CaptainCristy 10 Nov 25 16:16 
So in your opinion stupidfool the BBC gave a totally unbiased even handed view of Hitler during the war, righty ho

........................

Crusty comparing Hitler to Trump, what a sap.

cider - Thanks for getting back to me about Forbes. Mitolo - thanks also for your media recommendations.

I've watched Trumps "address" in full (unedited). I think I also actually had in on live (in the background) on the day he delivered it. I came away (both times) with a 90% feeling that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection. What followed it, was some actual violence and a botched/disorganised/very amateur attempt at an insurrection.

As such, I don't really have a major issue with the Panorama episode - except that they didn't highlight (via on onscreen banner) that what they included in their programme of Trump's address was an edited version.

Panorama haven't made anything up. They've used the actual words that Trump spoke and they've used them in the same order that he spoke them.

What they have done (without advising that they had done so within their programme was to edit out about 50+ minutes of his ranting between the early part of Trump's address and the latter part of it.

An edition of Panorama is obviously not long enough to broadcast his whole long rambling rant, so it's understandable (to me) that with their time constraints, they only showed edited highlights. As I say, they should absolutely 100% have run a "banner" along the bottom of the screen advising that it was edited highlights. Not to do so, was wrong. 

What did it achieve? - The Panorama edit obviously makes it look about 99% certain that Trump was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection, whereas if you jsu watch the entire speech (unedited) as I have done twice, it's only (to me) about 90% certain that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection.

I repeat to be clear, the absence of an on-screen advisory banner was wrong. But talk of "fake news", trump suing, the BBC "making things up", etc, etc, is just over the top reactionary bollix and faux outrage from people with a pro-Trump agenda.

You know that's nonsense, TM. The two parts were spliced together to deliberately mislead. You might feel like that's what you took out of the speech, so it's justified to present it like that to the viewing audience. 'This is what the clever people feel he really meant' But it palpably isn't acceptable in any way, shape or form, let alone from an organisation that purports to be staunchly independent.

As I've said elsewhere, if it was that damming, they wouldn't need to distort anything he said, would they?

I havent seen it and do not want to. The sight of him is too much. I have an anti-Trump mind but I don't like the barely concealed loathing that is totally unacceptable for a public broadcaster and my outrage is not 'faux' or even fake

It is not 'over the top' and certainly not 'reactionary', by which I take you to mean stuffy conservatives. The net has changed the meeja landscape irrevocably and not all for the better. Our enemies use it against us, for example. It is one of the penalties of living in the free world that they can do this

But the beeb cannot be like that while taking our cash. If we want partisanship we can get it as long as we pay, something we could not do until recent times

A website or private tv channel no problem, if you can't garner an audience you are gone

Do you think the BBC is biased in any direction? Although in favour of it, I think so

Irrelevant. If he is so bad the facts will suffice. no need to bend reality. Plenty of people have stood up to him

Almost the entire media hates him

If this happened to someone you approve of you wouldnt be so happy

And you are a coward

Top, top marks to the “investigative journalists” who got to the truth and had the gonads to publish same.  They should be praised and rewarded.  Yet again we see the absolute necessity for a free press and the indisputable benefit of having one.
And the reason for the/our outrage is simple.  The BBC is precious to us and to see it hijacked in such a fashion as to put its integrity at question and its existence at risk is horrifying.
I have long been disgusted at the quite open and unashamed campaign waged by BBC NEWS AND so-called HONEST OPINION and INSIGHT programmes against Donald Trump.  It is there all the time and is an insult to our intelligence.
Of course the worrying question is how long has this been going on?    Brexit?  The Referendum in Scotland?  Alex Salmond and his trial?  HOW CAN WE BE SURE OF ANYTHING THEY HAVE BROADCAST IN RECENT TIMES ?

Leave it to the grown ups you stupid, stupid man.

Stupid man.

Stupid man.

cider - I'm saying that, apart from the fact that that nobody would likely bother to watch a 2 hour long Panorama, the episode in question could have included the entire Trump address and it would have resulted in creating almost the exact same perception for most people. i.e. any sane person would conclude on balance that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection.

I should probably add (for context & balance) that I have a very high regard for some of what Trump has achieved, some of it is admirable. I've spent a lot of time in the US over the years (and in Canada too) and I still visit my grown-up children there regularly. Stating the obvious - He is absolute Marmite. Loved and admired or hated and despised with equal passion. Too much passion imo  - and there's nothing much in between.

I've deliberately used the (very cliched) Marmite analogy because it's sadly 100% spot on. In a sane world lots of people would be able to really admire some of his work and simultaneously despair at some of his work. The fact that you very rarely meet such people is a dangerous sign for the future (imo). Politicians (whatever their political persuasion) that "can do no wrong" in the eyes of their supporters become unaccountable and are not the way forward (in a Democracy) imo.

I can only reiterate my own conclusions. The way Panorama (wrongly) edited their show made it look 99% certain that he was trying to incite violence and mount an insurrection. The reality (without any deceptive editing from Panorama) makes it only look about 90% certain that he was trying to incite violence and to mount an insurrection. Panorama deleting 50 minutes of waffle (some of it equally damning) from the middle of his rant didn't make a lot of difference to the thrust or intent of what he said on that day. However Panorama however should have made it much clearer that they had edited out the central 50 minutes.

Everybody else can though.  Stupid man.

Aye, go boil your heed there Jock.

It was palpably disingenuous, that's the point. They've concluded what they think, and cheated to achieve it on a broadcast using a distorted extract. It's obvious, but whether you think it was representative or not is irrelevant. Nobody should have their actual words deliberately twisted, be it Mother Teresa or Dennis Nilsen.

Of course the Trump speech has garnered the most attention, but that wasn't the only distortion presented on the same show. They made it look like Trump's speech caused to proud boys to go to capitol hill, when in fact they had already gone there in the morning, before he'd even started speaking.

Trump is not perfect, nobody is. You'll never read me stating or agreeing that 2020 was 'stolen'. Not stolen directly, anyway. It was a mistake to maintain the rhetoric around that, it still is. It doesn't mean that he isn't the most important and effective political leader in my lifetime, he is.

More years than you have brain cells, it appears. Top trumps indeed (geddit)

Away ye go ya wee scunner

Hoots, ye’ll no be having a sale there ye ken?

^ on the day that his supporters stormed the Capitol

Och aye the noo ya numpty

I'm not running away now btw - I have to eat and then go out. Have fun. Play nice.

Who is this miloto person?

I think it is, in fact it is ingrained among the metropolitan arts and humanities grads who have an innate sense of superiority who think they know best and feed it to their audience who are just too thick to get what is best for them

The BBC is a political organisation as much as a broadcaster. A shame as it has great respect worldwide for not being that

It has an agenda but does not stoop to outright lies, just very selctive in what it puts out

It will make a programme about race and immigration but always from the view of one side and the opposing team is always cast in a bad light

eg, Douglas Murray, a controversial but eloquent critic of immigration was invited to discuss his latest book and was surprised to be invited

his interview was shown and two critics were let loose rubbishing his argument, and he was not allowed on to the Newsnight discussion to defend what he said. It was a mugging

So the beeb can claim he was given an airing, but he was only there to be attacked