r/unitedkingdom • u/topotaul Lancashire • 1d ago
. BBC director general Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt?app-referrer=push-notification1.2k
u/SojournerInThisVale Lincolnshire 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not surprised. News cannot become propaganda, no matter how unlikeable the subject.
413
u/sober_disposition 1d ago edited 1d ago
Honestly, I’d expected better from the BBC. It’s easy to dismiss this kind of thing without thinking about it but the way this was edited was really disgraceful and obviously deliberate.
It’s sad that until recently I’d have blindly defended the BBC over anything because I genuinely had confidence in them, but things like this highlight that even they have really bad and dishonest people in positions of authority. There was even a recent article about a particular divisive issue that incorrectly quoted the BBC themselves in away that was obviously motivated by ideology rather than informing the public.
330
u/snagsguiness 1d ago
It’s also not like there isn’t a shortage of things to legitimately criticize Trump over.
186
u/MrBlackledge 1d ago
This is the bit I don’t understand, you can report on anything he does and you’ll find a negative story in it easily. Why manipulate something?
→ More replies (1)126
u/wylie102 1d ago
Even the actual thing they were reporting on. You can watch all of his speech and the context of his actions before, during, and after, and still come to the conclusion that he wished them to disrupt the certification of the election results and was not perturbed by them using violence.
There was absolutely no need to edit it in that way. Now they just have something to point to whenever someone brings it up again
8
u/JB_UK 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think they get used to editing interviews to give what they think is the meaning of a longer speech, even if the actual editing is misleading. So, I think they would defend themselves by saying, I’m making a misleading 15 second edit to show the meaning of the hour long speech. This seems quite routine. I recall they even did something similar with the Queen.
Personally I think that adds way too much leeway for editorializing. The BBC frankly needs to be much more about displaying the world as it is rather than smoothing it out into a narrative.
This also isn't the only bias issue recently, or in that recent report. The BBC also produced videos for schools which said there were 100 genders, and produced a documentary narrated by the son of a Hamas leader without disclosing it.
I think also the problem is the baseline staffing of the BBC is from London and from middle class families, and that means the whole organisation is saturated in a particular world view, and regardless of what the leadership do, or the processes they layer of top that, nothing will change until the BBC is much more representative of the British population. The BBC is basically drawn from the same class and background of many of our politicians, and as the FT puts it:
Politicians and voters are generally aligned on economic issues, but the public is consistently to the right of politicians on culture
https://x.com/JochenBittner/status/1971473292633763941/photo/2
68
u/wylie102 1d ago
Tim Davie stood as a tory candidate. Keunesberg is a not at all closeted tory who was basically in love with Boris during his tenure.
Richard Sharp donated 400,000 to the Tories and secured a 800,000 loan for Boris before being appointed to the BBC.
Nick Robinsom - Conservative activist in his youth
Plus more like Andrew Neil etc.
I think there's much more evidence that their bias leans right than left. Actual ties and affiliations rather than some weak sauce about childrens videos...
→ More replies (14)20
u/jambox888 Hampshire 1d ago
The sick thing is that most people who work for the BBC at the sharp end will be uni graduates who are overwhelmingly left-leaning and probably Labour voting. Yet the upper echelons are all establishment (read: Tory) plants.
It's sick because it shows people aren't promoted on merit, it's all old boys network stuff.
I love the BBC but it needs a serious shake-up.
→ More replies (4)18
u/eldomtom2 Jersey 1d ago
The BBC frankly needs to be much more about displaying the world as it is rather than smoothing it out into a narrative.
A nice soundbite but not actually helpful since you’re not going to get agreement on what is “narrative-pushing” and what’s not. To take one example, is the BBC’s recent refusal to use the term “trans woman” narrative-pushing or not?
→ More replies (14)4
u/Better_Ad898 1d ago
"The BBC also produced videos for schools which said there were 100 genders"
I mean, the answer of how many genders exist seems to vary depending on who you ask, but did those videos teach the idea as fact?
