The Telegraph and the other right wing media, do they hate Britain?

[Jenijenjen]

23 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

how do people feel about Trump's threatened lawsuit?

He has a history of making extreme threats and then backing down when he has won other concessions. Suspect he has a new DG already lined up.

[Sephiroth]

"Conservative Shadow Culture Secretary Nigel Huddleston tells GB News that the BBC should "grovel" to Trump."

 

lol

[ianr]

Some incidental background info, (I presume this is the relevant edition of Panorama), from https://www.c21media.net/news/blue-ant-studios-takes-october-films-president-trump-a-second-chance-to-cannes/:

Blue Ant Studios to shop BBC’s President Trump: A Second Chance? in Cannes

October Films’ President Trump: A Second Chance? airs on the BBC this month

Blue Ant Studios will launch forthcoming documentary President Trump: A Second Chance? (working title) at Mipcom this month.

Produced by October Films in the UK, the 1×60’ doc, which has just wrapped production, was commissioned by the BBC for its Panorama strand, where it will premiere on October 29.

President Trump: A Second Chance? will provide an up-to-date and comprehensive look at Donald Trump’s run for the White House over the past 18 months.

Featuring expert analysis, archive material and interviews with those closest to Trump, the doc asks how it has been possible for a now-convicted felon to be within striking distance of securing a second term as president.

Blue Ant Studios holds the international licensing rights to the doc, excluding the UK. It will be joined on its Mipcom slate by nature series Walking with Elephants (3×60’) and Roman history doc Emperor: Rise & Fall of a Dynasty.

Karolina Kaminska
10-10-2024
©C21Media
 

[malumbu]

The BBC is one of the finest, if not the finest, broadcasters in the world.  They have been admired by many across the world for their journalism.  There have been numerous arrests since their recent expose on convenience shops that cover ups for criminals - money laundering, contraband,  illegal workers and the like.

By no means perfect and some of what they have done in the modern world is questionable - the website often comes across as tabloid or sensationalist, as do some of their documentaries, and at times it is full of low grade game shows, fly on the wall etc which bring the punters and money, including overseas, in but is not quality TV.  In their desperation for 'balance' they've given too much air time and credibility to some more extreme views, which contributed to Brexit and some of the rise in right wing parties.  I wish they'd say 'the convicted criminal' every time they talk about Yaxley Lenon.

The programme was clumsy, why it didn't go through proper clearance including the lawyers, I don't know.  But it created zero stir at the time. Zero.  And had no impact on the election, so Trump has no case.  I hope they don't cave in like many of the US corporations and media.  Oh and well done to South Park using the small p*nis defence in ridiculing him.

What I expect is as the Beeb is pretty centrist in it;s reporting in riles some of those who thrive on the toxic populism we have seen since Trump mark 1 and Brexit.  How sad.

[Angelina]

All the more reason to support the BBC. 

The last thing we want is a news service controlled by the likes.

[Jenijenjen]

This whole episode has played into the hands of the right wing media who want to see the BBC defunded. There are very many "civilians" who want the same. Be careful what you wish for.

[David Peckham]

I'd settle for just BBC3 being defunded and Paddy McGuiness being decapitated.

[Angelina]

Who?

[David Peckham]

Precisely.

He's either the luckiest man in show business, the poor man's Peter Kay or just a talentless tit depending on your view of his work.

The BBC don't use him so much since he took over Question of Sport and Top Gear and tanked them both - around 100 years of broadcasting between them before he went near them.

They still pay him £250k a year not to be on TV, though. It's because of the unique way the BBC is funded.

Edited yesterday at 19:15 by David Peckham
Sp

[Sephiroth]

Well…

https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/james-ball-exclusive-the-error-at-the-heart-of-trumps-bbc-attack/
 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

Calling the BBC to account for broadcasting this absolute trash is they very opposite of hating Britain. Wanting Britain to have the most reliable trustworthy and impartial news broadcaster that sets the standard for the rest of the world is patriotic. Trying to brush this under the carpet is deeply damaging to our country. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2025/nov/10/side-by-side-comparison-of-bbc-edited-trump-speech-from-day-of-capitol-attack-with-original-video

 

[malumbu]

20 hours ago, David Peckham said:

 

On 12/11/2025 at 12:46, David Peckham said:

I'd settle for just BBC3 being defunded and Paddy McGuiness being decapitated.

