The Telegraph has a story – with accompanying videos – that ought to finish several careers at the BBC: “Exclusive: BBC ‘doctored’ Trump speech, internal report reveals”.
What Trump actually said:
“We’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re gonna walk down, we’re gonna walk down any one you want but I think right here, we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong…I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
And 54 minutes later:
“Most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say I wanna thank you very much, and they go off to some other life but I said something’s wrong here, something’s really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country any more.”
What the spliced-together BBC version made it look like Trump said:
“We’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re gonna walk down, we’re gonna walk down any one you want but I think right here, we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong…I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
And immediately afterwards:
“Most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say I wanna thank you very much, and they go off to some other life but I said something’s wrong here, something’s really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country any more.”
In case your screen is not showing all the lines through most of the second version, the falsely edited BBC version made it look like Trump said,
“We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
No surprise there.
It would be nice to believe that the government will do something about it.
I don’t think I can hold my breath for that long.
The initial BBC response :
‘While we don’t comment on leaked documents, when the BBC receives feedback it takes it seriously and considers it carefully.’
In other words “Move along, Plebs, there’s nothing to see here”
From the same article:/-
According to Mr Prescott, at a meeting of the EGSC (Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee) on May 12 this year Mr Munro (BBC Senior controller of news content) said: “There was no attempt to mislead the audience about the content or nature of Mr Trump’s speech before the riot at the Capitol. It’s normal practice to edit speeches into short form clips.”
There is a considerable difference between editing and splicing.
And you’re point is? He made his typical rambling, disconnected babble then mumbled some nonsense about peacefully and patriotically after the crowd was amped up. What we walked away with was fight then fight some more.
And my point is that “we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women” is considerably different to “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight.”
If the Natalie’s summary is correct, he mumbled his nonsense about “peacefully and patriotically” about negative fifty-four minutes after telling the crowd to fight, then fight some more.
wilful,
I agree. It was a bit of a ramble but the point about, “standing with Congress” and “being peaceful” were very clear to anyone and totally at odds with the idea of Trump formenting an insurrection or civil war or anything like that. The simple fact these, very clear, points are the ones that were omitted doesn’t even give the BBC the excuse that the speech was edited for reasons of clarity.
CayleyGraph2015, I must admit that I am not sure what you mean by “negative fifty-four minutes after”. If you mean that he said the words “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” fifty four minutes before he said the words “We fight like hell”, that is correct.
Both the interval of nearly an hour between the two statements and the order in which they were made is relevant.
I quite agree with “willful knowledge” that Trump’s speaking style is rambling and disconnected. I’ve seen left wing sources point out with glee that even Trump’s most devoted fans frequently get bored at his rallies and leave early. For that very reason, I doubt that after nearly an hour of his ramblings enough people were still paying close enough attention to have the effect of “peacefully and patriotically” negated by the effect of “we fight like hell”.
And why did the BBC delete the words “peacefully and patriotically”? If someone is accused of inciting a riot it is obviously a strong argument in their defence that they explicitly urged those listening to them to stay peaceful.
Yes – the BBC used to distort the truth, perhaps unintentionally. Now they blatantly lie – as do most of the international “liberal” media, which is NOT liberal – indeed it is pro tyranny.
In the 2020 Presidential Election – Mr Joseph “Joe the Big Guy” Biden, who did not even really campaign, may have got “81 million votes” but certainly NOT from 81 million voters – the election was rigged, that is beyond reasonable doubt.
As for January 6th 2021 – the people who actually did urge the crowd to enter the Capitol building (less than 1% of the people who had turned up to listen to President Trump speak, about a mile away, entered the Capital building) were NOT punished.
Why were Mr Ray Epps and others who urged entering the building NOT punished, if entering the building was the crime?
And why were the masked people who did damage NOT punished – supporters of President Trump do not tend to hide their faces.
And why was the person who left a pipe bomb outside the Democratic National Committee NOT punished?
If these people had really been supporters of President Trump they would have been punished (and very severely – but the Kangaroo courts of Washington D.C.) – but they were NOT punished, other people (who had done nothing) were punished instead.
Yet the “mainstream” media shows no interest in all this.
The “mainsteam” media is much too close to the security state (the Deep State) to really investigate it – after all, if they did really investigate the rigged election or the security services False Flag operation on Janurary 6th, then journalists would lose their jobs and pensions, and might even have “accidents”.
Those lying liars are lying to us again?
Meh. Long past time for these Marxists to be handed their marching orders. Abolish the license fee ASAP and let their Marxist propaganda stand or fall on its merits.
Yeah, no.
When someone is listing the rainfall amounts in a variety of countries last Thursday, the manner in which the list was communicated can be easily edited for simplicity, without doing violence to truth.
When the entire point is whether Trump riled up the crowd in such a way as to trigger a riot, and the writer conflates sentences together that were not together, in a manner that suggests linkage that was absent, and especially when that writer has always shown animus for the speaker, then this excuse is arrant bullshit.
It is fine to shorten a speech if you keep the original meaning – it is not fine if you REVERSE the meaning.
For example, President Trump denounced the National Socialists (Nazis) who had tried to hijack the defense of historic statues in Virginia and elsewhere – the media edited out his attack on the National Socialists, and pretended he called the Nazis “very fine people”.
Such lies were even repeated in the courts, even though they were nothing to do with the fake “legal cases” deployed against President Trump.
Whether or not it was his intention – President Trump has served the useful purpose of showing that both the “mainstream” media, and the COURTS (the “justice system”) have been utterly corrupted for many years.
Although some of us who “bang on” about such corrupt judgments as those, of 1935 (yes even 90 years ago) which winked at the Federal Government stealing (by threat of violence) privately owned monetary gold, and dishonouring (ripping up) contracts, public and private, have long had no faith in the “justice system” – any more than we have faith in the “education system” to tell the truth about history, economics, and so on.
After all 2020 was not even the first Presidential Election that was rigged – so (for example) was the Presidential Election of 1960, and the United States Senate election in Texas in 1948.
Forget the BBC, what about the Jan 6 Committee and all those convicted, imprisoned, impoverished. Life terms and financial ruin for the a**es who did that!
Yeah, I was going for -1×-1=1, with the “negative” and “after” producing “before”.
But never let it be said that I communicate clearly.