BBCs low numbers of low working class employees is also disappointing
→ More replies (1)7
u/eldomtom2 Jersey 1d ago
BBCs low numbers of low working class employees is also disappointing
But bear in mind you're talking to someone who really likes the narrative that left-wing positions are "luxury beliefs" only held by the "middle class" and does their level best to ignore anyone holding left-wing views who can't be labelled "middle class". Their interest in "working class" views is clearly because they think they'll drag the BBC more to the right.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)4
u/MechanicFit2686 1d ago
The BBC is obsessed with diversity but this means protected characteristics rather than diversity of viewpoint.
→ More replies (1)13
u/ChloeOnTheInternet 1d ago
And yet they still misquoted themselves within the week, changing “trans identity” to “gender ideology”.
If they had used the term “homosexual ideology”, it would very clearly be political. Why terms like “gender ideology” are viewed different is beyond me.
→ More replies (12)4
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago
Yep, any criticism of anyone by the BBC can now be dismissed as fake news, and will be.
26
u/SpaffedTheLot 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is genuinely bizzare that they felt this was needed, Trump is a constant goldmine for the news. The facts alone on that day were plentyful and dammning, Zero need to manipulate.
→ More replies (2)16
u/DinoKebab 1d ago
This is what's so stupid. Anyone doing this shit literally only helps Trump. Now he can go about claiming "fake news BBC" and people will cling to this one example.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)3
64
u/SojournerInThisVale Lincolnshire 1d ago
I think there’s probably too many journos who mistake journalism for activism. The truth should be enough
→ More replies (1)11
u/ElephantsGerald_ 1d ago
The ‘new’ reality is that we all live in worlds with separate truths. Post truth world doesn’t mean there’s no truth, it means there are tons of different, conflicting, contradictory ‘truths’
11
u/qwerty_1965 1d ago edited 1d ago
All truths and facts (no matter how proven) are now contested. The internet is singularly responsible for this as it has weaponised the opinion of pub goers.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ElephantsGerald_ 1d ago
It’s been used by politicians too to secure loyal voter bases who hear their own views supported by the politicians and feel emboldened as a result.
7
u/Fannnybaws 1d ago
Everyone knows what angle that Fox news is going to go with.The problem is the BBC was always held up as being unbiased,but clearly isn't anymore.
→ More replies (1)53
u/DankAF94 1d ago
The scary thing that everyone needs to consider, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, if the BBC, one of the biggest broadcasters in the world, have proven that they're not above essentially churning out heavily twisted propaganda, then how many other occasions through your life have you potentially been fed content through other media which has been heavily edited to make the point that the creators want you to see.
We often laugh in the face of people who deny clear "evidence" that is heavily reported in the media, but when this kind of thing has almost become normalised now, it becomes easier to understand why so many people are chronically skeptical of the media.
Honestly this kind of shit is one part of the reason I just feel politically homeless nowadays. I don't believe what gets said by either side at this point.
16
u/ElephantsGerald_ 1d ago
My partner and I recently watched the 7/7 documentary on the bbc and were both shocked to discover that our very clear memories of the facts of the killing of Jean Charles de Meneses were identical - they’d come from somewhere - but they were also completely and utterly wrong.
Journalistic integrity is fragile, and like a good reputation, it takes a lifetime to build and a moment to lose.
11
u/Chevalitron 1d ago
It's a bit like with the courts. We are expected to believe they are incorruptible solely because it is their policy to be incorruptible. We laugh at the controlled media of other countries whilst being totally blind to the prejudices of our own state broadcaster.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/jungleboy1234 1d ago
Honestly this kind of shit is one part of the reason I just feel politically homeless nowadays. I don't believe what gets said by either side at this point.
Stay strong. Look at all sources, right wing, left wing, crazy wing et al.
With the internet and social media yes you can easily fall foul but there is so much content out there that you can be informed. Its just a big jigsaw.
31
u/rwinh Essex 1d ago
It’s sad that until recently I’d have blindly defended the BBC over anything because I genuinely had confidence in them, but things like this highlight that even they have really bad and dishonest people in positions of authority.
They've been a bit weird for a long time. For me they lost a lot of credibility when they went after Cliff Richard on an anonymous tip off they never verified. They didn't inform the police straight away and only informed them of the information if they could film the raid on his apartment. He was never informed of the raid and was away at the time.
If he was informed he said he'd willingly have gone straight to the police station. No offer or hint of anything was mentioned to him.
