Over the years, many valid criticisms have been leveled against the BBC, as well as some spurious ones. The organization has been accused of harboring an anti-Israel bias, especially in its Arabic language service, and of having an internal antisemitism problem. (Some advocates of the Palestinian cause beg to differ.) You might want to read Jonathan Cook regarding the BBC's partisanship for Israel
"He and the U.K. right are making bad faith attacks on the broadcaster to extract a heavy price for a small editorial error."
This was in no way a "small editorial error". There is plenty of evidence going back years of systematic pro-bias from the BBC across a number of standard / typical Left-leaning causes and anti-bias against many things / people / opinions that do not align with those causes.
No matter where you on the spectrum in terms of feelings about Trump, the BBC deserves nothing but scorn and criticism for its actions.
If anything, the those specific edits made him look better and less kooky than the whole affair was. So yes they are biased, but not in the direction you imply. I am certainly not claiming they are objective, oh no.
You can't paper over what the BBC did, and you decimate your credibility in trying. That the BBC's editorial fraud aligns with your sentiments about Tump and Jan 6 does not convert his legal challenge into an act of bad faith. Bad faith is, however, clearly evident in the manner you chose to characterize the facts. Hopefully we're entering a new era where lies and misrepresentation by journalists, as casual routine as they have become, will be challenged and punished on a more regular basis.
I watched what he said and did in full from his own mouth, the likes of the BBC never had a word in edgewise with me. You can believe what you want to believe, I believe Donald.
I love the BBC and rely on it for global news but this was a ludicrous editorial decision.
It will be interesting to see how far this suit goes. Given the British tort system there needs to be proof that the editing was malicious and actually caused damages to the plaintiff. How can his reputation be damaged since he has no reputation to damage. What monetary damages has he sustained as a result of the tort he claims.
To lose the suit would be very costly for Trump in the UK judicial system. I am sure--- as always--- Trump is seeing another chance to cash in on a nice monetary settlement out of court. He will probably get it, too.
He directed his minions very clearly after that speech, he said what he did there in bad faith. Now we cannot trust the BBC, but it is for very, very different reasons than the ones this comments section wishes.
If anything their edits made him look better and more peaceful than the whole affair was. If they should have resigned, it should be for that. So yes, maybe the BBC is a little biased in that way.
No. They lied. Trump lies in the way the worst of men do - crude and brash. The BBC lies in the way the worst of women do - sophisticated and coy. Let's not make excuses for lying.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person but what the BBC did splicing that together was completely offside. Then only reason one might say it wasn’t is that lying journalism of this sort has been normalized in the west by what I used to consider my group, the left. Sorry no excuses and the BBC deserves anything it has coming. Moral clarity is no place for journalism, I’ll make up my own mind thank you very much.
Over the years, many valid criticisms have been leveled against the BBC, as well as some spurious ones. The organization has been accused of harboring an anti-Israel bias, especially in its Arabic language service, and of having an internal antisemitism problem. (Some advocates of the Palestinian cause beg to differ.) You might want to read Jonathan Cook regarding the BBC's partisanship for Israel
"He and the U.K. right are making bad faith attacks on the broadcaster to extract a heavy price for a small editorial error."
This was in no way a "small editorial error". There is plenty of evidence going back years of systematic pro-bias from the BBC across a number of standard / typical Left-leaning causes and anti-bias against many things / people / opinions that do not align with those causes.
No matter where you on the spectrum in terms of feelings about Trump, the BBC deserves nothing but scorn and criticism for its actions.
If anything, the those specific edits made him look better and less kooky than the whole affair was. So yes they are biased, but not in the direction you imply. I am certainly not claiming they are objective, oh no.
You can't paper over what the BBC did, and you decimate your credibility in trying. That the BBC's editorial fraud aligns with your sentiments about Tump and Jan 6 does not convert his legal challenge into an act of bad faith. Bad faith is, however, clearly evident in the manner you chose to characterize the facts. Hopefully we're entering a new era where lies and misrepresentation by journalists, as casual routine as they have become, will be challenged and punished on a more regular basis.
I watched what he said and did in full from his own mouth, the likes of the BBC never had a word in edgewise with me. You can believe what you want to believe, I believe Donald.
I don’t understand your response.
"Legal challenge"
I love the BBC and rely on it for global news but this was a ludicrous editorial decision.
It will be interesting to see how far this suit goes. Given the British tort system there needs to be proof that the editing was malicious and actually caused damages to the plaintiff. How can his reputation be damaged since he has no reputation to damage. What monetary damages has he sustained as a result of the tort he claims.
To lose the suit would be very costly for Trump in the UK judicial system. I am sure--- as always--- Trump is seeing another chance to cash in on a nice monetary settlement out of court. He will probably get it, too.
The BBC wasn't the ones lying here, these people should never have resigned.
He directed his minions very clearly after that speech, he said what he did there in bad faith. Now we cannot trust the BBC, but it is for very, very different reasons than the ones this comments section wishes.
If anything their edits made him look better and more peaceful than the whole affair was. If they should have resigned, it should be for that. So yes, maybe the BBC is a little biased in that way.
"What the BBC did was sloppy and misleading..."
No. They lied. Trump lies in the way the worst of men do - crude and brash. The BBC lies in the way the worst of women do - sophisticated and coy. Let's not make excuses for lying.
To leave that part of the speech in was more misleading than editing it out, excuse you.
it's (a form of) lying. It was intentional.
Oh it was, but not in the direction of bias you are implying.
What are you trying to communicate, Stregoni? If English isn't your first language, no problem. But I have to strain to understand you.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person but what the BBC did splicing that together was completely offside. Then only reason one might say it wasn’t is that lying journalism of this sort has been normalized in the west by what I used to consider my group, the left. Sorry no excuses and the BBC deserves anything it has coming. Moral clarity is no place for journalism, I’ll make up my own mind thank you very much.
Actually Fox News started the whole lying journalism in the west, but I shouldn’t have to say we should be better than Fox.
Trump dislikes freedom of n