General News Thread

[leicsmac]

Interesting find that gives some of that wider context:

 

"The BBC made a mistake when it edited Trump’s January 6 speech. The Panorama segment was careless and misleading, and it should not have aired as it did. Yet the hysteria since then ignores a more serious truth, that Trump’s own words in the weeks before that day made violence almost certain.

In the month leading up to the attack, he told supporters to “be there, it will be wild,” insisted that they would “never concede,” and urged them to “fight like hell.” He used the word “fight” more than twenty times on the day itself and told the Justice Department to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.” Through repetition and rage, he convinced people that their country had been stolen and that only strength could reclaim it. The result was a mob in Washington, five dead, and the desecration of the Capitol.

When he returned to power, Trump pardoned more than a thousand people, among them allies and convicted criminals, sending the same message that loyalty to him stands above the law. That was the true legacy of January 6, not the brief edit that has dominated the headlines.

The BBC compressed his words and made a poor editorial choice, but it did not create the hostility that consumed that day. Trump’s rhetoric built the tension, channelled the fury and carried it into the heart of American democracy.

To claim this proves a conspiracy against him is dishonest. To threaten the BBC with financial ruin over it is dangerous. Trump’s story remains a lie, yet his allies have forced the broadcaster to act as if he were the injured party. That distortion of truth is the real scandal.

Davie’s leadership has been weak and politically timid, but the fury over this story bears no relation to the facts. The BBC deserves scrutiny but not surrender. It should acknowledge its errors, hold to the truth and refuse to let bullies decide what Britain is allowed to hear."

[Fear Of The Fox]

10 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Diminished yes; gone no.

 

Otherwise why would there be several posters here defending the BBC?

 

Absolutes are incredibly rare.

As I said trust is gone. I've still not cancelled my licence but I'm certain there are already thousands who cancelled theirs. I'm sorry but this kind of "mistakes" have consequences. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

OK, so let's say this does occur, and as a result media championed by Trump and his ilk have the freedom to shape and broadcast the "truth" as they see fit, with all the consequences that entails. 

 

Is that a desirious outcome, and if so, might I ask why?

 

I've asked variations of this question a few times now but I'm still looking for an answer, because people appear to want the Beeb to suffer punishment for this lapse (which, I hasten to add, I don't disagree with), but don't seem to have much of a vision of the future after that occurs. I believe that showing such foresight is rather important to a good cover of the discussion. 

Of course it's a desirous outcome.

 

It's such a chore deciding which news outlet is telling the truth. Having one beautiful and gloriously unquestionable source of news will remove us all from the burden of informed decision.

 

Add to that the source of news, a messianic figure whose knowledge surpasses all understanding*, and truly all if the world's ailments will come to an end.

 

 

 

 

*I think this is inarguable 

[Fear Of The Fox]

5 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Trust hasn't gone for anybody that didn't already dislike the BBC. It's an incredibly minor issue.

Minor issue stitching deliberately words and broadcasting in dozens of millions around the planet? Are you serious? Should I do the same to you then? 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Of course it's a desirous outcome.

 

It's such a chore deciding which news outlet is telling the truth. Having one beautiful and gloriously unquestionable source of news will remove us all from the burden of informed decision.

 

Add to that the source of news, a messianic figure whose knowledge surpasses all understanding*, and truly all if the world's ailments will come to an end.

 

 

 

 

*I think this is inarguable 

Well, this could be accurate, but we shall wait and see. 

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Minor issue stitching deliberately words and broadcasting in dozens of millions around the planet? Are you serious? Should I do the same to you then? 

It's a tiny issue. The telegraph, mail etc prints complete lies day after day. 

GB News is utterly biased.

Yet you think the BBC accepting a badly spliced video is a huge major catastrophe. 

Id suggest this simply says more about your politics than anything else.

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, this could be accurate, but we shall wait and see. 

You wanted an answer

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

It's a tiny issue. The telegraph, mail etc prints complete lies day after day. 

GB News is utterly biased.

Yet you think the BBC accepting a badly spliced video is a huge major catastrophe. 