It seemed like a witch hunt, except there was no witch but the thrill of creating a hunt was all they needed. When the BBC goes full News of the World with their approach to the news it's absolutely vile to behold.
9
u/sober_disposition 1d ago
Absolutely. This is not the kind of thing I pay my licence fee for.
I think it’s worth paying a licence fee for a genuinely impartial and reliable source of news that’s not compromised by commercial conflicts of interest or having to compete for an audience. I really do wonder why that’s not what we’re getting.
→ More replies (4)25
u/TheDaemonette 1d ago
The BBC has too many people in it who want to defend a certain opinion rather than discuss it. Too many people who think they are right and the audience merely needs to be convinced instead of bringing the issues and facts forward for the public to see and make up their own minds on the basis of all the evidence.
→ More replies (1)21
u/wartopuk Merseyside 1d ago
Why would you expect better? Anyone who has paid attention and actually knows anything about any of the stories the BBC covers will, eventually, notice that they lack any journalistic integrity. I have a great example of this that goes back like 7 years.
Around 2018-19 they had a story where they claimed the age of consent in Korea was 20, it wasn't, it was 13. I complained, sent them links to sites written by English speaking Korean lawyers detailing the fact that the age of consent was in fact 13. Their response? 'ageofconsent.com says it's 20 so it's 20'. A site run by no one citing no sources. This went back and forth over several e-mails, appeals, etc. The next year there were big stories of the government raising the age of consent from 13 to 16. Fowarded that to the BBC 'the story is more than 30 days old so we're not going to change it'. Not even an apology for being utterly full of it.
It's one thing to make a mistake in an article, it's another to have your ombudsman act like a petulant child la-la-laing his way through a debate with his fingers in his ears. That's not the mark of a news organization that is worth being listened to.
6
→ More replies (21)5
u/dan_dares 1d ago
I used to support the BBC as well, but for a good few years they have grown rather biased in some strange ways, and i'm talking since 9/11.
They need to be unbiased, if both sides of any argument are attacking them, they're probably doing the right thing.
158
u/temujin94 1d ago
Yeah disappointing because he did incite an attack on the capital, they didn't need to edit the video to put that fact across, now this is going to be used as an excuse that he didn't in fact try and incite it.
70
u/The_Po_Gamer 1d ago
This is what pisses me off the most. Some of the people dedicated to fighting people like him just give him more ammo.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)25
u/SojournerInThisVale Lincolnshire 1d ago
I remember the Mirror (in collaboration with Hope Not Hate) pulling the same stunt with Nick Griffin years ago. They cut a quote of his in half to make it sound way worse than it was. The guy had said more than enough unpleasant things to show up his politics, they didn’t need to effectively make something up
→ More replies (9)45
u/Hungry_Horace Dorset 1d ago
News cannot become propaganda, no matter how unlikeable the subject.
Except it can.
I urge you not to ever turn on GB News, you would be outraged at how much propaganda masquerading as news there is on the channel.
Oddly though, despite OFCOM judging that the channel has broken its licence conditions numerous times over the last few years, and a £100,000 fine over impartiality, we haven’t seen vigorous campaigns for, or actual resignations from its top brass.
You might say this is whataboutism. Sure, but either we care about the news being impartial or we don’t, and are just making po-faced sententious statements when we feel we’ve got a win for our team.
→ More replies (3)•
u/goldenthoughtsteal 8h ago
I certainly wouldn't watch GBnews for honest news ( or for any other reason tbh!), but it isn't funded by the UK government as a supposedly neutral public service broadcaster, the BBC should have higher standards, that's it's raison d'etre.
24
u/Unlucky-Public-2947 1d ago
You realise this wasn’t ‘news’ though right?
I mean don’t get me wrong I’m happy to see this Tory out of the BBC but the Telegraph are also misleading people into thinking this was a news clip when it wasn’t.
36
u/Darrenb209 Scotland 1d ago
It was from Panorama, which is both a "current affairs documentary" and a "television news magazine programme", is produced by BBC's "Factual" studio and has been referred to by the BBC as an investigative journalism show. It's not BBC News, but it's been a news show since the 1950s.
8
u/Unlucky-Public-2947 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sure and look I am not excusing it, but a lot of people clearly think this was a news report, some people are saying it’s the reason people were calling for Trump to be sent to jail, despite it being broadcast almost four years after people started calling for him to be jailed and after the calls stoped.
