Trump Threatens BBC With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit For Correctly Pointing Out He Supported A Violent Insurrection
from the invertebrates-everywhere dept
You might recall that not that long ago Trump managed to get CBS to pay him a $16 million bribe based entirely on a lie: that the network’s 60 Minutes program had unfairly edited an interview with Kamala Harris. In reality it was a minor, ordinary edit, and CBS could have easily fought the case and won. Instead, they folded like damp cardboard and kissed the ring, which has been a media trend.
Of course, Trump obviously supports misleading edits of news content if it’s supportive of him, as we saw when the new CBS — now owned by one of Trump’s billionaire buddies — recently edited the hell out of an interview with Trump. Those edits not only removed Trump behaving like a toddler, they removed any mention of the fact that CBS executives are abject cowards who paid the President a bribe.
Clearly emboldened by his success at bullying weak-kneed U.S. media outlets, Trump has now taken aim at the BBC for some edits made to a documentary about Trump’s violent insurrection attempt. The documentary in question, “Panorama,” mashed together two parts of Trump’s speech clearly encouraging his followers to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021:
“The edit spliced together two sections of Trump’s speech, making it seem like he said: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In reality Trump said “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you” 15 minutes into the speech but “and we fight. We fight like hell” came 54 minutes later.”
So yes, while Trump’s intent was clear either way, it wasn’t the wisest editorial choice knowing Trump’s litigious nature. If you’re going to take aim at this lawsuit-happy con man, you really should have your ducks carefully lined up in a row.
Keen to avoid the threat of a billion-dollar lawsuit by America’s mad idiot king, the BBC has been tripping over itself to try and appease Donald. That has included the overkill choice of the sudden resignations of BBC’s director general Tim Davie and the CEO of News Deborah Turness. And a broad apology tour by BBC chair Samir Shah:
“The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement.”
Buried by this apology tour was the fact that nobody even noticed this “scandal” or cared about the edits until it was created by the right wing Daily Telegraph. Another in a long line of right wing propaganda outlets that routinely engage in far worse, and far more problematic behaviors that rarely see any sort of accountability, creating a lopsided media landscape that endlessly favors the right wing.
The BBC’s over-groveling about the error downplays the fact that Trump did actively support violent insurrection on a day that resulted in $2.7 million in damages to the Capitol, 174 assaulted police officers, and four belated law enforcement suicides.
You can see in real time how the threats by Trump really do have their intended impact: they disorient journalism and suppress the truth. Trump wants a press that kisses his ass. If he can’t have that, he wants a “both sides” oriented press that’s too afraid to point out factual reality. And he’s getting it.
This New York Times coverage of the BBC fracas can’t even be bothered to mention this “scandal” was started by a right wing tabloid. More curiously, the outlet can’t be bothered to mention that there really was a violent insurrection that the President really did pretty clearly openly support after endlessly stoking completely baseless election conspiracy theories. Kind of important context.
You can be apologetic for errors in judgement (in a way that lessons your legal exposure) without validating the criminal president, turning into a pile of feckless jelly, and burying the fact this was a fake scandal nobody would have cared about if not for the gamesmanship of right wing media.
Filed Under: donald trump, fascism, insurrection, january 6, journalism, liability, media, violent overthrow
Companies: bbc
Comments on “Trump Threatens BBC With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit For Correctly Pointing Out He Supported A Violent Insurrection”
He's insane
The South African government should be suing Turnip for libel, for accusing us of “human rights abuses”. He’s insane, accusing the most democratic country in the world of that, where human rights are entrenched in our Constitution. Thankfully our government is standing firm. We will not be bullied by some racist US American.
Well, this works in US, so why not try it in UK?
Of course, the BBC is too well-mannered to give the finger but at least, he all know he won’t get a single fecking pence.
Here is what I find confusing: why is the BBC even scared at all? Trump would need to bring the lawsuit in the UK, not the US. And I mean sure, he could bring it in the US and maybe get a default judgement, but then he would still need to get enforced in the UK. Which… Seems practically impossible? Cross-boarder lawsuits are a total nightmare for good reason.
Re:
IANAL and certainly not in both countries, but as I recall UK libel law is much looser than US libel law. For starters, the burden of proof would be on the BBC according to most of the internet. It would probably be much easier for Trump to win in a UK court – yes, even now.