There has been some good discussion on this threat then you spoil it with a toxic and unhelpful post.

There are plenty of people that I am not fond of on the box but I don't post on line.  By all means start your own thread on said person, or a better home would be X where others will no doubt go off on one too.

[Sephiroth]

As for being “swept under the carpet” - the bbc is in crisis, two senior people have resigned and Trump (yknow the lying, corrupt, racist, Epstein client monster) is suing for a billion 

but that is sweeping it  under the carpet? The guy behind the report criticising also misquotes Trump but you are you arent gunning for him. How curious 

“Absolute trash” is very… extreme. 
 

one can say it’s not how it should be, one can say it’s wrong, one can say we will ensure it won’t happen again 

that seems proportionate 

people marching on Capitol Hill after Trump spoke, and then he pardons them? That is the opposite of “learning from mistakes” - that is absolute trash 

and that is who you are aligning yourself with. You could at least acknowledge that rather than wanting the bbc to be some great British bastion, mos uk newspapers and media barons and trump adjacent monsters all very much want the bbc eliminated. Not improved.  Eliminated 

[HeadNun]

On 11/11/2025 at 23:15, malumbu said:

The BBC is one of the finest, if not the finest, broadcasters in the world.  They have been admired by many across the world for their journalism.  There have been numerous arrests since their recent expose on convenience shops that cover ups for criminals - money laundering, contraband,  illegal workers and the like.

By no means perfect and some of what they have done in the modern world is questionable - the website often comes across as tabloid or sensationalist, as do some of their documentaries, and at times it is full of low grade game shows, fly on the wall etc which bring the punters and money, including overseas, in but is not quality TV.  In their desperation for 'balance' they've given too much air time and credibility to some more extreme views, which contributed to Brexit and some of the rise in right wing parties.  I wish they'd say 'the convicted criminal' every time they talk about Yaxley Lenon.

The programme was clumsy, why it didn't go through proper clearance including the lawyers, I don't know.  But it created zero stir at the time. Zero.  And had no impact on the election, so Trump has no case.  I hope they don't cave in like many of the US corporations and media.  Oh and well done to South Park using the small p*nis defence in ridiculing him.

What I expect is as the Beeb is pretty centrist in it;s reporting in riles some of those who thrive on the toxic populism we have seen since Trump mark 1 and Brexit.  How sad.

Firstly, the Panorama DID go through proper clearance - nothing is aired without legal and editorial policy review. The whole point about the edit is that it was designed to go under the radar, which is why no one realised at the time what was going on. Any honest producer would have put a flash frame or a fade in, to show that two pieces of sync were spliced together. That isn't an opinion, it's a code of conduct. So Trump does have a case, whether you like it or not. 

Secondly, the BBC isn't meant to be centrist - it's meant to be impartial, there's a difference. The fact that you don't seem to know the difference says it all, really. 

And finally, the reason this whole thing is such a tragedy is precisely because the BBC is an amazing global resource and soft power, which is held to a higher standard than any other broadcaster in the world. That's why what the producers did was morally reprehensible - because they are giving ammunition to the people who want to see it disbanded (not because Trump's feelings are hurt). If you want to protect the BBC, you make sure you are above reproach and don't make editorial judgements that will bring the walls crashing down around you and ruin thousands of colleagues' livelihoods. 