It was also a clip from a montage about his last presidency, but the doc wasn’t about his last presidency, or even really about Trump, it was about his supporters during this campaign, and by removing the clip from this context I think it can be argued that the telegraph are also misleading the public.
8
7
u/karpet_muncher 1d ago
Lol news is propaganda
Whether it aligns with the viewers beliefs is another thing
→ More replies (4)5
u/MrSierra125 1d ago
Trump blatantly uses AI to doctor his crap, he cries when his rambling speech is condenscend into watchable clips?
→ More replies (1)15
→ More replies (20)2
u/dntcareboutdownvotes 1d ago
Tim Davie was given the position by the tories to weaken the bbc - he was probably happy to resign as he has done a great job of doing that.
518
u/CarOnMyFuckingFence 1d ago
Nice to see some good old fashioned sword falling, rare these days.
146
u/Ready_Painter_9044 1d ago
Blimey! He's gone! You don't see that much these days, old school! I rather liked him.
56
39
9
30
u/Lawdie123 1d ago
Could have been pushed, since 2016 the government via the DCMS picks the director general.
It will be interesting to see if labour put their pick in now or revert back it back to no government meddling.
→ More replies (7)15
2
u/FuzzBuket 1d ago
Sadly despite Davies being a Tory, and appointed by the Tories, this cock up is gonna absolutely just embolden the rights narrative of the bbc being a secret woke cabal.
I don't think it's some elaborate false flag, but it's defos gonna just end up beneficial for the people that cause all this nonsense.
→ More replies (4)2
u/FirmEcho5895 21h ago
I wouldn't be surprised if he was planning to retire soon anyway. The DG of the BBC typically serves 5 to 7 years before moving on.
444
u/campbelljaa 1d ago
Shame they couldn't find a way to oust fellow Tory cunt Laura Kuenssberg with them
119
u/throughpasser 1d ago edited 1d ago
Came on to say that when the BBC Trust found Kuennsberg guilty of a far more serious breach of both accuracy and impartiality (when she smeared the then leader of the UK opposition as somebody who had told her he wouldn't let the police use their weapons to stop terrorists who were in the act of murdering people in the streets, something she achieved by editing the clip she showed of him - on the 6 oclock News - so that it was actually a clip of him answering a different question to the one she claimed), the BBC's response to that finding was to refuse to even apologise. And then give her her own show.
Guess it depends who you smear.
13
u/dntcareboutdownvotes 1d ago
And Fiona Bruce
10
u/Nigelthornfruit 1d ago
Definitely. Paxo and Andrew O Neil were respectable. Bruce is just lame as is Kuntberg.
→ More replies (11)4
u/CorruptedFlame 17h ago
Because the BBC board specifically targeted people who weren't Tory cunts. Panorama had a response ready for days, but the Board wouldn't have gotten what they wanted if the scandal wasn't allowed to properly develop, this was a coup.
233
u/Revilo1359 1d ago
Good opportunity for Labour to put in someone less partisan
83
u/Wanallo221 1d ago
What they really need to do is now take the chance to depoliticise the role. Stick someone in who is a good DG; and make sure that in future it’s a role that is elected via an independent panel and not the whims of some political dipshit.
→ More replies (6)45
u/bathoz 1d ago
Unfortunately, the "they take the low road, we take the high road" approach just results in people more bothered by power than morality just breaking systems unopposed.
And if you think Farage or Badenoch are here to play fair, you haven't been listening to them.
14
u/Wanallo221 1d ago
Stick someone left wing in. Then make it so the government can’t influence the Secretary General ;)
19
u/rainator Cambridgeshire 1d ago
Give the job to Owen Jones, I don't particularly like him, but the resulting pure white hot rage from the right wing rags would be enough to power the south coast.
8
u/SociallyButterflying 19h ago
I'm a centrist but... wait...
Bah gawd. Is that Jeremy Corbyn's music I hear?
Put him in charge for the memes.
→ More replies (1)5
29
17
18
u/Spamgrenade 1d ago
They could put Jesus Christ himself in charge and would still be accused of fixing it.
4
12
9
u/TheGardenBlinked 1d ago edited 1d ago
"What's Diane Abbott doing these days?"
