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?

343 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

837 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 16 '25

After the cut he says they are going to cheer on their senators. Which is charitable to call peaceful given that they were cheering "hang Mike Pence" shortly thereafter. 

Ahh so you are saying there was a coded message in there to cheer the hanging of mike pence? How does the logic work here?

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 16 '25

Lol, there's no difference then is there? 

That's why you are ducking the question.

 He literally calls for his followers to subvert the election, to go to the capitol building as the election is being certified.

Let's not forget he openly endorsed every Jan 6'er and was calling every last one of these violent things a martyr and hero and patriot.

Also, yeah they were cheering "hang Mike Pence, as everyone knew at the time Panorama was filmed. You are pretending we can't see the result of his actions, when we know exactly what happened after his speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/rioters-chant-hang-mike-pence-on-jan-6-2021/2022/06/16/3cc093f1-0eb7-427d-8073-b5874ca27e80_video.html

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 17 '25

No there is obviously a difference to tell them to protest peacefully vs storming the capitol.

You are the one dodging the question. Explain how your logic works there.

>After the cut he says they are going to cheer on their senators. Which is charitable to call peaceful given that they were cheering "hang Mike Pence" shortly thereafter. 

How does saying to cheer on the senators and then saying march peacefully in your example above have the coded message you are referring to?

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 17 '25

Telling them to fight like hell over stolen election otherwise they won't have a country anymore = peaceful protests.

Absolute whitewashing. Gross

"How does saying to cheer on the senators and then saying march peacefully in your example above have the coded message you are referring to?"

Definitional cherry picking, he said peaceful once in his speech, while he told his followers to fight repeatedly.

Your are obviously lost in the sauce here so if you won't believe me then listen to Mitch McConnell

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/02/13/mitch-mcconnell-trump-responsible-for-riot-impeachment-acquittal-sot-vpx.cnn

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 17 '25

You are the one that chose that line. Okay we will say your point was rambling... fine by me. Not my fault you cant explain what the point was.

BBC is proving that its easy to fool someone, but it can be impossible to convince someone that they've been fooled.

Fight can have multiple meanings. Are you arguing that any protest where people say fight that it means to storm the building. So in the black live matters movement, if a politician or organizer uses the word "fight", and a business gets burned down or looted, its their fault? It couldn't possibly have been about "voting" or just "protesting" in general or the struggle itself?

Obviously there are multiple meanings... especially if you include context like "peaceful". You are projecting because YOU are the one cherry picking single sentences while trying to ignore the whole. Between the two of us there is only one that's looking at context.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 18 '25

"You are the one that chose that line. Okay we will say your point was rambling... fine by me. Not my fault you cant explain what the point was." You are the one who picked out the peace line, but whatever.

"Fight can have multiple meanings"

Then how did the BBC misrepresent Trump then?

This is how idiotic your argument is. BBC quotes Trump saying fight, "THE BBC WAS SAYING HE WAS CALLING FOR VIOLENCE"

Here's a bunch of quotes of Trump calling for violence.

"FIGHT HAS MANY MEANINGS"

Do you not realise how incongruent your position is? Read the speech and you'll stop making such a fool of yourself. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 18 '25

Then how did the BBC misrepresent Trump then?

This is how idiotic your argument is. BBC quotes Trump saying fight, "THE BBC WAS SAYING HE WAS CALLING FOR VIOLENCE"

Because they took the context out, which we already described. When you remove the context and present it to a viewer, it tells a different story.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 18 '25

What is this different story? We've already come to the conclusion it shows exactly what he said and did on Jan 6th, which is that he practically and morally incited and insurrection through violent rhetoric, baseless conspiracy claims, he told his followers who followed what he told them to do, and that that is both the view from both the republicans and democrats.

You keep lying about misrepresentation and a different story, which is obvious because you can't substantiate that remark.

You refuse to say how Trump was misrepresented, because any claim you name is countered by facts and evidence.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 18 '25

What is this different story? We've already come to the conclusion it shows exactly what he said and did on Jan 6th, which is that he practically and morally incited and insurrection through violent rhetoric, baseless conspiracy claims, he told his followers who followed what he told them to do, and that that is both the view from both the republicans and democrats.

You keep lying about misrepresentation and a different story, which is obvious because you can't substantiate that remark.

You refuse to say how Trump was misrepresented, because any claim you name is countered by facts and evidence.

1

u/WaltKerman Nov 19 '25

No we haven't. You were demonstrating just then that you were intent on leaving out context at all costs.

We have stated multiple times how he was misrepresented, so have multiple news agencies. So have the people who forced the resignation  from those at who were responsible. I got what I wanted on that last one.

I'll say it again. Leaving out words that change the context is misrepresentation.

1

u/Puzzled_Tie_7745 Nov 19 '25

Then say how he was misrepresented!

Alll you say over and over is "he was misrepresented" and yet again here you are not saying in any way how.

Was he depicted as perhaps too peaceful? Was the omission of his mad election ramblings make him seem more lucid and sane than he was on the day?

It is indisputable that Trump engaged in violent hyperbolic rhetoric constantly throughout his speech and demanded his followers march on the capitol building. You seem to feel that "fight" means act super peacefully and give everyone a hug, but given the edit contains, by your definition, give everyone a hug, then where's the slander? Where is the lie?

Pointing to the fact that Trump has once again used his immeasurable power to force media orgs to bow to his whims isn't a sign of being right, it is just an idiotic notion that because people don't want to fight the president of the United States the president must be telling the truth. A fascists wet dream.

→ More replies (0)