BBC expected to apologize after using doctored footage of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech in documentary
The BBC is reportedly expected to apologize after using a “doctored” clip of President Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech in a documentary released last year.
BBC chairman Samir Shah will apologize to the UK House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Monday, expressing regret for misleading viewers by splicing together clips of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally in the Panorama documentary, which aired last October, the Telegraph reported.
The mea culpa comes after Michael Prescott, the British network’s former Editorial Guidelines and Standards adviser, released a damning 19-page report alleging widespread bias within the organization and highlighting warnings he issued in May about the “doctored” speech, according to the outlet.
The whistleblower claimed the BBC “mangled” the clip in its documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” to make it appear as if the president encouraged crowds to storm the Capitol.
Prescott noted that the network aired footage of Trump appearing to tell rally-goers: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not gonna have a country any more.”
The clip was spliced together from three separate parts of Trump’s speech — with a nearly hour-long gap edited out to make it seem like one fluent sentence.
Trump’s actual remarks were: “We’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re gonna walk down, we’re gonna walk down any one of you but I think right here, we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressman and women.”
The BBC edited out the president saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
About 54 minutes into Trump’s speech, he told the crowd, “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
Prescott called the deceptive editing “shocking,” according to the report.
“This created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers,” the ex-adviser wrote.
The BBC program also made it appear as if members of the Proud Boys, an extremist right-wing group, were inspired to march toward the Capitol Building after Trump’s speech.
The footage the program used of the Proud Boys heading toward the Capitol, however, was taken before Trump’s address.
“It was completely misleading to edit the clip in the way Panorama aired it,” Prescott added.
“The fact that [Mr. Trump] did not explicitly exhort supporters to go down and fight at Capitol Hill was one of the reasons there were no federal charges for incitement to riot.”
The BBC did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment but told the Telegraph in a statement that Shah will provide a full response to committee chairs on Monday.
3 comments:
Hmmm. Another main stream media fudging the truth? What about Wikipedia's accusations about the Daily Mail? Yes, the Daily Mail has been accused of lying and has faced accusations of inaccuracy, sensationalism, plagiarism, and publishing false information. Critics point to instances such as a 2013 article about former Labour leader Ed Miliband's father, a case where the paper falsely accused a professor of inciting a race war, and allegations of misusing private information. As a result of its reputation for poor fact-checking, Wikipedia has classified the Daily Mail as a "generally unreliable" source, says The Guardian and The London School of Economics and Political Science.
False accusations: In 2020, the Daily Mail paid £25,000 to a professor it had falsely accused of inciting a race war with fake tweets, reports The Guardian.
Political attacks: In 2013, Ed Miliband accused the paper of lying in a story about his father, which the paper later had to defend.
Unreliability: Due to its reputation for inaccuracy, sensationalism, and fabrication, Wikipedia editors classified the Daily Mail as a "generally unreliable" source in 2017, notes The Guardian.
Misuse of private information: The Daily Mail's parent company is facing legal action from high-profile individuals alleging misuse of private information, including the installation of listening devices in private homes, according to The Guardian. *** Sadly most major publications have been accused of fabricating stories. So where do you go for factual news?
But for the most part, I believe the Daily Mail is reliable. By the way, similar things have been said about your beloved Fox News.
Now that Judge Jeanine has left FOX my time on the channel has deminished. My wife still watches The Five. FOX has problems too. I watch Youtube Premium for a variety of opinions. Independent Podcasts that are specific to subjects are my go to and my daily dose of FB that also lets me keep up with people and law enforcement sites.
Post a Comment