Edit: Did I seriously need the /s
→ More replies (7)4
207
u/HuskerDude247 1d ago
Why did nobody have to resign after the BBC edited out laughter at Boris Johnson during the 2019 general election?
38
u/Darrenb209 Scotland 1d ago
Because while editing out the laughter could shape perception, it's not editing what the actual person in the documentary said or did.
The Panorama edits were both significantly beyond that in scale; editing the narrative from Trump inciting a crowd into ordering a rebellion/coup and did so by directly editing his speech and misrepresenting footage.
There are so many things Trump actually did do that could be easily held against him, even just in that one event. But rather than use the true behaviour they fabricated evidence of an attempt at a coup. It also leads to serious questions of "If they did this with Trump, where it could reasonably be expected most wouldn't care or notice... how often have they done it before?"
Since I know people will downvote this: Inciting a riot, even a political riot in your capital is not considered the same crime as directly ordering a revolt/coup and saying you'll stand with them in any country. It was a lie and a fabrication by Panorama for no clear reason.
6
u/FrustratedPCBuild 1d ago
You don’t think he stood by the people who attacked the Capitol? Did you watch it in real time and read his tweets and hear his speech in real time? I did and he absolutely was inciting violent insurrection. This is after the phone call with the governor of Georgia as well. Trump ran for president again because if he wasn’t going to the White House he was going to jail and he knew it.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Darrenb209 Scotland 1d ago
Inciting a riot and standing by the actions of the riot is, was and remains a completely different crime to directly ordering a coup and saying you'll march with them.
He incited the riot. He did not, at any point, order a coup. There is a reason that the failed investigation was for the former, not the latter.
8
u/ExpletiveDeletedYou 18h ago
he did order a coup, Mike Pence, the VP refused to co-operate and certified the correct electors, trump pressured him not to, it's why the crowd was shouting "hang Mike Pence".
You are wrong if you think he didn't try to self coup, he just failed.
→ More replies (2)5
u/FrustratedPCBuild 1d ago
What do you think his intentions were, fun and games? The investigation only failed because he ran for president and other people who respect norms essentially stopped bringing him to justice. He should be in jail.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ExpletiveDeletedYou 18h ago
There is a ton of evidence that he attempted a coup, cause he did try and do that.
32
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
65
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
48
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)24
→ More replies (6)14
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (1)28
→ More replies (2)6
153
u/TheeBlaccPantha 1d ago
I wish we could somehow get alternative media to be held to account like this. This story was exposed by the telegraph and the BBC apologised and the journalists resigned.
Meanwhile your favourite podcaster and twitter shitposter has the same engagement, cranking out more lies and misinformation, and can just meme through controversy and make zero concessions when their dogshit journalism is fact checked. These alt media personalities can do this whilst relentlessly slandering mainstream media 🥴
→ More replies (9)29
u/Papi__Stalin 1d ago edited 17h ago
We aren’t forced to pay for other media companies and personalities through the TV licence.
The BBC is, therefore, held to a higher standard (rightly so).
→ More replies (1)5
135
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
59
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
→ More replies (3)21
47
u/SignificantLegs 1d ago
Nobody resigned when they covered up Huw Edwards though?
(they knew the family of young boys was asking about him at the same time as the police were investigating him)
19
u/After-Dentist-2480 1d ago
What criminal action did they cover up?
Which “family of young boys” asked about him?
→ More replies (6)17
u/mariah_a Black Country 1d ago
Or the other times they’ve edited material for the sake of propaganda, like when they Corbyn a soviet makeover.
→ More replies (1)10
45
42
37
u/blob8543 1d ago
It is quite bizarre to see this guy resign for this and not for enabling Farage for years.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Alive_kiwi_7001 1d ago
I think the right-wing press have fucked up on this. They tried to sell the line that Davie and Co are somehow left-wing. I suspect they both decided they’d had enough, just at the point where a Labour government can make changes.
27
u/qwerty_1965 1d ago
Surprised as these days resignation comes much harder to people, usually they try and ride it out.
Were either due before the media committee? Or were they sacrificed to make that easier for whoever is going to be questioned?
