Article BBC controversy shows how precarious UK sovereignty has become (British brewing)

[C C]

https://nation.cymru/opinion/the-bbc-row...has-become

EXCERPTS: Whatever our views on the BBC’s honesty and competence, it is a national institution – one of the dwindling number of our assets that hasn’t been sold from under us over the last few decades.

Like any large organisation, it has rogue employees, makes collective errors, and is prone to ideological fads. For all those drawbacks, however, its public status means that its editorial line can’t be bought for money.

Many of the attacks that have taken place this week have come from people who think that it should.

[...] Only the public service media model requires producers to make content that balances off the needs of the entire viewing and listening public. The BBC frequently, too frequently, fails to achieve that balance. The broadcaster is routinely targeted by disgruntled politicians from Nigel Farage to Jeremy Corbyn and all points in between. Barely a month goes by when it doesn’t have to apologise for a misstep.

That, however, is not proof of the BBC’s unique bias, but of the ongoing and constant accountability that our democracy rightly demands of it. The licence fee buys us democratic levers to keep the BBC in check. No such levers exist for any other source of information we have.

[...] The Labour government’s acquiescence to Trump’s wishes shows us all how vulnerable the UK has become on the world stage. The government’s weakness has been seized upon by Trump’s supporters in the UK to suggest the BBC should be dismantled altogether.

Self-styled ‘patriots’, festooned in flags and poppies, cannot wait to euthanise a public British institution in favour of private news organisations funded from who knows where, and by God knows whom.

The BBC is meant to annoy you. Its mission to serve us all means that it will often stray from what you, or I, think is acceptable. When we allow our discontent to be weaponised against it to the point of hostility, however, we are being used.

If the BBC falls to foreign interference, the same arguments will be employed against our universities, the NHS, and even the judiciary. Our Senedd is next on their list and for the same reason: it belongs to us, not those who seek to own us... (MORE - missing details)

[Syne]

Barely a month goes by when it doesn’t have to apologise for a misstep.

That, however, is not proof of the BBC’s unique bias, but of the ongoing and constant accountability that our democracy rightly demands of it.

The consistent errors against one political side is proof of unique bias.

[C C]

Trump says he will likely sue the BBC for up to $5 billion for editing his speech
https://www.france24.com/en/americas/202...his-speech

INTRO: US President Donald Trump said on Friday he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave. The BBC insists there is no legal basis for his claim.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been plunged into its biggest crisis in decades after two senior leaders resigned following accusations of bias, including over the editing of Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the Capitol.

Trump's lawyers had initially set a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract its documentary or face a lawsuit for "no less" than $1 billion. They also demanded an apology and compensation for what they called "overwhelming reputational and financial harm," according to a letter seen by Reuters.

The BBC, which has admitted its editing of Trump's remarks was an "error of judgement," sent a personal apology to Trump on Thursday but said it would not rebroadcast the documentary and rejected the defamation claim.

"We'll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend. "I think I have to do that, I mean they've even admitted that they cheated," he said. "They changed the words coming out of my mouth."

Trump said he had not spoken with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with whom he has built a solid relationship, about the issue, but that he planned to call him this weekend. He said Starmer had tried to reach him, and was "very embarrassed" by the incident.

Pressure on the broadcaster has been growing since the right-wing Daily Telegraph newspaper published parts of a dossier compiled by the BBC's adviser on standards and guidelines on November 3.

As well as criticising the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and accusing the BBC’s Arabic service of anti-Israel bias, the dossier said that an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series, “Panorama” – titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” – broadcast days before the 2024 US presidential election was misleading.

Specifically, it showed how the third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the January 6, 2021, speech into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell”... (MORE - details)

[confused2]

The expression "Fight like hell" is widely understood to refer the need for political determination. Hillary Clinton is well known for her use of the phrase and Trump himself used it during his 6 January 2021 speech on Capitol Hill. It is therefore surprising to find Trump claiming the phrase he used before a crowd of 200,000 people could be interpreted as a call to violence.

[Syne]

That was clearly the result of the BBC edit, and it was the going narrative from partisan Democrats here in the states. Leftists, here and abroad, routinely ignore any inconvenient meanings, history, etc. that refutes their favored narrative at any moment. This includes their own past words, like in the recent government shutdown... thus including Hillary's use of the phrase "fight like hell."

[confused2]

That was clearly the result of the BBC edit, and it was the going narrative from partisan Democrats here in the states. Leftists, here and abroad, routinely ignore any inconvenient meanings, history, etc. that refutes their favored narrative at any moment. This includes their own past words, like in the recent government shutdown... thus including Hillary's use of the phrase "fight like hell."

Routinely ignore ?? This can't be difficult for you .. to the ordinary American .. say within a crowd of 200,000, Is "Fight like hell" a call to violence or not?

[Syne]

I never said it was. If you could read, you'd see that I said leftists ignore the past usages so they can impugn the meaning most beneficial to their current narrative. Yes, this very often flouts common sense, usage, or simple reason. They did the same with "very fine people on both sides" and countless other phrases taken out of context or labeled as dog whistles, incitement, etc..

That you're unaware of this would see to be an indictment of the BBC and whatever other news sources you frequent.

[stryder]

That was clearly the result of the BBC edit, and it was the going narrative from partisan Democrats here in the states. Leftists, here and abroad, routinely ignore any inconvenient meanings, history, etc. that refutes their favored narrative at any moment. This includes their own past words, like in the recent government shutdown... thus including Hillary's use of the phrase "fight like hell."

Routinely ignore ?? This can't be difficult for you .. to the ordinary American .. say within a crowd of 200,000, Is "Fight like hell" a call to violence or not?

On the subject.
Ever had one of those awkward moments when you enter a room and the people in it have been discussing something, and you hear the words "fight like hell" as the end of the discussion you've just interrupted.

What perception would you have of what has just been said? If there is an awkward silence and you don't ask what they were talking about, it could lead to any number of potential ways of misreading it.

Funnily enough, no editing required.

[confused2]

Somewhere buried in US law (I suspect) is something like-

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

^^Can anyone can think of someone who might fall into that category?

Syne (but not Trump) has a problem with the meaning of ".. fight like hell, or you won't have a country" .. having successfully shown the harmless rhetorical nature of the words .. Trump now wants a billion dollars because (he now claims) the words he used DO encourage violence.

[Syne]

C2 is up his own ass again. 9_9