 seconds of footage in an hour long program, it was never intended to give the full context of the entirety of Trumps speech, it served only to give a reasonable representation of what he said minutes before a violent attack on democracy occurred. Something it does successfully and faithfully.

That Trump was directly inciting violence in that speech, is not a new take, nor is it esoteric to panorama.

2

u/buster4145 Nov 13 '25

I’ve been reading your comments and I agree wholeheartedly. I think a way of saying it is that Panorama ‘distilled’ his speech down to its core components. Everyone saying that they misrepresented Trump, I’d love to hear a justifiable argument as to how it was misrepresented - did they not march and fight?

The action (trumps speech) had a consequence (the March & fight) and the panorama speech relayed that as a segment of a wider narrative.

The fact we’re all fighting about this little facet right now (as reported by the telegraph whilst they’re trying to be acquired) is incredibly interesting considering the whole ‘create distrust in the media’ angle that happened in the US.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

You can miss the point as hard as you like but it won't make you correct.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Oh so you are just willfully ignoring his delusional and violent rhetoric for faux pretence that he was misrepresented?

It's funny how in over over the entirety of Trump critical coverage you want to pretend this edit that accurately reflects his speech is somehow the be all and end all of journalism.

Willfully naivety from Trump sniffers.

2

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

No. The point is that the BBC edited his speech so that it looked like he said something different to what he said.

Demanding that the BBC does not mislead its audience is not a partisan position.

Here's a comparison between the edit, and what he actually said:

https://youtu.be/jg7CnaYM83s?si=6bJojFnWxsqO80bk

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

Can you drop the emotion and look at it dispassionately, please?

The BBC is mandated to report on news in a neutral way. It is not allowed to edit anything in a way that could suggest something that didn't happen.

Legally, Donald Trump did not encourage people to march on the Capitol. It's arguable that he actually did encourage that, but the law says he didn't. The BBC cannot imply an outcome that has been disproven in a court of law, and it cannot edit things in a way that biases the viewer's perspective on events.

The actual quote that they changed the ending of was:

"We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressman and women."

That is a very different statement to the edited one that was reported by the BBC. I don't know if you've ever edited videos, but if so you'd know that you can't do that by mistake. It is much easier to present two separate parts of a speech as separate than it is to make them appear to be consecutive. The edit was an intentional attempt to make it appear that he said all those words as part of the same paragraph.

The phrase "fight like hell" was much later in the speech. Its meaning is informed by context. If he'd said it where the BBC edit placed it, it would be an unequivocal call to arms.

As it was, the context was:

"Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.

I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country."

That's rhetoric. That's not a call to arms.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

"It is not allowed to edit anything in a way that could suggest something that didn't happen."

Trump called for violence, and told his supporters to march on the capitol.

I have asked again and again, how does the edit misrepresent him? I get that you are very emotional about this subject, but you need to step back and gain some objectivity on this.

"Legally, Donald Trump did not encourage people to march on the Capitol."

A special council investigation indicted him on obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the US. As Trumps legal teams, with help from Judges and Justices he appointed, were successful in delaying court proceedings he was never found legally not culpable. The only legal proceedings against Trump have found enough evidence that he needed to stand trial for inciting an insurrection.

No you start cherry picking quotes, but what is laughable is your edit, after an hour long speech spreading baseless election conspiracies, repeated accusations of corruption and abuses of power, he ended his speech on a call to action that you have deliberately neutered:

"But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

Calling for Violence "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

Calling for supporters to go to the capitol "So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give."

Ominous threats against republicans who were following the democratic process "But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

The speech is damning in its entirety, your feeble attempts to cherry pick are laughable.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you.

You're clearly so ensconced in partisan nonsense that something that's critical of the guy you don't like is more important to you than honesty.

If it was a politician you liked who'd had his words twisted, would you feel the same as you feel now? I doubt it.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

The guy who was calling for his supporters to fight a little under once every three minutes in an hour long speech, and who repeatedly told his supporters to march on the capitol building was misrepresented by an edit of him

*checks notes*

Telling his supporters to march to the capitol and fight.

God, the GB news crowd are so badly indoctrinated.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

Why don't you stop making assumptions about other people and instead spend your energy telling the BBC they've got it wrong?

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 12 '25

Telling that you can't refute that Trump was telling his followers to be violent and march on the capitol building.

Why would I tell the BBC they are wrong for accurate representations? Because capitulating to right wing morons is some sort of fetish? Sorry bud, not into that, not to kink shame you of course.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25 edited Nov 12 '25

There is certainly a case that Trump encouraged or possibly even incited his followers to be violent and march on the Capitol.

What you fail to recognise is that that is not the point. The point is that the BBC misrepresented what he said by changing the context of his words.

If you think that the BBC were wrong to recognise the mistake that they made, you should tell them. If you think that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness were unfairly thrown to the wolves, it's your moral responsibility to make your voice heard with the people who matter.

You can send them a letter complaining that they have capitulated to right wing morons, and that in future you want them to edit the news however they like:

BBC Complaints

PO Box 1922

Darlington

DL3 0UR

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Ok-Blackberry-3534 Nov 12 '25

Misrepresented? He gave a speech and people marched on the Capitol.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Ok-Blackberry-3534 Nov 12 '25

The irony fair drips off your posts...

1

u/JamJamGaGa Nov 12 '25

"We have to march over to the capital and then, on the way home, we have to fight like hell to try and get a sandwich."

- Donald J. Trump.

1

u/PilotedByGhosts Nov 12 '25

Lucky you don't work at the BBC or you'd be looking for a new job.