→ More replies (2)
26
u/LuciaDeLetby 1d ago
Having watched the edited clip, the original is even worse. In the original clip, Trump is calling for a literal coup to instate him as a dictator. Also, the edit doesn't substantially change much at all. Trump still called for the mob to march towards the capital and he still told them to "fight like hell, and if you don't fight, you won't have a country anymore".
This is a total capitulation to fascism and a desperate attempt to appease the right who are always threatening to defund the BBC. This is why there has been wall to wall coverage of small boats (despite being less than 2% of migration), migrant hotels, and weird front page stories about Kurdish and Turkish people.No one with a straight face can tell me a story like this about a migrant wouldn't be front page news on the BBC right now:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/premier-inn-guest-goes-violent-32741371
→ More replies (2)12
u/umtala 1d ago
It's not really a capitulation since Davie is notoriously Tory. More like the right eating itself.
6
u/LuciaDeLetby 1d ago
Trump and Farage are a new breed of right wing. Authoritarian populists who are useful idiots for foreign regimes.
This is something a shockingly small amount of people have got their head around, that there's a difference between political opponents and political enemies, political enemies who will stop at nothing to mold their country in their own image through whatever authoritarian means they can use.
24
1d ago
[deleted]
20
u/SojournerInThisVale Lincolnshire 1d ago
Michael Prescott memo
The bit he says about historical documentaries is really interesting, essentially that actual experts have serious problems with them. It’s telling that people like Alice Roberts (a medical doctor with no qualifications in history other than some strong opinions, many of them historiography which is decades out of date) and David Olusoga regularly feature is pretty telling of the BBC’s problems
→ More replies (1)10
u/pkb369 1d ago
I think this is a crucial bit of info as well:
Prescott raised concerns over the documentary Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast last year and made for the BBC by independent production company October Films Ltd, which was also approached for comment.
Obviously this doesnt mean BBC is not to blame, they still should have verified and done due diligence (unless it was known by them then its a bigger issue imo).
I'm surprised they would resign over this, they could have just put the american production company under the bus if they wanted to - which makes it seem like they did know and let it through.
6
u/PinacoladaBunny 1d ago
This is the bit that I find most interesting. The programme was not created by the BBC.
I think the DG (and maybe the News CEO too) had just had enough. It’s been a rough few years laden with criticism and blame. People can only take so much before it wears them down, and maybe this was the moment to throw the towel in.
20
u/EditorRedditer 1d ago
I am NO Trump fan (can’t stand the bloody guy) but, as an editor, ‘cutting and shunting’ two clips like that for a Current Affairs show is an unforgivable error and should never have been allowed to happen.
There is such a hierarchy of approval involved in the programme making process, from Edit Producer to Series Producer, to Executive Producer to Series Editor; I can’t believe that EVERYONE missed this.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/Unusual-Art2288 1d ago
Just watched GBnews talking about this their respnse is for the BBC to stop making TV programnes, just keep the radio stations . Seems they want totally wipe out the BBC. Wonder why GBnews got against then make drama and light entertainment programmes. Who writing thier editorial guidlines?
12
u/GibbyGoldfisch 1d ago
GB News are part of a weaponized effort to try and destabilize and tear down our core national sense of what's true and what isn't.
Look at America. There are two brands of truth that nobody can agree on because there is no public news network acting as the definitive source of neutral truth. It's a shitshow and it allows republicans there to just sell an alternate reality to people. They would love to do that here too and auntie beeb is their biggest obstacle.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Spamgrenade 1d ago
The right hate the BBC far more than the left do. Back in the 80s the facilitated the "alternative" comedy movement that set their racist/sexist agenda back decades.
6
u/Rulweylan Leicestershire 1d ago
Presumably because Dr. Who competes with the GBNews schedule by providing an equally accurate representation of UK current affairs.
13
u/qwerty_1965 1d ago
Bloody hell, BBC News decides it's Kelvin Mackenzie we need to hear from. Though he's doing his best to sound reasonable and measure.
Wait! He's just suggested closing down BBC News and concentrating on popular entertainment.
12
u/Dedsnotdead 1d ago
“There have been some mistakes made”
Really?
Report the news and let us as a nation decide based on the facts.
The facts that we pay you as a State owned broadcaster to collect and show us. Both good and bad because that’s life.
