When all the bank's errors are in favor of the bank, those aren't errors. When the news media's mistakes all run in the same direction, those aren't mistakes.
Donald Trump led a movement that alleged the 2020 election was fraudulent, and supporters of that movement stormed the US Capitol. He did not directly tell them to do so, though he did say both that they should “fight like hell” and do it “peacefully and patriotically”.
I’ve written and broadcasted extensively on the events of 6 January 2021 for my former employer, the BBC, and I always strived to outline these basic facts.
The editing error was inexcusable under the corporation’s own editorial guidelines. There is also a concerted and politically motivated attack on the BBC’s independence happening right now. Both things can be, and are, true.
Had Trump not tried to use it to justify his far greater lies, then we would all be focusing on the error. It was grave but one issue is whether it was sloppiness or intentional. All indications to me are that it was former since there was no real gain in trying to mislead; the facts were damning enough. Also, BBC did the honorable thing and kicked out the head. The right in UK and US kick their far bigger liars to the top.
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 are 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.
The bad faith is on the side of the people who claim that Trump's words -- not just that day but in the two months leading up to it - were not an incitement to violence in his name. Many of the perps said in court that they believed they were doing his bidding.
Trump apologists pretend that the scripted "peacefully and patriotically" cancels out the many exhortations to "fight." They ignore the reports that Trump gleefully watched the attack for hours. They ignore the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly praised the attackers, pardoned all of them, and is punishing anyone who had any part in prosecuting them.
What's especially grotesque is that someone who lies as habitually and flagrantly as Trump - and who tells his spokespeople that it's okay for them to lie on his behalf -- claims to see gross dishonesty in the way his actual statements on video are juxtaposed. It is also grotesque that his apologists have no shame in echoing his morally bankrupt claims.
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. The 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.
As a centrist, there are very visible difference between the Left and the Right. The Left believes in being "Liberal" with the truth. The end justifies the means in Left Wing ideology.
Conservatives have their own issues, but the Right doesn't think this way. They're more CONSERVATIVE with their interpretations.
The BBC in Britain, the CBC in Canada and much of the Left Wing media in the US are brutally rotten to the core.
Glen Greenwald has written extensively exposing many of these lies in US Left Wing publications and going as far as detailing exactly how they do it. It's sickening.
Good on Nigel Farage and Trump for keeping them accountable. They've been lying about the Right for years.
Thanks Dalibor for your writing
When all the bank's errors are in favor of the bank, those aren't errors. When the news media's mistakes all run in the same direction, those aren't mistakes.
Donald Trump led a movement that alleged the 2020 election was fraudulent, and supporters of that movement stormed the US Capitol. He did not directly tell them to do so, though he did say both that they should “fight like hell” and do it “peacefully and patriotically”.
I’ve written and broadcasted extensively on the events of 6 January 2021 for my former employer, the BBC, and I always strived to outline these basic facts.
The editing error was inexcusable under the corporation’s own editorial guidelines. There is also a concerted and politically motivated attack on the BBC’s independence happening right now. Both things can be, and are, true.
Had Trump not tried to use it to justify his far greater lies, then we would all be focusing on the error. It was grave but one issue is whether it was sloppiness or intentional. All indications to me are that it was former since there was no real gain in trying to mislead; the facts were damning enough. Also, BBC did the honorable thing and kicked out the head. The right in UK and US kick their far bigger liars to the top.
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
That’s funny, I was coming down to the comments to talk about how ridiculous it is for them to both-sides the BBC’s antisemitism/antizionism.
"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 are 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.
The bad faith is on the side of the people who claim that Trump's words -- not just that day but in the two months leading up to it - were not an incitement to violence in his name. Many of the perps said in court that they believed they were doing his bidding.
Trump apologists pretend that the scripted "peacefully and patriotically" cancels out the many exhortations to "fight." They ignore the reports that Trump gleefully watched the attack for hours. They ignore the indisputable fact that he has repeatedly praised the attackers, pardoned all of them, and is punishing anyone who had any part in prosecuting them.
What's especially grotesque is that someone who lies as habitually and flagrantly as Trump - and who tells his spokespeople that it's okay for them to lie on his behalf -- claims to see gross dishonesty in the way his actual statements on video are juxtaposed. It is also grotesque that his apologists have no shame in echoing his morally bankrupt claims.
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.
That is because you don't understand what Donald has already said and done.
"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.
You could try learning to read any time you like.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person but what the BBC did splicing that together was completely offside. The 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.
As a centrist, there are very visible difference between the Left and the Right. The Left believes in being "Liberal" with the truth. The end justifies the means in Left Wing ideology.
Conservatives have their own issues, but the Right doesn't think this way. They're more CONSERVATIVE with their interpretations.
The BBC in Britain, the CBC in Canada and much of the Left Wing media in the US are brutally rotten to the core.
Glen Greenwald has written extensively exposing many of these lies in US Left Wing publications and going as far as detailing exactly how they do it. It's sickening.
Good on Nigel Farage and Trump for keeping them accountable. They've been lying about the Right for years.
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