Id suggest this simply says more about your politics than anything else.

As much as this may or may not be so, as per above this should really go beyond politics so I'd be leery of going there. 

 

Unless the idea of truth and a lot about where it points us in the future is a political discussion.

[Tommy G]

11 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

It's a tiny issue. The telegraph, mail etc prints complete lies day after day. 

GB News is utterly biased.

Yet you think the BBC accepting a badly spliced video is a huge major catastrophe. 

Id suggest this simply says more about your politics than anything else.

My surprise and utter shock you have this viewpoint. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by Tommy G

[Trav Le Bleu]

To quote Pilate, "What is truth?"

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

To quote Pilate, "What is truth?"

.... that discovery about the universe which is arrived at through repeated empirical observation and recording, producing a consensus of data that proves a hypothesis.

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.... that discovery about the universe which is arrived at through repeated empirical observation and recording, producing a consensus of data that proves a hypothesis.

 

Pilate's statement though is indicative of his awareness that personal belief is often held as truth, which he was acknowledging, which in itself is a truth.

 

It was an expression that, regardless of the actual truth of the allegations presented to him, he wouldn't be able to dissuade the belief of the baying masses.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Pilate's statement though is indicative of his awareness that personal belief is often held as truth, which he was acknowledging, which in itself is a truth.

 

It was an expression that, regardless of the actual truth of the allegations presented to him, he wouldn't be able to dissuade the belief of the baying masses.

And he was spot on with that, too. As were the Greeks (Plato in particular) on the matter. 

 

That we're still struggling with it millenia later just shows how tough a problem it is, and the stakes keep rising with all our development as a species. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Tommy G]

I am surprised 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/unemployment-rate-jumps-to-highest-level-since-late-2020-ahead-of-budget-13468366

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting find that gives some of that wider context:

 

"The BBC made a mistake when it edited Trump’s January 6 speech. The Panorama segment was careless and misleading, and it should not have aired as it did. Yet the hysteria since then ignores a more serious truth, that Trump’s own words in the weeks before that day made violence almost certain.

In the month leading up to the attack, he told supporters to “be there, it will be wild,” insisted that they would “never concede,” and urged them to “fight like hell.” He used the word “fight” more than twenty times on the day itself and told the Justice Department to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.” Through repetition and rage, he convinced people that their country had been stolen and that only strength could reclaim it. The result was a mob in Washington, five dead, and the desecration of the Capitol.

When he returned to power, Trump pardoned more than a thousand people, among them allies and convicted criminals, sending the same message that loyalty to him stands above the law. That was the true legacy of January 6, not the brief edit that has dominated the headlines.

The BBC compressed his words and made a poor editorial choice, but it did not create the hostility that consumed that day. Trump’s rhetoric built the tension, channelled the fury and carried it into the heart of American democracy.

To claim this proves a conspiracy against him is dishonest. To threaten the BBC with financial ruin over it is dangerous. Trump’s story remains a lie, yet his allies have forced the broadcaster to act as if he were the injured party. That distortion of truth is the real scandal.

Davie’s leadership has been weak and politically timid, but the fury over this story bears no relation to the facts. The BBC deserves scrutiny but not surrender. It should acknowledge its errors, hold to the truth and refuse to let bullies decide what Britain is allowed to hear."

Fwiw, given that he said quite a lot leading up to Jan 6 which was effectively understood as meaning what was spliced together, whilst a court would likely find in his favour, the damages may well be fairly limited on the basis that his reputation hasn't been sullied that much because he had pretty much said what they edited to show he said. 
 

Edited 11 November 2025 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Fwiw, given that he said quite a lot leading up to Jan 6 which was effectively understood as meaning what was spliced together, whilst a court would likely find in his favour, the damages may well be fairly limited on the basis that his reputation hasn't been sullied that much because he had pretty much said what they edited to show he said. 
 

There's something in that, too. 

 

The Beeb should probably tell him they'll see him in court. (And, when they do, for the sake of full disclosure ask for any and all records he has concerning Epstein. )

[Tommy G]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's something in that, too. 