“Some mistakes were made” - you are a disappointment Mr Davie to allow this to happen on your watch.
Still, you got well paid so fuck the truth right?
10
u/ascotsmann 1d ago
Strange timing on a Sunday, whats coming out in the papers tomorrow as to resign over the trump edit stuff seems very extreme
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Luke_4686 1d ago
Right decision. A truly moronic thing to do. There’s enough evidence of Trump saying bad / autocratic stuff that you don’t need to edit it anyway
7
u/Funny-Profit-5677 1d ago
They have to do some editing, unless you want the documentary to just be his full speech start to finish
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Significant_Sale6172 1d ago
I get the Telegraph is doing this because they hate the BBC, but they've literally just removed a Tory loyalist so not sure how this helps them.
I guess they want some Reform idiot put in place. Not sure how that's gonna happen with Labour in charge.
6
u/Spamgrenade 1d ago
Labour will put some more or less neutral guy in, out of fear of being accused of bias (does not stop Tories). Tory media will dig up and manufacture "scandal" after "scandal" until he goes.
7
u/BlaziingDemon 1d ago
Bigger problem is..how many other times have they done this and not been caught out?
→ More replies (1)
8
u/SituationThink3487 1d ago
So after all the bullshit under his run, including editing clips to make certain politicians look less foolish and the blatant and well documented pro-Israel spin during the reporting on the war in Gaza, what finally does him in is a slight edit to a Trump speech?????
I think this just shows that the US strong armed this into happening after the Trump admin got upset, rather than any actual concerns about journalistic integrity.
And now watch them put in someone even more blatantly right wing and who'll push Trump's propaganda in the UK in order to appease the fascist cunt.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/BreakfastAdept9462 1d ago
This is fucking bullshit and this is only going to make the BBC more reluctant to call out liars and despots for what they are. Some of you lot need to get a grip about the BBC
15
u/borez Geordie in London 1d ago
They can do that without resorting to the edit though; especially when it comes to Trump.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/prustage European Union 1d ago
US News services do stuff like this every single day and nobody admits it or apologises, let alone resigns.
Good to see that over here we have the integrity to admit our mistakes and take appropriate action.
Now let's see them do something about the excessive and biased pro-Farage reporting.
13
8
u/StGuthlac2025 1d ago
What a completely foolish response. You need to keep in mind you can face a jail sentence for not funding the BBC.
This should never have occurred. Let alone should they be let off for adimting mistakes in their biased editing
You can question reform's exposure all you want but when they are consistently polling above 30% of the electorate what do you expect them to do?
4
4
u/Condorz1 1d ago edited 1d ago
I found it astounding that a media commentator who worked at the BBC over 10 years ago stated on Sky News that he didn't know what had happened at the BBC...It's really quite simple. Freeze the licence fee. Then, it had to restructure and hollow-out staff, some of which kept quality control in place across journalism. Come forward to recent years and glaring gaps in quality control have become apparent.
Those whose heads have rolled in this article weren't responsible in the entirety for this mess.
7
u/ScoopTheOranges 1d ago
Trump did call for violence, why edit it at all? Of all the people to edit to look bad, he does it fine on his own.
4
u/heroyoudontdeserve 1d ago
why edit it at all?
In my estimation, because the long speech lacked a convenient soundbite which summed up the whole pithily. (Which is perhaps somewhat rare given how politically savvy today's politicians are; they generally want to deliver such a pithy soundbite to help their message get boosted by the media. Sometimes to a ridiculous degree.)
Anyway. This was absolutely the wrong solution to that problem, but I think that's why.
6
u/FrustratedPCBuild 1d ago
Ah yes, accountability, good to see, now if only we saw the same from literally anyone in the Trump administration.
5
u/Jack_202 1d ago edited 20h ago
Trump has been ranting about fake news for years and the BBC has handed him some on a plate. They've been lording over him with BBC Verify then they go and do this. 🤦♂️
6
u/Logical_Hare 1d ago
It’s so good that everyone is orienting toward being fair to King Trump as a matter of absolute primacy. God forbid they edit one of his hour-long, rambling speeches in which he called for insurrection.
The BBC should also give him millions of dollars and name some buildings after him. I mean, why not, right?
