Surely in the interests of accuracy you should point out that there are indeed media people who think the situation has become overblown? I’m sure the Jeremy Vine show is very interesting though.
Surely in the interests of accuracy you should point out that there are indeed media people who think the situation has become overblown? I’m sure the Jeremy Vine show is very interesting though.Well I’ve heard a channel 4 spokesperson say it’s wrong, I’ve heard several people who used to work in the BBC say it’s wrong, I’ve heard an ex bbc employee and left wing Labour MP say it’s wrong, I’ve heard many anti Trump commentators say it’s wrong.
It's pretty obvious what the intent was but editing the speech in that way was wrong and gives credence to his claims about fake news.Read the transcript of the entire speech (as already posted) and you tell me what his intent was.
How so?It's pretty obvious what the intent was but editing the speech in that way was wrong and gives credence to his claims about fake news.
He can provide evidence where a speech of his has been edited to make it appear as though he said something that he didn't actually say.How so?
What didn’t he actually say?He can provide evidence where a speech of his has been edited to make it appear as though he said something that he didn't actually say.
It is unacceptable and what makes it really annoying it that it was completely unnecessary. Even if you play the speech in it's entirety it still comes across as someone trying to encourage an insurrection.
Instead because of this the likes of Trump and his cronies are getting to go around saying the BBC is just full of fake news (which it isn't) and that he is being victimised. It's given a man who should be in prison for trying to overthrow a government an excuse to claim he's the one that's been treated unfairly.
Let’s be honest, this is a man recorded as having told 36,000 lies in his first term alone. That he’s suddenly getting precious because of being broadcast saying words he said is typical of the man.Exactly, someone couldn’t help themselves though. Everyone could tell the gist of what he was trying to do, whip up fury and unrest (all because his narcissism couldn’t accept defeat). But to remove “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” and march to “cheer on our brave congressmen and women” and put in the words “fight like hell” takes the narrative up another notch and whoever produced it would’ve known that.
A news related programme should just let the audience decide/form their own view, not unequivocally tell them the narrative they want them to follow. People get spoon fed opinions and clipped videos without context from press and social media constantly, some might prefer that as it works well in a world of echo chambers/ confirmation bias, but the BBC should be better than that and if they want to survive in their current form, they’ve got to be. I personally hope they can survive even if I hardly watch terrestrial tv these days
He posts AI generated content on the official presidential social media accounts.Let’s be honest, this is a man recorded as having told 36,000 lies in his first term alone. That he’s suddenly getting precious because of being broadcast saying words he said is typical of the man.
If you can point me towards a more impartial news organisation in this country I’d love to see one. It’s a very hard job covering someone like him without being accused of bias in the first place.
Let’s be honest, this is a man recorded as having told 36,000 lies in his first term alone. That he’s suddenly getting precious because of being broadcast saying words he said is typical of the man.
If you can point me towards a more impartial news organisation in this country I’d love to see one. It’s a very hard job covering someone like him without being accused of bias in the first place.
BBC has to be above and beyond reproach
It is and it’s completely unfair but it’s still the casewhich I get, but when you see it being torn to bits vs. a convicted criminal who glorifies sexual assault and shows daily that he's a pathological liar, it all feels a bit upside down.
Well at least he's not doing something completely mental like demanding $1bn compensationWe all know how thin skinned Trump is
The man once called a 'bike nonce'.Surely in the interests of accuracy you should point out that there are indeed media people who think the situation has become overblown? I’m sure the Jeremy Vine show is very interesting though.
Surely in the interests of accuracy you should point out that there are indeed media people who think the situation has become overblown? I’m sure the Jeremy Vine show is very interesting though.
Read the transcript of the entire speech (as already posted) and you tell me what his intent was.
How about their coverage of The Palestine or non coverage of lsreal's genocide.I've seen the clips side by side on HIGNFY and it's not good. It's the kind of reporting that's expected from GB News or The Daily Heil, it is misleading and the BBC should be better.
Trump is a terrible human and unfit to be president, the sh*t he spouts is bad enough. There is no need to try to mislead and make it more reactionary.
In what way?the way that they have portrayed Brexit, covid and it’s fallout, Israel’s behaviour etc etc.
How about their coverage of The Palestine or non coverage of lsreal's genocide.
Going to cost them, something, maybe he'll accept a gesture of innocence via Andrew's testimony to the House committee?The irony is that the Prescott memo includes claims of much more widespread and serious malpractice going on at BBC Arabic in terms of their coverage of the October 7 attacks, but they appear to have got a fraction of the coverage from the rest of the media. A Trump soundbite that didn’t include enough white flashes has been deemed to be far more important.
Look it’s fine, Trump only wants to sue them for a half Masterchef.The irony is that the Prescott memo includes claims of much more widespread and serious malpractice going on at BBC Arabic in terms of their coverage of the October 7 attacks, but they appear to have got a fraction of the coverage from the rest of the media. A Trump soundbite that didn’t include enough white flashes has been deemed to be far more important.
Some incredible stuff coming out. Fascinating to watch how people are responding to this compared to other instances when news channels have had to issue corrections.Look it’s fine, Trump only wants to sue them for a half Masterchef.
He’s filed loads of lawsuits against media organisations, both as a form of intimidation of the press, and to enrich himself through the presidency. The former is blatant authoritarianism. The ‘settlements’ are in effect bribes paid by the organisations for him to leave them alone and broadcast what he wants.Some incredible stuff coming out. Fascinating to watch how people are responding to this compared to other instances when news channels have had to issue corrections.
John Simpson reporting. "Donald Trump’s demand for a billion dollars from the BBC comes from a local Florida law firm. It was sent to the wrong address, and the writer didn’t know what ‘salacious’ really means: ‘Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC…'"
Also if you look at payouts in this country he'd be lucky to get £200K if he won, although Peston reports legal advice given to the BBC is Trump's case has no chance of success.
The closest thing would be showing her speech conceding the election, accepting that her opponent won, and hoping for a smooth transition of power.The Prescott memo claimed the coverage was biased because there was no equivalent program on Kamala Harris.
Yeah real head scratcher that, Michael.
The whole thing is a true pot pourri of reheated right-wing talking points, random micro-managing moans about individual stories, and some genuine controversies (largely ignored)The Prescott memo claimed the coverage was biased because there was no equivalent program on Kamala Harris.
Yeah real head scratcher that, Michael.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?