Re: Fiber
While I am not a lawyer, from what I know of British law, in a defamation case it would be better to sue in British courts. There, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that something was not defamatory. It makes it much harder to prove. I doubt that consideration was in his mind, but his lawyers may have thought of it.
Re: Lawsuit must be in Florida
According to the BBC (who else?):
“The statute of limitations – or a deadline to file a lawsuit – on defamation in the UK is one year, which has already elapsed for Trump because the documentary aired in October 2024.
Florida, on the other hand – where Trump has signalled an intention to bring any eventual litigation – has a two-year limit.
While Florida law gives him more time, bringing a defamation case in the United States will mean Trump faces a tougher legal standard.
If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US.
A court’s determination on whether it has jurisdiction over the case could hinge on if any people in Florida saw the documentary and felt deceived by it, legal experts said.
The BBC’s best chance to dismiss any future legal case would be to argue that the state is not the appropriate jurisdiction because there wasn’t a “sufficient exposure of the information in Florida”, Mr Neuborne said.”
I’m not sure about how he would collect the money awarded in the case, though.
citation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c709y1yx1r0o
Re: Re:
I am surprised the BBC can even be sued for defamation in the first place given how close it is being an outight government organization.
Re: Re:
It’s not about the merits of the case, any more than it was for CBS or ABC; it’s a shakedown.
The BBC has business operations in the US; Trump is more than happy to interfere with the business of a company that he doesn’t like. That doesn’t excuse their being a bunch of fucking cowards, but it explains why they think it’s cheaper to capitulate.
Re: Where to sue the BBC
Trump has 2 options. In the British courts, or the US. From what I can gather from questions asked by BBC interviewers, the worry is that US courts will defer to the compliant SCOTUS, and the decision, whatever the outcome, could have ramifications on the BBC’s US business. The BBC does not want its content banned or severely curtailed in the US, e.g., only entertainment, not news, allowed. The British courts most likely would not rule in Trump’s favor, based on legal opinions I have read or heard.
I suspect the BBC is f**ked either way, and that is what the corporation is scared of.
Re:
Only because, in the U.S., such a lawsuit would have no chance in hell—”freedom of the press”, “public figure”, all of that. But the BBC do have assets and operations in the U.S.; they could not simply ignore a U.S. judgment without consequence.
Re: Why the BBC is scared
UK here, bit of local context. The BBC is a bit of a weird organisation. It’s funded by a TV licence fee – an annual cost to watch any broadcast TV (or BBC streaming channels) in the UK and it’s governed by a charter that is reviewed every few years. The next review is in about 12 months.
The BBC has been under a sustained, strategic attack from right-wing media outlets (primary Murdoch ones but the others join in) for about the last 3 decades.
There have been half-a-dozen scandals over the last few years, poor editorial judgement, failure to have adequate safeguarding, cover-up of abusive behaviour etc.
Frankly Jim Davie (the Director General) should be going – he’s failed to get a handle on any of this and has not managed to instil the necessary change of culture.
But I doubt they’ll cave to Trump – for one thing he’s been waaaay too greedy. The BBC doesn’t have that kind of cash, and for another he just won’t have standing somewhere he can actually win the case.
The BBC will grovel for political reasons, but they’ll stand for legal ones.
I reckon.
Re: Re:
They already have. Now they’re just haggling over the price.
Re: Re: Re:
The resignations were likely even if this was not about Trump. The top dogs at the BBC have faced a number of scandals (e.g. using the teenage son of a Hamas official in a documentary about Gaza) and this was just the last straw.
The bosses knew about this dodgy edit months ago as it was raised by members of the BBC board but they ignored it until someone leaked it to the Torygraph. So the BBC are not as clean as the article makes out – although it is a hatchet job by an increasingly right leaning newspaper.
Trump may gloat that it is about him but this has been onging for a few years. As for the $1B – good bloody luck with that mate! They cannot sue in the UK due to statute of limitations and a trial in Florida has to demonstrate harm in the US plus malice. As he really did want the crowd to storm the Capitol, that could be an interesting thing to re-litigate just before he mid-terms
Re: Re: Re:2
You think this is about winning in court? You’re still not getting it.
The process is the punishment. Merely having to go to court is expensive and unpleasant and Trump is betting that they’ll do what ABC and CBS have already done and pay him off to avoid it — and to avoid him interfering with their American business in other ways, because he’s absolutely not above doing that.
Republicans are fucking cooked in the midterms unless they can rig them, and they already know it. That’s what the gerrymandering is about. That’s what Trump’s demand to abolish the filibuster and pass “voter reform” is about. That’s what deploying the National Guard to Democratic-voting cities is a trial run for.
