BBC News doctored Trump video

[Shawnster]

Exclusive: BBC doctored Trump speech, internal report reveals

 

Corporation edited footage in Panorama programme to make it seem president was encouraging Capitol riot, according to whistleblowing dossier

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo.amp

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bbc-under-scrutiny-over-edit-of-trumps-speech-on-jan-6

 

Mainstream media failure. 

[dljbsp]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Mainstream media failure

If the edits were made before the riot and changed the context of what was actually said, then the media becomes part of the problem — not just reporting on it, but contributing to the misunderstanding.

If those edits were only done afterward, then it shifts to an issue of framing. But either way, the credibility problem is theirs.

[Shawnster]

33 minutes ago, dljbsp said:

If those edits were only done afterward, then it shifts to an issue of framing. But either way, the credibility problem is theirs

 

It's more than framing. It places blame. It makes it look like Trump directly incited the riot.  

 

It's bad journalism. The way the edit was made, by taking 2 statements made nearly an hour apart and splicing them together as if it was one sentence is more than just a slant or spin. It's the exact opposite of being factual. 

[computerwiz]

5 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Mainstream media failure.

 

Does that really surprise anyone these days?  Thanks to COVID and now AI, we can clearly see how much fluff we get from mainstream media.  Hint hint: They're tools.  And if they're not tools....they're human.

 

These days I just watch the overview part of NBC Nightly News.  None of the nitty gritty details matter to me anymore.  Mainstream media has at least one JW I know calling Trump "Hitler".  So much for being neutral!

One previous CO gave us the story about how he put his mailbox down for a severe hurricane, to keep it from being damaged or flying away.  The news was in his neighborhood to report on the damage, and his mailbox was a "victim" of the hurricane.  Never asked him, never checked, never verified.  They saw that & assumed.  And it made it in the news.

 

We live in a world that is publish or die.  You have to be fast so no one else takes your story.  There may not be time to verify things.  "It's okay...we'll just walk back our comments later."  But it's too late...the damage is done.  If there is even a walk-back anyways...

[Sheep]

I remember the days when the news media made sure that what they said, wrote, or broadcast, was unbiased and impartial. Their rule was: report the facts, not an opinion. Then, gradually, newspapers added a column from the editor clearly labelled Opinion, where personal opinion was expressed on some subjects. However, now, it seems that such a thing doesn't exist anymore. Now, it's more like: "Read the truth here; every other news network is fake news."

 

May it rest in pieces.

[Frances Bennett]

Surely not! The mainstream media purposely deceiving us to create divisions in society that only further serve the agendas of the powers that be...see my face...

 

[Qapla]

The mainstream media has been losing ground to alt-media so they copy their style while alt-media sees mainstream media gaining ground so they copy their new style so mainstream media changes to be more like alt-media so alt-media adjust to seem more like mainstream media so .......

 

 

 

 

It should not be a surprise that the news is skewed by the professionals as well as the amateurs and YouTubers ... they are all after the same thing - RATINGS .... truth, accuracy and credibility no longer matter as long as they can get views

 

 

[SteveAus]

Anything referencing this system should be pre-pended IMO with "Satan's" e.g. 'Satan's mainstream media, Satan's BBC doctored Trump speech" etc 😁

Edited 17 hours ago by SteveAus

[Brandon]

At the end of the day, the question of whether Trump incited the crowd to chaos and rioting is—and this is me being generous—unresolved. I write this because

 

(1) the first amendment grotesquely “protects” virtually any kind of speech, including hate speech; (this is why white-supremacist groups in the US like the KKK cannot be targeted for prosecution) and

 

(2) because of the strong protections of the first amendment, the Department of Justice knew it would be such a high bar to prove incitement (this is the bar set in 1969 by means of Brandenburg v. Ohio), and declined to charge Trump for incitement 

 

Due to the aforementioned, there has been no court case to decide whether Trump’s January 6 speech constitutes criminal incitement (under the Brandenburg standard).

Edited 15 hours ago by Brandon

[Shawnster]

7 minutes ago, Brandon said:

At the end of the day, the question of whether Trump incited the crowd to chaos and rioting is—and this is me being generous—unresolved.

 

Understandable. 