[Sephiroth]

I still say “morally reprehensible” is too extreme 

unless you are talking about Trump. And what he did that day. And what the outcome was. And him pardoning the criminals 

that is clearly morally reprehensible and in no way comparable to the bbc edit 

 Ow if you want to say all edits like that should be better flagged to a viewer, if you want to compare the edit to the outcome, if you want to talk about better workflows to prevent in future.  Sure.  Why not. 

but it’s pretty repugnant to call that edit morally reprehensible in light of events and not call that monster out? Nah

the bbc, us, the uk, all of us will lose if we play by rules that monsters like trump pay no heed to. “Go low go high” is aspirationally sound. But the BBC Is not the net loser on balance here even if you don’t  like what they did 

when the BBC is disbanded it don’t be beside of decisions like this.  It will be because people side with Trump, Dacre and the rest 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sephiroth

[HeadNun]

But I have never, once mentioned the storming of the capital, or said Trump is in any way not morally reprehensible. You put all those words into my mouth. For me, this isn't about Trump - they could have made that edit about Gaddafi, or Hussein, or Johnson... it doesn't matter. What matters is that the producers' unconscious bias affected their editorial decision-making.. That is the only point I have ever made on this thread. It was you who decided that I'm a raving Trump supporter. 

41 minutes ago, malumbu said:

There has been some good discussion on this threat then you spoil it with a toxic and unhelpful post.

There are plenty of people that I am not fond of on the box but I don't post on line.  By all means start your own thread on said person, or a better home would be X where others will no doubt go off on one too.

Yes, David Peckham. Please, for the love of God, stop making flippant remarks all the time that frankly only ever serve to bring a tiny bit of light relief, humour and sunshine to this forum. How dare you. 

[Sephiroth]

But HN if you say this isn’t about Trump then we can never ever even approach dialogue 

the documentary was about Trump, the things he said and did and how those words were edited and acted on

if you want to ignore absolutely everything else and just in a complete  vacuum look at an editing decision - that’s on you 

I don’t think you are a proactive Trump supporter. But you make yourself one by proxy if you can’t look at this decision in the round.  He literally does not care about these rules. Which is why he gets away with so much.  If we were talking about him in the past tense then this would be easier - but he is very much an enemy of everything we hold dear, and the bbc  isn’t - even allowing for this edit

if I have previously explicitly or otherwise painted you as an actual Trump supporter I apologise and clarify that now. But on this actual issue I don’t think we will ever come close to agreeing    
Meanwhile - bbc enemies run their hands and trump carries on with his mission 

[Moovart]

12 minutes ago, HeadNun said:

 

Yes, David Peckham. Please, for the love of God, stop making flippant remarks all the time that frankly only ever serve to bring a tiny bit of light relief, humour and sunshine to this forum. How dare you. 

Not sure advocating decapitation for an irritating to some TV presenter, counts as a bit of light relief.  Pretty distasteful really ☹️

[HeadNun]

1 hour ago, Sephiroth said:

But HN if you say this isn’t about Trump then we can never ever even approach dialogue 

the documentary was about Trump, the things he said and did and how those words were edited and acted on

if you want to ignore absolutely everything else and just in a complete  vacuum look at an editing decision - that’s on you 

I don’t think you are a proactive Trump supporter. But you make yourself one by proxy if you can’t look at this decision in the round.  He literally does not care about these rules. Which is why he gets away with so much.  If we were talking about him in the past tense then this would be easier - but he is very much an enemy of everything we hold dear, and the bbc  isn’t - even allowing for this edit

if I have previously explicitly or otherwise painted you as an actual Trump supporter I apologise and clarify that now. But on this actual issue I don’t think we will ever come close to agreeing    
Meanwhile - bbc enemies run their hands and trump carries on with his mission 

But THE STORY is about a BBC edit, and its impartiality issues, not about the storming of the capital. And it's not the first time deceitful editing has been a story - there was the whole Queen scandal too. 

I love the BBC and hate seeing the corporation frankly unable to remain impartial anymore. It breaks my heart, because we do have a higher standard in this country and that's what keeps us on the right side of history - not people like Trump. 

A long time ago I made a film about a Trump supporter. I came into the edit one day and the editor had edited him to say something quite bigoted, which he simply never said. Luckily I spotted it. The editor's excuse was 'well it's the kind of thing he would say'. I made him take it out, because it was dishonest and you have to leave your politics at the door if you want to be a good documentarian. 

