WHAT ATTRACTED YOUR ATTENTION TODAY?

[Whyperion]

Apart from the fact that it wasn't aired in the US so no electors there saw it. He still won the election so how he can claim that it damaged his reputation for the election is beyond me. It should be noted that the Beeb didn't alter any words that he said just reordered them. How you can damage a blokes reputation that is already about as bad as it gets, (judged by a good proportion of his own countrymen and women) is beyond me. His reputation in pursuing such matters precedes him, it seems to be a bit of an obsession to say the least.

IF the BBC are clever (or better still get Channel 4 in) it will make a great TV documentary 4 parter = The original speech etc , The BBC reporting (and discussion at top level = if any ). The Panorama report and the fallout when found it was selectively edited ( All TV seems to suffer from this like print media too) , The Trump response and cull of top brass, and then the Court Case and outcome.
Interestingly the case paperwork itself seems to say Maybe Viewed, Probably on streaming or similar - no actual proof require . while civil cases do hang on the balance of probabilities when there is no clear cut truth there does have to be some demonstrably likely inference. I suppose one could find a witness to say I thought Trump was the greatest thing since sliced bread but when I saw that I thought he was a traitor to the US nation.

[Stanley]

See THIS update on the case....
The BBC has said it will defend itself against a $5bn (£3.7bn) lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump over an edit of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama documentary. Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida, external. The BBC apologised to him last month, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was a "basis for a defamation claim". Trump's legal team accused the BBC of defaming him by "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech". A BBC spokesperson said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case." They added: "We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings."
Regardless of what we think the BBC is now committed to an expensive legal exercise in a Florida court. M'learned friends will be rubbing their hands with glee.
In the deep cuts which the BBC has made in its news departments many older and higher paid editors have been terminated to save money. I can't help wondering whether these veterans would have seen the danger and stopped the edit in question at birth.