Trump Suing The BBC

[rockinj]

I think two things can right at once here.

Trump is a loathsome scumbag but the bbc had fucked up here and had to apologise.

The beeb obviously had a political slant which obviously in tune with more democratic leanings.

It is a shame as they try so hard to be balanced but this sort of mistake (?) is playing right into the fake news narrative.

On the 1bn lawsuit, anyone who is behind that come on lads just think about that for a second. This is OUR money.

 

[Darran]

Alright, I'll explain in detail to help Lloyd and Harry out.

They made a mistake as in an error of judgement to decide to edit his speech in that way, not a mistake as in the editor tripped and fell on the control panel, causing the edit to happen by accident.

Editing a speech to combine sections is a common thing in visual media, but it's customary to make it clear that an edit has occurred. A common device is a white flash to show the words being said were not said immediately after the previous words. The people making the documentary were incredibly foolish/negligent in not spotting this before approving the show and quite rightly, heads have rolled at the top of the corporation and an apology has been issued.

An error of judgement twice?
This wasn’t a common thing in visual media this was done on purpose and it baffles me that you’re trying to defend it.

 

[Darran]

I'm more and more convinced that the 'people on this thread who don't grasp the bigger picture' are just Darran and an alt account of his.

If all else fails resort to ridicule.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Pathetic thread really.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

I think two things can right at once here.

Trump is a loathsome scumbag but the bbc had fucked up here and had to apologise.

The beeb obviously had a political slant which obviously in tune with more democratic leanings.

It is a shame as they try so hard to be balanced but this sort of mistake (?) is playing right into the fake news narrative.

On the 1bn lawsuit, anyone who is behind that come on lads just think about that for a second. This is OUR money.

Exactly

 

[Darran]

Pathetic thread really.

Well seeing as you’ve always thought very highly of the BBC what do you think about what they’ve done?

 

[jack123]

Pathetic thread really.

It’s only gone pathetic, with the amount of people ignoring the initial question, and would rather showboat their dislike of Trump.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Well seeing as you’ve always thought very highly of the BBC what do you think about what they’ve done?

It was a bad error of judgement. Two years ago by the way if I remember right. But if you can’t see what’s happening here. Hang on. Of course you can’t.

 

[JackSomething]

An error of judgement twice?
This wasn’t a common thing in visual media this was done on purpose and it baffles me that you’re trying to defend it.

It's a common thing to edit a speech to conflate separate sections of the speech, yes. If you've never noticed that before then I can't help you. The mistake/error of judgement was the inordinately stupid failure to use common methods to make it clear to the viewer that a cut in the speech has been made.

I'm not defending the decision at all and I hope the person (producer or whoever) in charge of that Panorama doc being approved has also faced the consequences.

 

[JackSomething]

Donald Trump confirms he will sue the BBC over Panorama edit - despite broadcaster's apology

The BBC officially apologised to the US president for the "error of judgement" on Thursday, but added that "we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim".

news.sky.com

I must say, I found this hilarious when I first read the story, but then it dawned on me, who is actually going to pay for this, if he’s successful? It would be an absolute disgrace if anything paid, was to come out of license payers money!

I don't think anyone has ignored the initial question like you claim. Just to make you happy though, yes as far as I'm aware, it would come out of the BBC's pocket, so essentially it would come out of license payers money.

 

[Darran]

It was a bad error of judgement. Two years ago by the way if I remember right. But if you can’t see what’s happening here. Hang on. Of course you can’t.

Should it matter when it happened then they’ve been done bang to rights and that’s surely what it should be about.

 

[monmouth]

The pictures earlier looked as if the water was also spread away from the High Street to more residential roads?

And I imagine there’ll be flats above at least some of the shops.

Really shitty for the small shops as well. The big ones will at least have bus8ness interruption insurance etc.

Awful as well in Ewyas Harold.

It looks as you say, homes affected too Lisa, and evacuations. It’s looking beyond terrible.

 

[Darran]

It's a common thing to edit a speech to conflate separate sections of the speech, yes. If you've never noticed that before then I can't help you. The mistake/error of judgement was the inordinately stupid failure to use common methods to make it clear to the viewer that a cut in the speech has been made.

I'm not defending the decision at all and I hope the person (producer or whoever) in charge of that Panorama doc being approved has also faced the consequences.

It wasn’t a mistake.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Should it matter when it happened then they’ve been done bang to rights and that’s surely what it should be about.

If you say so. People who aren’t you would be questioning why it’s a scandal now, who brought it to light now, who facilitated that, why they did it and why scores of people who claim to be Great British Patriots are foaming at the mouth and delighted at the thought of the BBC having to pay millions, maybe billions of publicly collected money to the already minted president of the USA.

But I realise you are one of the above mentioned people these days so of course critical thinking isn’t your strong point.

 

[Darran]

If you say so. People who aren’t you would be questioning why it’s a scandal now, who brought it to light now, who facilitated that, why they did it and why scores of people who claim to be Great British Patriots are foaming at the mouth and delighted at the thought of the BBC having to pay millions, maybe billions of publicly collected money to the already minted president of the USA.

But I realise you are one of the above mentioned people these days so of course critical thinking isn’t your strong point.

Ok then sorry for thinking that what the BBC did was atrocious.