Let’s talk about BBC

[CXRAndy]

. . . even putting on the accent now !

🤠

 

[C R]

It is going to turn out to substantially baseless. That's not the point.

I do think the BBC will decide to fight this to the bitter end. Which ought to stretch beyond his presidency. Because it will likely improve their standing as an independent news organisation to do so.

I do hope that you are right, but I wouldn't put it past some members of the board to push for a settlement to further erode the BBC

 

[Blazing Saddles]

The lawyers will publicly drag all those directly involved in the program, editing, senior staff head of BBC through a public humiliation on the stand.

It will be like watching the Johnny Depp case. Extremely entertaining

Meh
Trump is publicly humiliated every day.
Doesn’t seem to make much difference.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I do hope that you are right, but I wouldn't put it past some members of the board to push for a settlement to further erode the BBC

Interestingly, it appears that the lawsuit document has virtually cribbed sections from the the Michael Prescott report into BBC impartiality (the one where Prescott himself misquotes the Trump speech). Wouldn't that be a wonder, the likes of Gibb and Prescott pushing a settlement that would harm the BBC based on their own impartial report, which assisted said lawsuit. Obviously in the interest of fairness, I accept that the Panorama editorial decisions created this mess in the first place, but the BBC has been undermined by the very people that are in charge of protecting it.

 

[icowden]

I do hope that you are right, but I wouldn't put it past some members of the board to push for a settlement to further erode the BBC

There's an excellent rundown of the lawsuit here:
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3ma3pzircrs26
Some snippets:

It certainly starts strong. I don’t think I’ve ever used this many adjectives at once since undergrad, when I needed to pad a word count.

Trump’s lawyers very obvious make use of Prescott’s dossier, not least because they then reference that final sentence of his extract here, saying it’s terrible the BBC omitted it:

Now, why didn’t Trump’s lawyers just include the sentence in the quote, like Michael Prescott did? It’s because Prescott omitted a chunk of quote too. Trump’s lawyers have managed to cut it out of their filing, too, but they’ve done it more cleverly than him. Here’s the missing bit:

Michael Prescott’s report edits Trump’s quote *at least* as badly as Panorama did (I’d argue worse). And that misleading edit is now very obviously at the core of a $5 billion lawsuit against the corporation. The Panorama had been online, without complaint, for a year before that dossier.

Little bonus from the filing. The second paragraph here takes a general claim about VPN use in Florida and imagines everyone’s using it to watch the BBC. But the first paragraph is missing something: notice it has absolutely no supporting reference. They’re just claiming it, sans evidence.

 

[C R]

Interestingly, it appears that the lawsuit document has virtually cribbed sections from the the Michael Prescott report into BBC impartiality (the one where Prescott himself misquotes the Trump speech). Wouldn't that be a wonder, the likes of Gibb and Prescott pushing a settlement that would harm the BBC based on their own impartial report, which assisted said lawsuit. Obviously in the interest of fairness, I accept that the Panorama editorial decisions created this mess in the first place, but the BBC has been undermined by the very people that are in charge of protecting it.

That's my worry. FWIW, the edit is just a stick to beat the BBC journalism with, it didn't imply anything that is not borne out by the reality of what happened.

 

[briantrumpet]

There's an excellent rundown of the lawsuit here:
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3ma3pzircrs26
Some snippets:

David Allen Green has done a post too, but it's behind a paywall for now (fair enough).

https://bsky.app/profile/davidallengreen.bsky.social/post/3ma4bg4iukk2x

A guided tour of President Trump's 33-page, $5 billion lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation How some parts are strong, some parts are weak - and why a strict legalistic analysis will not tell the whole story.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Trump has just publicly defamed and humiliated himself by his vindictive message about Rob Reiner.
Can he sue himself?

 

[secretsqirrel]

Trump has just publicly defamed and humiliated himself by his vindictive message about Rob Reiner.
Can he sue himself?

He should sue himself for posting a video of Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero and fake moustache.

 

[CXRAndy]

Reiner was aa bonkers as DNiro

Sad way to go, crazed son slits their throats. Guess if you behave crazy at home, those around act out crazy thoughts

 

[TailWindHome]

Is the allegation that the son was MAGA and was in a violent rage?

Odd one for Trump to promote.

 

[Pross]

I wonder if there would be a financial kick back to certain BBC staff that seem to have aided Trump in preparing his case?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Reiner was aa bonkers as DNiro

Sad way to go, crazed son slits their throats. Guess if you behave crazy at home, those around act out crazy thoughts

Keep an eye on your kids then.

How exactly did Reiner behave crazy at home? Unlike you I don’t follow the pathetic comments on X or Truth Social.

 

[icowden]

Reiner was aa bonkers as DNiro

So completely sane then.

 

[Psamathe]

Does a Florida Count hearing a civil case have the power to subpoena UK citizens resident outside the US. Can Trump's lawyers require these "witnesses" to appear or testify? I'd have guessed not but I have no idea about powers of civil US courts.