BBC anti-Trump disinformation

[stryder]

They edited out 50 minutes of the speech and made it seem completely seamless. That's unethical journalism, as it doesn't give an accurate representation.

While that may be the case, you have to consider that if someone does a book review, they don't print the entirety of the book they review in the review. The review therefore becomes selective based upon the perception and narrative of the reviewer.

[Syne]

But they don't distort the narrative of the book they review. Why are you so interested in excusing journalistic malpractice? Trolling again?

[Yazata]

They edited out 50 minutes of the speech and made it seem completely seamless. That's unethical journalism, as it doesn't give an accurate representation.

Not only did they splice together two remarks uttered 50 minutes apart, they left out very relevant things said between that contradicted the 'narrative' they were trying to create. The BBC's whole purpose was to convince viewers that Trump had said something very different from and almost the opposite of what he actually said.

They were knowingly lying by spreading falsehoods that they had manufactured themselves by creative editing, which obviously is not a good thing for a once-respected news organization to be doing. Especially when the one they were lying about goes on to become the President of Britain's foremost ally.

And once again the establishment journalists feign innocence and wonder why nobody trusts them or their profession any longer...

It's probably time for the UK to abolish the licenses that every household must purchase in order to legally watch TV, with the money going to subsidize the quasi-government BBC. Nigel Farage and Reform promise to do this. The Conservatives floated it several times but did nothing.

[Syne]

It's probably time for the UK to abolish the licenses that every household must purchase in order to legally watch TV, with the money going to subsidize the quasi-government BBC. Nigel Farage and Reform promise to do this. The Conservatives floated it several times but did nothing.

Yeah, since it only seems to support keeping a uniparty in power, it could readily be a vehicle of authoritarian propaganda. Hide the grooming gangs, immigrant violence/crime, etc. while elites consolidate their power.

[stryder]

But they don't distort the narrative of the book they review. Why are you so interested in excusing journalistic malpractice? Trolling again?

No Syne, not trolling more along the line of Devils Advocating.

The point is that it's lopsided. Yes the BBC screwed up, but so has Trumps "team". Many times have they said things that are blatantly false and defamative, but because they shout the loudest they must be right? (Is that what being Right is?)

[confused2]

To clarify a rather tricky point..
Aside from the speech at the time..
Were the folks who invaded the Whitehouse doing what Trump wanted them to do?
Did he watch as events unfolded and do nothing?
Did he really pardon those involved?

There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices.We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.

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’re never voting 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.

In full, without edits, to me it seems like a rabble rousing speech .. are Trump supporters in a sort of faux indignation mode? Misdirection?

[Syne]

The only "lopsided" is a news organization, whose job it is to accurately report what actually happens, so people are informed. A political party pushing a narrative favorable to itself is neither new nor unexpected. It's only when journalists become willing propagandists that people don't get a clear picture of what's going on. Trump and his administration have a clear and obvious bias that everyone can see. The BBC, on the other hand, is expected to be unbiased. You cannot... rationally... compare the two as equals.

[confused2]

If the only thing in the Panorama program that Trump supporters could object to was the splice - I'd guess it was either fair or generous.

Appalling journalism - they could have made the same point (and more damning) by selecting many other snippets - but they didn't. It seems his security guards  prevented Trump from actually going to Capital Hill.

White House later..

Minutes later, Meadows and Cipollone returned from their talk with the President. No statement was forthcoming.
“Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the Vice President to be [fucking] hung,” Hutchinson heard Cipollone say.
“You heard him, Pat,” Meadows replied. “He thinks Mike deserves it.
He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong.”

More: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-...RT-2-7.pdf

And you think the BBC splice was the problem.

[C C]

Heh. "And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution..."

Complete transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...02eb471f27

And in this context of transcripts... A coincidence that could be speciously interpreted as trivial obstruction, by conspiracy enthusiasts...

For some reason of malfunction, YouTube refuses to provide a complete transcript of the video. The transcript rendering stops at the 1:34 minute mark. Which excludes the part about the Proud Boys marching before Trump made the speech, that Panorama putatively gave the appearance of transpiring after the speech.

[confused2]

Heh. "And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution..."

Complete transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...02eb471f27

And in this context of transcripts... A coincidence that could be speciously interpreted as trivial obstruction, by conspiracy enthusiasts...

For some reason of malfunction, YouTube refuses to provide a complete transcript of the video. The transcript rendering stops at the 1:34 minute mark. Which excludes the part about the Proud Boys marching before Trump made the speech, that Panorama putatively gave the appearance of transpiring after the speech.

From the link to AP news given by CC ..
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...02eb471f27

Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot

^^ My highlight

President Donald Trump spoke at a rally near the White House on Jan. 6 before a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

^^ My highlight again.

To an extent the precise timeline is important but Trump's failure to call off the dogs after (?) his speech suggests (to me) it is all part of the same thing.

When did rioters enter the Capitol and what became of the crowd (250,000?) after Trump stopped speaking and was prevented from actually leading the crowd to the Capitol? Would the crowd be in the mood set by " peacefully and patriotically " almost an hour earlier or by (among) his closing points "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.".

Rousing words for an excited crowd and (potential) mob.