 

The Beeb should probably tell him they'll see him in court. (And, when they do, for the sake of full disclosure ask for any and all records he has concerning Epstein. )

As much as I dislike Trump (not as much as you do lol) the Epstein files have nothing to do with this. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

My surprise and utter shock you have this viewpoint. 

I understand that, we come from different sides of the political coin.

I can accept and understand you thinking that the BBC has erred and that you may view it more seriously than I do. 

All fair. 

But on the flip side I'd invite you to perhaps accept that compared to those other media outlets I've listed, the BBC is clearly less biased. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

As much as I dislike Trump (not as much as you do lol) the Epstein files have nothing to do with this. 

That bit was mostly tongue in cheek, hence the emoji. 

 

I'm still interested in a different perspective on the wider matter described above, though. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

It's a tiny issue. The telegraph, mail etc prints complete lies day after day. 

GB News is utterly biased.

Yet you think the BBC accepting a badly spliced video is a huge major catastrophe. 

Id suggest this simply says more about your politics than anything else.

That's the problem. I'm talking strictly about this BBC incident and you bring into the equation other media outlets. If you want to talk about all the others we can do it in a different discussion. 

And yes GB News is representing and talks to a certain political demographic and this is irrelevant to what happened at the BBC. 

It's a joke you're trying to put under the carpet this serious incident. I don't care how much precious is this corporation for you. BBC is finished and they should have been more careful. Now it's too late. 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

That's the problem. I'm talking strictly about this BBC incident and you bring into the equation other media outlets. If you want to talk about all the others we can do it in a different discussion. 

And yes GB News is representing and talks to a certain political demographic and this is irrelevant to what happened at the BBC. 

It's a joke you're trying to put under the carpet this serious incident. I don't care how much precious is this corporation for you. BBC is finished and they should have been more careful. Now it's too late. 

 

Then please do, as has been politely requested more than once.

[CornwallFox]

6 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

That's the problem. I'm talking strictly about this BBC incident and you bring into the equation other media outlets. If you want to talk about all the others we can do it in a different discussion. 

And yes GB News is representing and talks to a certain political demographic and this is irrelevant to what happened at the BBC. 

It's a joke you're trying to put under the carpet this serious incident. I don't care how much precious is this corporation for you. BBC is finished and they should have been more careful. Now it's too late. 

 

I'll say this again as you've refused to read it every other time I've written it. 

 

The BBC has got it wrong. I don't think it's a big issue, in fact I think it's tiny, but you disagree and think it's a big issue. Fine. Let's agree to disagree about the scale of the issue. 

 

Separately, the threat to the BBC is from a right wing political class and media that want to end unbiased reporting so that they can dominate with their right wing opinion pieces. 

 

Seperately again, I'm not sure why you keep saying the BBC is done. At the moment the entire country is being dragged rightwards by GB news, online troll farms, and a media discourse pushing the overton window ever rightwards. The BBC has been under attack from that quarter for decades for supposed left wing bias (despite independent studies showing the bias is the other way if anything). Social media has had commentators talking about not paying the licence fee for years, it's no different now. The BBC is certainly under threat from the right, but the idea it's suddenly broken due to this issue is fanciful imo. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[StanSP]

15 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Now it's too late.

Is it? 

 

 

[JonnyBoy]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

I am surprised 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/unemployment-rate-jumps-to-highest-level-since-late-2020-ahead-of-budget-13468366

 

BUt lOok aT WhaT thE ToRiEs Did bEfoRe labOUr

[splinterdream]

6 hours ago, danny. said:

IIRC Newsnight photoshopped Corbyn to look very Russian around that time?

 

100%, I don't like the BBC or watch it (or any TV) but the right moan it's too left and the left moan it's too right, so sounds like it's hitting the spot.

 

No one is forced to pay for it. I haven't paid a BBC license for well over a decade. You can just cancel it?

 

How do you mean looking Russian?

Do you mean they had a red backdrop with hammer and sickle in the top corner? Tbf, Corbyn is a Marxist.