 

However, to edit the video in such a way was grossly inappropriate for a news outlet professing to report facts. Additionally, the creation and spreading of fake news doesn't help in resolution. 

 

This only goes to eroding people's confidence in formerly trusted news outlets. 

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

to edit the video in such a way was grossly inappropriate for a news outlet professing to report facts

You’re misunderstanding me. If Trump did incite violence, then editing the speech together to show how he did that is not “fake,” it’s simply documentary storytelling that at worst, lacks nuance.

 

if you are of the opinion that Trump is innocent, then it makes sense that you would call the documentary fake news. But my point is that we shouldn’t make the assumption that he’s innocent…

 

At any rate, I feel this topic (from the beginning) is playing with fire and has the potential to divide brother from brother, so I recommend we all tread cautiously and not assume our point of view is universally shared, let alone then draw conclusions from that personal opinion. 

[Shawnster]

34 minutes ago, Brandon said:

You’re misunderstanding me. If Trump did incite violence, then editing the speech together to show how he did that is not “fake,” it’s simply documentary storytelling that at worst, lacks nuance.

 

Did you watch the edited and unedited videos referenced in any of those links? 

 

36 minutes ago, Brandon said:

At any rate, I feel this topic (from the beginning)... 

 

My hope was to focus on the actions of the BBC and not make this yet another ad nauseum topic about Trump. I had hopes that distinction could be made by ones choosing to participate. My apologies if my hopes were not realistic. 

[Kunlesky]

11 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Exclusive: BBC doctored Trump speech, internal report reveals

 

Corporation edited footage in Panorama programme to make it seem president was encouraging Capitol riot, according to whistleblowing dossier

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo.amp

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bbc-under-scrutiny-over-edit-of-trumps-speech-on-jan-6

 

Mainstream media failure. 

 

This type of media propaganda has prompted me to consider the signs and prophecies from the scriptures for these last days. It was once thought that some events were difficult to explain and were sometimes categorized as "acts of God." I was fully convinced within my very being that mankind itself would know that they had screwed up royally. Reminds me of the literature written about the medieval African tribe: "the gods are not to blame"! It would be evident through propaganda, attempts to dictate justice, the distortion of truth, the populace shifting back and forth between democratic and autocratic tendencies, and the willful surrender of personal responsibilities to AI and other autonomous entities. There would be nothing left to chalk up to the "acts of God" section for any reasonable human. We would have to know that "We screwed up irreversibly"!

[Qapla]

It should not surprise us that mainstream media would adopt the same tactics as alt-media since 2 Timothy 3:1-4 tells us, ". . .in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride. . .".

 

Things like this will be more common as the end draws near and how people view right and wrong become so merged that those who report the news, mainstream or alt will not be able to tell their right hand from their left let alone know the truth from the lie.

 

 

 

[Eejay]

8 hours ago, Qapla said:

should not surprise us

 

I have to say it does surprise me.

 

How could an organisation with such a stature as the BBC allow the publication of a blatantly doctored news item about someone as high profile and insecure as President Trump, and think that it would not be noticed? Between them, the Director General and Chief Exec. for News were paid almost £1million per year! They certainly were not watching the stove were they?

[Frances Bennett]

The BBC is just state propaganda. I'm here in the UK and I see it on a daily basis. 

 

When I look at it now I think "Hmmm what do they want the masses to do? Let's see where they are leading everyone"

 

Then there's "Alt media" - which I think is often just another way to lead people.

 

For instance, if the BBC intended to cause division with it's Trump editing, then the division created two groups, right? Those horrified by Mr Trumps [edited] "words", and those in agreement.

 

Both groups need leading. BBC leads one group, alt 'sensationalist' media leads the other (guns a blazin')

 

All that follow either group without asking to see the receipts of their claims are utter fools. They are like the person in Proverbs 18:13

 

"When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating"

 

There are some alternative news outlets that bring the receipts. 'UK Column news' in the UK is one such outlet. After every broadcast and article they post a long list of sources for you to check there "working out".

 

Even then the receipts they bring are 'facts' but their conclusions may be flawed, because they are humans with there own flawed perspectives. I do think they show more integrity and honesty than most, though.

 

PS: If any of you do have a look at UK Column news, read the receipts before passing judgement. Passing judgement without doing that would be like the guy in the Proverb again