Edited 1 hour ago by HeadNun

[Sephiroth]

That example seems fair enough - but wouldn’t say it’s completely analogous to the Trump situation

the STORY (your caps) is about the bbc edit precisely because of what happened that day and people’s ability to brush it under the carpet. I think the edit didn’t  need to be done in that way to make the exact same point. So it’s wrong thing to do, but it isn’t actually incorrect in its point - and people should be reexamining the events and not the edit 

and I don’t think it’s political to say or do this. If your supporter example played out that way then fair enough - I just cannot agree that in this case the edit fundamentally changes what he said, meant or did  - especially without events transpired   It could definitely be made more explicit but given what actually happened… ?

At least hopefully at this point we are being less aggy with each other and trying to make our points 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sephiroth

[first mate]

I agree with HeadNun that impartiality is crucial to good, trustworthy journalism and that in this case the BBC fell short of the high standards we expect of them, also that this has led to a situation that puts the BBC in an almost impossible situation and has given fuel to those that want to destroy or control it.

That said, I also agree with Sephiroth that there is an even more important issue at stake here that we must not allow to be overshadowed and that the motivation of Trump on that day was not essentially misrepresented. I think it is terrifying that Trump may be capable of muzzling and destroying an institution like the BBC, as at the same time he perpetuates  a narrative and furore that aides him as he repeatedly seeks to draw attention away from his own undoubtedly criminal behaviour. I think the BBC has to fight this and only hope that in the process they/we are not bankrupted.

[CPR Dave]

1 hour ago, Sephiroth said:

one can say it’s not how it should

be, one can say it’s wrong, one can say we will ensure it won’t happen again 

 

 

It happened again yesterday. 

 

 

[Sephiroth]

Sorry if this is bullying, or name calling or whatever 

but anyone quoting Rupert Lowe is just never ever going to have a valid point 

several people misreported  that line not just the bbc - seems to have been a mishearing and I’ve seen plenty of corrections   So I don’t think it was a lie

(it remains a curious distinction tho why say foreigners and domestic  at all   If you want to bring back the death penalty why mention this distinction?)

 

Here’s a question. If Lowe or his party took power and introduced the death penalty, do you think proportionally more “domestics” or”foreign born” would receive  the death penalty? Because I think I know the answer and so do you 

This bastion of truth.  Rupert Lowe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?d=NEWS_PS

I wouldnt put him on any pedestal above the bbc 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sephiroth

[HeadNun]

1 hour ago, Sephiroth said:

That example seems fair enough - but wouldn’t say it’s completely analogous to the Trump situation

the STORY (your caps) is about the bbc edit precisely because of what happened that day and people’s ability to brush it under the carpet. I think the edit didn’t  need to be done in that way to make the exact same point. So it’s wrong thing to do, but it isn’t actually incorrect in its point - and people should be reexamining the events and not the edit 

and I don’t think it’s political to say or do this. If your supporter example played out that way then fair enough - I just cannot agree that in this case the edit fundamentally changes what he said, meant or did  - especially without events transpired   It could definitely be made more explicit but given what actually happened… ?

At least hopefully at this point we are being less aggy with each other and trying to make our points 

No, it's not completely analogous. But no one in their right minds doubts that he's a villain who incited the storming of the capital, it goes without saying. But I see what you mean about re-examining the events, of course. As I said, a less-than-one-second flash frame would have meant we'd never even be having this discussion. 

He's also a litigious tyrant who's suing a US Network, which has directly led to a loss of income for me and many colleagues. I hate the guy. 

That's why broadcasters can't give him any ammunition and must keep their noses clean. 

Yes, I'm all up for less aggy, I don't like it one bit. 

Edited 1 hour ago by HeadNun

[CPR Dave]

So the standards you hold the BBC to are the "several people" are also incompetent.

Great.

Half a million people last year stopped paying the licence fee because of those standards. 

 

The Trump story came out of an internal BBC memo. But it's not just Trump and Lowe and other politicians you don't happen to agree with where their standards have fallen way below what licence payers are entitled to. There are a litany of failures covered by that memo, covering such broad ranging subjects as Israel/Hams, Transgender issues, Racism, Immigration, and oversimplified or distorted narratives on historical content.

It's a deep rooted problem that needs solving immediately and yesterday's follow on blunder instills no confidence. 

Edited 1 hour ago by CPR Dave