Trump’s not trying to win on policy. He’s trying to win on stopping Democrats from voting and not counting their votes if they do.
Re: Re:
But only if they’re watching or recording live. Someone who gets BBC content from a library, a third-party video-on-demand service, or “the high seas” would not be required to pay, although the collectors are not necessarily forthcoming about that.
That’s pretty important, because who the hell watches anything live anymore? Apart from sports fans, I’m guessing it’s mostly old people.
Woke Scandal in Disguise
It’s also a pretext to launder the anti-woke articles that are now coming out about the BBC. Apparently the BBC has been taken over by millenial woke-scolds and this “scandal” is giving everyone a pretext to root them out. Maybe hand it over to Barry Weiss or something. It’s amazing how effective this anti-woke strategry works. Trump knows how to tac into those winds.
I’ll stop paying for my TV License. Oh, wait, I’m not paying now.
BBC is supposed to be neutral and to follow the highest standards of journalism .it’s not a good idea to edit a politicians words and to change the meaning of a speech .once you do that you make yourself vulnerable to right wing critics that will seek to undermine the funding and existance of the BBC .
Trump has won n large amounts of money for other media outlets in America . The problem is independent journalism is at risk in America as cnn and other media outlets are being sold off to right wing conservative owners who,se only purpose is to make money
Re: Media income and "bending the knee"
The BBC is largely dependent on the government-gifted licence fee. This arrangement is up for review in 2027. The RW Tory party has been more than hinting that the BBC should change to a commercial model, to “compete fairly” with the commercial channels. The effect would likely be the same as gutting public radio and TV in the US by removing government grants.
The BBC has one of the most trusted news reporting in the world, with a multi-hundreds of pages of rules to avoid bias. Just watch any news magazine programme and it will allow the most absurd, biased, RW commenters on a show to “avoid claims of bias”. I have watched Trump supporters outright lie to presenters and interviewers, while stating on air that the BBC is left-wing and fake news.
While I would hate the BBC to cave to Trump, I would bet that teh Starmer government is putting some pressure on teh BBC to “not make waves” and anger Trump, as Trump could exact revenge by increasing tariffs, as he did with Brazil and Canada over issues that had nothing to do with “trade imbalances”.
Re:
‘Won’
Media outlets in the US rolled over because their parent companies wanted something Trump could nix, likenyet another pointless megamerger. The beeb don’t want anything from Trump so he’d have a far harder time getting a big cash payout., but he’s welcome to come to the UK and she for reputational damage, it’d be interesting to see him go up against a judiciary he didn’t pack with dribbling loons.
Re: Re:
They know very well their mergers almost certainly violate antitrust law. But good luck getting a private party and with standing to spend the money to oppose the merger. The Trump kakistocracy will conveniently look the other way for a sufficiently large pool of money for Trump to sunbathe next to.
Without a larger set of people considered to be harmed by such mergers this will continue to be a weak point in the US government.
Re:
No meaning was changed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nothing in this article is true, absolutely amazing.
So you guys aren’t out if business yet?
Re:
I’m guessing it’s because they don’t rely on internet trolls and rightwing bootlicks for their business income?
Then again, I could be wrong
How many soy nutrient supplements do you think Techdirt sells a week?
Re:
If so much is wrong about this article, I’m sure you could be specific and give a small list of errors and their corrections?
Or you can keep vagueposting and hope they go out “if” business.
Re:
Please provide proof that nothing in this article, including the portions that quote outside sources, is true.
Re:
What is untrue and what are your sources for saying so?
Be specific.
The reason Trump is trying it on in Florida is that Florida has a two year time limit for this kind of case
The UK has a one year time limit (which has now expired)
Good luck proving defamation in court against BBC News that they injured you to the tune of one billion dollars when
A) You’re the first USA President to be a court adjudicated sex offender
&
B) It’s taken you over a year to “realize” that you’ve “had your reputation” traduced and are trying to sue in a state where maybe all of fifteen people watched the programme
I am already looking forward to discovery 🙂
Your facts are not correct
While I agree that the overall piece is making the correct argument, the facts used are not.
1. The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid, but a broadsheet. This is an important distinction, even if the content has become ever more partisan.