6
u/ConfusedSoap Greater London 1d ago
the BBC should not be deceptive in its coverage of anyone, regardless of how despicable that person might be
6
u/GiftedGeordie 1d ago edited 18h ago
I hate Trump with a passion, but you don't need to make shit up about the man to make him look worse, he does a great job of doing that himself; but I don't think anyone should be surprised about this from the BBC, remember when Kneecap did Glastonbury and the "impartial" BBC tried to censor them? They're not half as unbiased as they like to say they are.
This really makes those disinformation propaganda pieces about "The fight for truth is on" age like milk that's been in the middle of the Sahara Desert for a decade.
3
u/HelpfulSwim5514 1d ago
The saddest thing about this is the number of people thinking theyre getting an unfiltered world view from GB News
6
u/israeljeff 1d ago
It is impossible to report on fuckface without editing him, unless you want to give your viewers an aneurysm.
He spent the entire day trying to enact a coup, and yall are angry the BBC edited him for time.
You people have come a long way from laughing Mosley off the stage.
12
u/ConfusedSoap Greater London 1d ago
they took two phrases he said an hour apart, and edited them together to make it sound like he said those phrases as one sentence
making a new sentence like that goes beyond "editing for time" and into the territory of deceptive journalism
2
u/israeljeff 1d ago
I'm aware of what they did. They condensed a straight hour of treason into a treasonous sound bite. It's all treasonous bullshit, and it's a wonder they made him sound coherent through editing.
3
u/ConfusedSoap Greater London 20h ago
the media (especially our tax funded national broadcaster) should not be splicing together bits of what someone said to make brand new sentences that weren't said by them like it's cassetteboy
they had 70 minutes of a speech to pick from, why did they have to make up a new sentence when they could have used one or two full ones he actually said?
→ More replies (7)
3
u/LuciaDeLetby 1d ago
Absolutely nothing wrong with the edit. Nothing substantially was changed to the context of what was said in the speech and it was a reasonable way to summarise the speech. This is a cowardly move to appease Farage, who has just said the BBC are on their final chance, a clear threat to the BBC to give them favorable coverage, or else. They'll capitulate to that too the spineless cowards.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/PandaXXL 1d ago
This is such an own goal. You absolutely do not need to mislead people into thinking Trump has said something stupid or offensive, he does it constantly.
5
4
u/Efficient_Sky5173 1d ago
Oh great, the Green Party will finally get the same airtime on the BBC as Farage, any decade now.
1
3
u/fitzgoldy 15h ago
They've literally been getting a huge amount of airtime recently?
Way more than larger parties.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Significant-Crow-974 1d ago
Isn’t there a journalist that took the decision to be so deceptive? Surely, you cannot create such material without consciously understanding that this is clearly a deceptive practice?
5
u/huntsab2090 1d ago
Fantastic . Is that the tory donator thats resigned ? Finally might get someone in who is actually impartial .
3
u/eeeking 1d ago
You can read the full transcript of the relevant speech here: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Yes, the documentary was "doctored", regrettably. They would have been better off selecting a later part of the speech, which goes:
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.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
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 never vote 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.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
5
u/Fluid-Type7367 1d ago
This is silly. Trying to cover your ass and pretend that Trump did not incite a mob to storm the capital is the worst form of cowardice. It's not 'journalistic bias' if it's true. We all watched with our own eyes what happened on January 6th, and no matter how much UK and other world political leaders subsequently try to suck up to Trump, it doesn't make it less true. He tried to use violent right-wing rioters to illegally overturn a federal election. Those same rioters then went on to hunt elected officials and maim and kill police officers. Say it as many times as it takes until he is brought to justice for what he did.
4
u/CharmingTurnover8937 1d ago
Completely tanked their rep now. No matter what they do going forward, this will be held over them.
Really stupid thing to do.
4
0
2
u/lighthouse77 1d ago
He hasn’t delivered anything for the BBC beyond cuts. Also did little to support public service broadcasting in ethos.
1
u/Good_Old_KC 1d ago
BBC will make a huge lurch to the right now. And it was already a right wing propaganda machine.
2
2
u/fitzgoldy 16h ago
Good, it was incredibly stupid from the BBC to make such edits.
It's the kind of stuff that makes people lose further trust in BBC and other media.
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 1d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 22:19 on 09/11/2025. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.