He derides respected TV channels such as CNN and MSNBC, preferring to align himself with the right wing Murdoch-controlled tabloid channel called "Fox News" in which Trump can apparently do no wrong and all Democrats are woke liberals. He has also targeted America's best newspapers.
And then there are the now legendary Epstein Papers that undoubtedly contain painful truths. Trump and his oddball team have used every trick in the book to delay, block and hide those particular truths.
Being what several learned psychiatrists have described as a "malignant narcissist", Trump does not take kindly to any one or any organisation that tells a different truth from his own. He barks them down with playground declarations of "Fake News!" and "Fake Media!" and he misuses the judicial system to pressure media organisations for revenge or compensation.
Here in Great Britain, there is currently a lot of fuss and media noise about how Trump's January 6th 2021 speech was edited for a BBC "Panorama" documentary called "Trump: A Second Chance?" aired a year ago - several days before the US presidential election. If you didn't know - you might think that somebody had died or that some terrible wrong had been wrought upon the present occupant of The White House. Such has been the fuss.
Even in Russia and China, leaders' speeches need to be selectively edited by TV News channels. It would be unrealistic to broadcast the entire thing. And on January 6th 2021 while seeking to belligerently dispute a fair and democratic election result, Trump's rabble-rousing speech was fifty eight minutes long! For the purposes of the documentary, the makers just wished to give a flavour of what Trump had actually said.
With hindsight, I would say that it was unfortunate that the programme makers did not flag up that the two small segments of Trump's infamous speech that they had stitched together were, in reality, delivered over fifty minutes apart. It was a small mistake. However, the documentary as a whole was intelligent and pretty well-balanced. There was no sensationalism. It was in character with healthy BBC reportage.
All my life I have known the BBC like a brilliant friend - always there for me, reliable and true. It is a jewel in Great Britain's crown - a wonderful media organisation that has paved the way for other broadcasters in countless respects. Its simple mission is to "inform, educate and entertain" and as a recipient of BBC TV and radio programmes for seventy years, I can confirm that that is what it has always given me.
Of course, any broadcasting organisation will be imperfect when it comes to political reporting - simply because that service is delivered by human beings. Absolute objective neutrality is impossible. To be frank, I have always thought that, if anything, the BBC is biased towards conservatism, London and the educated middle classes so in the fuss about "Trump: A Second Chance?" I have been quite gobsmacked that several right wing voices have implied that the BBC is some sort of woke, leftist entity. I just cannot see that at all.
Trump's vindictiveness has become infamous and I suspect that the BBC will have to cough up a lot of money to appease the litigious old fellow. As I pay my TV licence fee every year, I very much resent the prospect that a tiny portion of my fee will now end up in Trump's bulging bank account. Even a penny will be too much.
God Bless The BBC!
trump is like a child having a temper tantrum, who had parents who never said no to him. Enfant terrible!
ReplyDeleteIt remains baffling how America could elect somebody like that.
DeleteAs I was thinking, if #47 successfully sued, it would be England's taxpayers who pay, well, those who pay the license fee. That would be another reason for the the public of England to hate the despot. Our ABC, like your BBC is a conservative organisation, and is meticulous in its balanced political coverage. Balance at times to where it becomes absurd. Yes, at times it gets things wrong, and the conservative politicians love to give it hell.
ReplyDeleteWe live in parallel universes Andrew.
DeleteWe have our CBC. You could the same thing about it.
ReplyDeleteDoes the first "C" stand for "Coochy-coo"?
DeleteAs you say, they did make a mistake in not making transparent that the snippets from Trump's speech had originally been relatively far apart. But with our without that information, what he said remains the same, and so does the meaning and message behind it.
ReplyDeleteThe editing exactly caught the spirit of Trump's speech without giving us the entire thing.
DeleteAnd if the BBC had said nothing at all, would Trump have been incensed over being ignored and sued them for that? There is just no end to the ways he tries to get money for nothing.
ReplyDeleteHe uses his presidential position to press home petty grudges.
