I really don't think it is the fault of Boomers, @Fat Controller. It is, as per, the fault of elites, who believe they have a right to shape the world and ordinary folk should not have a say. It is the fault of illiberal liberalism, where proponents assume they know best and cannot be wrong, so should brook no discussion. It is the fault of the leftist agenda, always taking the side of minorities and misrepresenting reality to make whatever point they currently favour. It is the worst form of authoritarianism, pretending to be something it is not (open, accurate, free from bias) for the purpose of controlling others. What it is not is journalism. IMO! Keir must be glad the BBC is politically independent ... allegedly, @Philippa.
If I remember rightly, and are thinking of the correct event, everyone was described as Far Right supporters until it was pointed out otherwise.
He is dreaming if he thinks he will get anywhere near that, but the BBC also need to realise they are playing with fire here. It is not about the money for Trump - he is loaded for a start - so whilst another chunk onto his fortunes wouldn't be turned down, he isn't doing it because he needs it. It is going to be very interesting to see what else comes out of the woodwork, especially given that many folks here already accept that there is the truth, the whole truth and then the BBC truth.
For clarity, I didn't say it was the fault of Boomers - and from my perspective, it is coincidental that those who started the damage come from that generation. It is, as you say, the fault of elites being given far too much power. I do agree with many points in that article, not least how their reporting is now done based on a narrative.. so their reporting only fits the narrative. He is also spot on about the drip, drip, drip that bleeds through from news into other programming too. One of the things that cheesed me off many years ago with the BBC was their constant 'preaching' about folks being overweight/fat and it then becoming a "message" in everything they did, including stuff like Eastenders and other soap/drama/supposed comedy - they moved on from that to brow-beating us about climate change and even Brexit, but only from the BBC stance.
That is the one. Just as they did with the Pink Ladies and have done with many other things. To the sort of people that are in the BBC (and those currently coming out heavily defending the BBC), if you dare to have an opinion that immigration needs any form of control, you are instantly a far-right racist. Hell, in the eyes of the BBC, anyone who voted to leave the EU is a Nazi - they allowed David Lammy to say exactly that, live on air on Andrew Marr's show, completely unchallenged. This is the crux of the issue really - that anything other than left or far left views have been allowed to be painted as being 'wrong' or immoral and it is wholesale too... argument/debate is boiled down to a binary choice, mostly because those who are left leaning are incapable of debating any other way - so you are either a raging racist with skinhead and Jackboots and all that is bad or you are so good and virtuous that it is a matter of time before you get your angel wings... nothing in between.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you thought that. It's just it is the tone of the article and right down at the bottom, it shows the book it is an extract from.
It is about the money, just remember when you have that much it's just a matter of keeping the score. Problem is where is he going to get the damages from, the BBC has few assets in the US; so what does he do raise tariffs on UK trade to cover, or does he just confiscate British owned assets, the Embassy must be worth a few bob and he could always put a hotel on the site. I actually feel sorry for Starmer at the moment he's had a bad week, he's got the Budget to look forward to and then he's happily watching Strictly Come Dancing with the family and then he gets the "Orange One" on the phone giving him an earful about how he needs to take control of the media and stop it criticising poor old Donald and his minions.
I believe Trump gets discounted or free representation from law firms in return for not being targeted by him. But I’m sure the American people, not him, will be paying for his lawsuit against the BBC. I would suggest that the BBC, having made the apology he requested, don’t bother responding further to any communication from his lawyers. He is just planning on lining his already well feathered nest ready for when he is no longer President. He will have to prove that he was in some way defamed - as if he had a snowy white unblemished record- and I’d be interested to hear how he can explain why he pardoned the rioters who stormed the White House. Just read his latest Truth Social post - unedited, and in his own words- where he says he has made the USA ‘respected by every country in the world’. Maybe we could all club together and sue him for libel?
Any damages would be awarded as part of the legal process, so the idea of raising tariffs or confiscating assets is a tad far-fetched. As for feeling sorry for Starmer, I have zero sympathy for that man and his crew - he is the author of his own destiny in that regard, and has been less than honest throughout. Besides, Starmer has (allegedly) no bearing on the BBC because it is politically independent (we all know it isn't, but have to play along with the charade)
And what then? Business as usual at Chez BBC? Until the next time they have to pay out millions to someone?
I don't think the BBC has helped its case by maintaining it was all an unfortunate mistake. You simply cannot splice together two pieces of a speech completely reversing the meaning in error. Now, clearly it would be awkward for them to say "Look, we were trying to make you look bad. We are far left and therefore it is our avowed mission to diss you at every opportunity and we just couldn't resist." However, a bit of action to appear to be closing the stable door might have been wise. Sack those who did it. Allow Trump a prime time slot for right of reply. Soothe it all over a bit. Of course, the BBC is hopeless at ever admitting being in the wrong. That is one of the first things that needs changing.
It IS about the money for Mr. Trump otherwise why make a claim in the first place. His image wasn't "damaged" - he requires no assistance for that. Request/demand an apology - fine but does he honestly think that he has some God given right to constantly use threats to persuade everyone to agree with him ? The BBC can be said to be at fault in many aspects but no worse than many other media outlets. On the current issue, there is still no answer as to why he pardoned some of those involved in the Capitol fiasco if he is now pretending to be horrified by the violence and he would never have condoned what happened. It doesn't exempt the BBC but neither does it exempt him from his ( apparently criminal ) behaviour - both going back years and also recently. If we are complaining about bias - take a look around. We are all guilty in one way or another - just that the majority of us don't make it on to the News.
We need to bear in mind that we are looking at this through the British lens and not US... whereas here, generally, an apology will suffice and you are unlikely to get anything more unless you can prove that you've materially/financially lost, in the US they are far more litigious and will sue at the drop of a hat. The BBC may not be worse than some other outlets, but that also completely misses the point. Is the Daily Mail a complete rag that makes it's money from sensationalist headlines and clicks? Of course it is. The BBC however, is funded by the taxpayer by force whether you use their services or not and then goes on to have the cheek to have a multi-million pound department that "fact checks" other news and social media. Bias is bad enough and almost inescapable - pure fabrication, lies and deceit however, are not. The BBC needs to urgently move to a model where those who are happy with it's services can pay and use them, and the rest of us are not forced to pay for something we neither want, need nor trust.
Trump probably thinks that Starmer has control of the BBC and if not he should have. Confiscating assets is straight out of Trump's buddy Putin's play book, just look at what happened to a number of oligarchs early on in Putin's reign.
