BBC News doctored Trump video

[Qapla]

Way back when I was in High School the motto of the New York Times was "We print all the news that's fit to print". I was on the staff of our HS newspaper and, due to our limited budget that limited the number of pages we could print, our motto was "We print all the news that fits"

Edited yesterday at 03:06 AM by Qapla

[Witness1970]

On 11/13/2025 at 8:04 AM, 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

Interviews usually always have to be edited.  If the time allotted is shorter than the footage that was recorded, then there has to be an edit to fit the time.

 

Saying the interview was edited to "make it seem president was encouraging Capitol riot" does not seem like much of an edit.  I have seen the videos on other news outlets, and it seemed to me that the president did encourage the Capitol riot.  

[Sheep]

On 11/26/2025 at 11:33 AM, Mike047 said:

Or: "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"

 

Me too. I'm not nearly as dead as it's been reported. At least... not yet.

[Julsey]

On 11/13/2025 at 4:07 PM, 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. 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).

My Mother and I watched the speech in its entirety while it was live on air. He did not call for violence. The problem is, if you don’t watch things as they happen - when you can - you put yourself at the mercy of the news outlets. 

[Qapla]

I happen to know a former congressman from Florida. I have known him for more than 40 years. We have worked for each other at and/or in each other's homes. I used to have the key to his house and home office. He was in DC when Trump gave that speech. He was also a Trump supporter who felt the election was "stolen". 

 

We spoke the very next day on the phone as he called me a couple hours after he was back home - mostly to say "Hello" and let me know he was OK. While, in the view of many, Trump did not "call" for violence, there was the "expectation of violence" in the admonition to stop the vote count.

 

From a legal perspective, if you incite a group to action that has the "expectation of violence", even if you do not call for violence, you can still be held legally actionable if violence does happen.

 

Keep in mind, this aspect of what happened "on the ground" comes from someone who was actually there and on Trump's side. He told me he was glad to get out of DC and didn't care if he ever went back because his political experience in DC was not what he thought it would be.

 

The shame is, even though he can see that man does not have the answers, he is too Catholic to accept the truth.

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, Julsey said:

He did not call for violence.

I never wrote he did… notice my words, “chaos and rioting.” However, I’m curious how you interpret his command to “fight like hell”?

 

I would also like to point out that the US is the most liberal (most speed-protected) when it comes to extremist expressions. For example, the first amendment would even protect Trump if he encouraged future violence, as this wouldn’t meet the brandenburg’s criteria of “imminent” violence—this is not the type of free speech most sane people today would want to have protected. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Brandon

[Shawnster]

34 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I never wrote he did… notice my words, “chaos and rioting.” However, I’m curious how you interpret his command to “fight like hell”?

 

 

On 11/13/2025 at 6:29 PM, Brandon said:

 

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. 

 

 

Perhaps the best choice is to tread cautiously instead of continuing a discussion about Trump. 

 

Again, my purpose in starting this topic was to discuss shameful media content and not to discuss Trump.  Apparently it's impossible to separate the two. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Shawnster

[Julsey]

47 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I never wrote he did… notice my words, “chaos and rioting.” However, I’m curious how you interpret his command to “fight like hell”?

I will only refer to what I have already said and add that fighting does not always take the form of physical violence. Plenty of people use those words for any number of things (e.g., sports). I’m not going to say anymore. 

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

shameful media content

As a suggestion for next time, have a stronger case before jumping on the conservative talking points bandwagon.