DeleteI reckon the BBC is in a very hard place. Not wanting to give in to this playground bully and I hope they take a dignified road. For a start the man doesn't always make it in the courts. I hope his lackey lawyers instruct him that it just might be a step too far.
ReplyDeleteThe case would be exceedingly hard for him to win and by then he will probably be in a nursing home.
DeleteI suspect it will be more than a tiny bit of your TV licence that will be needed to satisfy Trump. I am saddened by the whole affair because the BBC was my husband's employer.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for the BBC to get things right every time.
DeleteI feel similarly about the BBC, which I find respectable and reliable. As you said, it's not uncommon for journalists to selectively edit a speech, as long as they don't do so deceptively or change the meaning. In this case it sounds like they consolidated two very short sound bites into what sounded like a single phrase, which probably did go too far -- although the overall meaning seemed pretty accurate to me.
ReplyDeleteIt should be a small storm in a teacup but of course The Orange Bouncy Castle turns it into a major hurricane. Talk of "much ado about nothing"!
DeleteHe is exhausting. Every day it is some other nonsense; suing people constantly. "Ranting teenager" is so apt; I always read his posts (even though they anger me so much) so that I can really comment on what is going on. And sometimes, honest to god, I think is this a joke? I have to doublecheck to see if it is actually from some sort of parody site. But no, the President himself is writing this petty nonsense. And don't get me started on health care.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me started on his grammar and punctuation. Did he go to school?
DeleteThey want it closed and privatised.
ReplyDeleteThat could easily be the bottom line.
DeleteWhere to start on this one? Almost too much for one post and certainly too much for one comment but you are usually pretty generous in allowing long comments so here goes:
ReplyDeleteIt was ridiculous for Panorama to edit Trump’s speech that way but, in my opinion, that edit did not change the sentiments of the full hour or so. I watched that speech live and have since reread the transcript. For those who wish to do so it can be found here https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial.
Yes there some words in there about going “peacefully” but there were many, many more words about fighting, rigged elections, fake media, illegal president etc etc. aka whipping up his fans. Why did Panorama make the edit? The only answer that seems to work for me is they thought it captured the whole speech, and I reckon it does. It was a silly thing to do but not akin to editing “Tomorrow I will meet a murderer” into “tomorrow I will murder” - as I heard one right wing lazy “journalist” put it (Nick Ferrari if you are interested).
Will the suit succeed if it goes ahead? well it’s in Florida, so that is a bit of a wild card I guess but the programme went out on BBC one week before the US election. Was it shown in Florida during that week? If it wasn’t the case would seem to fall apart. Also, my understanding, is that Trump would need to show there was actual malice in the editing of the clip as opposed to negligence.
How on earth someone could conclude the UK, under the guise of the BBC “have been meddling in the last Presidential election, in the most unacceptable way” is completely beyond me…well maybe not a reliance on the Daily Mail can lead to that conclusion. And as to thinking that Trump is right that just beggars belief.
My hope is the BBC does the right thing and is not intimidated - as US news outlets have been, well blackmailed might be a better description there.
This just addresses the Trump issue - it doesn’t even scratch the surface of who wrote the report, who appointed that person, why the “right wing press” have piled in against the BBC etc etc.
Anyway, I have more than out stayed my welcome, and even if you don’t publish this I hope you read it.
Yours
Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells
PS Have you seen the latest Private Eye cover?
Thank you for your fine and detailed response Traveller. I went to look at the most recent Private Eye cover but it appeared to feature another tub of lard - The Nobody formerly known as Prince.
DeleteHe is indeed malignant. He is infecting the world.
ReplyDeleteIt's worse than COVID19.
DeleteWell said, is there a judge in the UK that would give the old windbag a pence?
ReplyDeleteWhat? A mike pence? They say the case could be heard in Florida - not over here.
DeleteI say portray him using his own words; his senility makes that a fun ride as he rants about windmills and magnets and "the groceries."
ReplyDeleteGradually, the edifice is crumbling.
DeleteHe did say all of those things and everybody knows it.
ReplyDeleteAnd what he was accused of doing to E.Jean Carroll he did do and he still has not given her the money that the court required from him.
Delete