2. The original accusation of bias by the BBC is more than the one Trump is using to sue the BBC. While there are arguments about whether this was an orchestrated attack on teh corporation by the right-wing, the legitimacy of the attack is not based on this one editing issue, even if Trump is using it to try to extort $1tn from the corporation, i.e., the British public. (on the top of the tariffs).
So while you castigate the NY Times, you are guilty of the same reporting distortion.
Re:
Come off it, the Telegraph may be printed on wide paper but it’s content hasn’t been broadsheet standard for years. It’s the daily mail in a dinner jacket.
Re:
It’s perhaps time for the obligatory Yes, Prime Minister reference…
“…The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.”
https://boingboing.net/2021/11/22/869366.html
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/yes_prime_minister/quotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
Bad behavior by one group should not excuse bad behavior from another. Splicing together two parts of a speech without some clear visual or audible indication of a splice is not okay, regardless of who’s doing it. It’s not something the BBC should be defended for; rather, anyone else doing it should also be called out.
The idea of “the other side did it, so we can too” is part of what led to our current problem. Legislators have always been passing laws that go against the plain text of the Constitution, for example, and have often gotten away with it via creative “interpretations” by courts.
Re:
You entirely missed the point. Karl wasn’t making excuses for BBC’s behavior, he was highlighting the different standards being applied.
Re: Re:
I think that point, if it really was meant to be the point, is significantly muddled, especially with the headline: “For Correctly Pointing Out He Supported A Violent Insurrection”. The BBC incorrectly pointed out this true fact.
The statements about wanting a press “too afraid to point out factual reality”, and “can’t even be bothered to mention this ‘scandal’ was started by a right wing tabloid”, are also working against this view.
Okay, the last paragraph does somewhat seem to agree with you, but with significant irony considering it talks about “burying the fact”. If Karl’s point was meant to just be about different standards, that’s a rather “buried” point; it could’ve been made much more clearly.
Re: Re: Re:
Let me just point something else out: Consider what Trump said in his speech and how he dealt with the fact that his supporters later tried to derail the democratic process. He sat for hours watching the shit-storm unfold on TV and did nothing ignoring everyone’s, including his children, pleas to do something.
Does that sound like someone who didn’t support what happened? Sometimes support is inaction, especially when the person who has all the power to stop something chose not to. Trump is a delusional narcissist, he sat there not accepting he lost and the events unfolding would mean he won the election over Biden.
Three things:
Re:
Re: Re:
I haven’t seen the documentary, but in audio editing it’s often trivial if the splice-points are at sentence boundaries with good pauses. The joint should have (near-)zero-crossings on both sides to avoid a click. A minor fade-out and/or fade-in can help. With more major fading, the clips would need to overlap a bit, which only really works if there’s a chunk of similar audio on each side (like if there’s applause and cheering; this is how the Phil Collins album “Serious Hits… Live!” was non-obviously spliced from multiple concerts).
Long ago, an audio clip saying “Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson” was circulating memetically online—a non-obvious splice of two movies that used the same actor. People have done similarly with politicians. It’s not hard.
It’s significantly harder on video, and this story doesn’t mention whether video was shown. Fading the video from Trump to the crowd, while the spliced audio continues, would be the obvious cheat. Probably “A.I.” tools could help to match lip movements, if one were really set on doing it.
In written journalism, one would be expected to write something like “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you […]. […] and we fight. We fight like hell”. The bracketed ellipses with intervening period makes it clear there were two sentences. In video, it would be traditional to visibly fade with a pause between the two clips. In audio, it’s important to not do any of the stuff I mentioned above, but to intentionally make the splice obvious; a very short beep or click is sometimes added.
Hope the BBC stands strong
Giving your lunch money to a bully doesn’t stop him, it just guarantees he’ll be back tomorrow.
“Supported” = instigated (even more of a violation of his oath of office than “supported”)
'Just beause I gathered kindling, logs, gasoline and matches doesn't mean I started the fire!'
Yes I’m sure it’s just a complete coincidence that he was talking about fighting to ‘defend’ the country and how they should go down and ‘protest’ the certification after spending months claiming ahead of time that the election would be rigged/fraudulent and the country was going to be ‘stolen’ by those fiendish liberals and low and behold the people he was talking to just so happened to find themselves breaking into the building where the votes were being finalized…
Well done on the BBC for falling all over themselves to grovel for forgiveness though, as recent history shows that’s sure to get Trump off their backs and will not at all embolden him to ramp things up against them.
If the BBC has to obey American law, then 4chan should have to obey British law.