“BBC director general Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit”, reports the BBC about itself:
BBC director general Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit
It comes after the Telegraph published details of a leaked internal BBC memo suggesting Panorama edited two parts of Trump’s speech together so he appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol Hill riots of January 2021
In a statement, Davie says “there have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility”
I used the tag “Deleted by the Woke Media” because fifty-four minutes of Trump’s speech on January 6th 2021 were deleted by the Woke BBC, and the trailing ends of the tape spliced together to make it appear as if he had said an inflammatory sentence he never said.
Remember the names of those public figures, especially journalists, who say that this was acceptable behaviour by the BBC because it was done to Trump. These people think lying is acceptable. Assume they are lying to you; assume they would lie about you.
The risk for the BBC is of course a defamation lawsuit for hundreds of millions of US dollars in a US court, with the malice element presumably being highly likely to be established as it is difficult to see, at least to me, how this could have been an honest oversight, YMMV. And with that the discovery and deposition issues.
Will this cause the government to question the need for a BBC licence fee? No more than the lack of a rapture put off those various 19th Century sects from updating their predictions of the Second Coming.
Make the announcements on a dark Sunday evening and hope nobody makes a fuss?
I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally.
Despite the inevitable issues and challenges, our journalism and quality content continues to be admired as a gold standard.
STFU
While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.
Together we have bucked the global trend, to grow trust in BBC News.
The previous extracts are from Tim Davie, these are Deborah Turness.
Both come across like a Scooby Doo villain, “We’d have got away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids”.
Get the popcorn for Trump’s lawsuit for libel.
Would he go after them in a US or UK court?
Meanwhile, is it hoping too much that this will also be acted on?
The BBC’s Top 50 Pieces of Climate Misinformation
Part 2
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/11/06/the-bbcs-top-50-pieces-of-climate-misinformation-part-2/
Part 1
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/11/05/the-bbcs-top-50-pieces-of-climate-misinformation/
Probably not.
Licence fee gone on day 1 of the Farage administration please.
As I understand it the British government is taking legal action against a US company for reporting things that are against British (Labour) law in a British court.
I hope The Donald sues the sh*t out of them and gets full discovery! Though they’ll probably settle out of court to avoid that. And put a few extra pounds on the license fee to cover costs.
25 million households pay the licence fee. So…. subscription service, £300 per year to raise the same amount. Cheaper than Sky, Virgin, etc. which are about £600 a year. It would require the Beeb to terminate all non-encoded broadcasts so that non-payers are unable to receive content.
“suggesting Panorama edited two parts of Trump’s speech together” sounds so much milder than “pointing out”that same thing.
Still at it Auntie. Quite incorrigible.
For over 60 years (since such programmes as “That Was The Week That Was” and many others) BBC bias has become more and more obvious. From time to time some individuals resign, or are forced out, but everything just continues to get worse.
It is not this or that individual – it is the system itself that is no good. And not just the BBC – it is the whole structure, for example “Ofcom” – the “regulator” of broadcasting, with its establishment leftism – of which Mark Steyn and others have been victims.
Television stations in Britain should not try and be “unbiased” which is impossible – there should be many different television stations, with different points of view. A Guardian, “Independent”, Mirror, and so on of television – but also a Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail of television.
John Locke attacked William Penn’s proposal for a dominant government school system in Pennsylvania (the system was not established at that time – it did not arrive till the 19th century) saying it would nip “in the bud” dissenting opinions – dominant broadcasters are the same.
There must be a choice of television and radio stations (and internet sites) with different points of view – no absurd seeking for “unbiasedness”.
What the he’ll is going on in the news desks? At the time that thousands of Christians are being raped and slaughtered by muslims in Sudan, every news channel seems to be concentrating on some numpty and numpties reducing from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation for overseeing blatant lies about someone with a different political view to them (no change there,
then).
I’d say this is more serious than everybody’s saying. The BBC repeatedly claims it’s “influential” in the US. The Panorama broadcast was before the US presidential election So this is a UK statutory body interfering in a US election by disseminating false information about one of the candidates. It’s not just the BBC. It’s the UK intentionally interfering with a US election.
Note that there’s wholesale difference between this & accusations of Trump interfering in UK elections. Trump disseminates his opinions via private media. X or his own platform, whatever. He does it in his personal not presidential capacity. The BBC doesn’t have a personal capacity. It’s not down to the people who put the Panorama programme together, the Director General of the BBC, or even the BBC. It’s a statutory body. It is the UK.
Oh FFS
I’ve just watched the news at ten reporting on their own DG and head of news resigning over this.
To illustrate the problem of the edit, they showed the edited clip, then the original.
Except they cut that too.
Here’s what they showed:
“ we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, “
And they cut it there. Because then they wouldn’t have to show the immediate following lines:
“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. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
They’re completely incorrigible.
BBC – Berating Britons Constantly.
It’s not the lying which bothers me.
It’s being forced to pay for the lies just so I can watch football on Sky.
Penseivat – as you know it is not just Sudan, it is also Nigeria and many other places.
However, the truth about Islam and its relations with non Muslims is suppressed today – in most Western nations, even in the United States academics can lose their jobs, or a person may never gain a post – if they tell the truth, rather than push the official lies. Although there is sometimes a ray of hope – for example a British judge recently ruled in favour of someone who had lost his job and been fined by a “professional body” (one of these government regulation, licensing, backed Corporate State things) for opposing Islam in some “tweets”.
In all the torrent of criticism here I think it only fair to point out that these two people at least had the decency to resign. And not just some minor middle manager or lacky caught in the middle, but the top of the tree. Most of the time these sorts of people just brass it out knowing that it’ll all blow over in a week or two.
In some ways I think it is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. After all this sort of unfair and biased reporting is ubiquitous both at the BBC and pretty much all of news media, and this is far from the most egregious example. I guess the big difference is that the Telegraph made a big fuss, and probably there was a bit to much embarrassing evidence. I’m imagine the solution is to buy everyone a new paper shredder. And the remarks quoted above surely make one smile when the position is “this is an aberration” to defect from the fact that it is standard operating procedure.
Do you really believe that these two people looked at the situation and decided “I’ve screwed up, I should go, for the good of the nation/organization”?
Do you think that any of my past clients said “I’ve screwed up by raping that girl, I should go to jail”?
Same basic root. They got caught, they got hauled off.
That the BBC comes out with “mistakes were made” line tells you all that is needed to know about the impermeable groupthink that makes the organisation not fit for purpose
It seems tricky to access the full Michael Prescott email because of the paywalls in place. However a pdf copy may be found here: https://art-services.co.uk/filechute/bbc-evidence-Nov25.pdf
Clearly it is not ‘just’ the manipulation of the Trump speech that exposes the BBC to well warranted criticism. There are also sections on
– Racial diversity
– Biological sex and gender
– Israel/Hamas war
The conclusion ends with “My hope is that the BBC Board may be able to begin a process of getting these issues properly addressed.” In my opinion the BBC is well beyond any hope of returning to impartiality. We should defund the BBC.
Fraser “all a bit of a storm in a teacup. After all this sort of unfair and biased reporting is ubiquitous both at the BBC”
This isn’t just any unfair and biased reporting. This is actually *deliberately lying* about a very serious matter. And this time – and this is key – they got caught, and there can be no dispute about what they did.
” and pretty much all of news media, and this is far from the most egregious example.”
Really? Can you cite a bigger one?
“I guess the big difference is that the Telegraph made a big fuss”
When did that ever do anything?
“and probably there was a bit to much embarrassing evidence.”
Er, yes.
It is beyond obvious that this was not a case of “mistakes being made” but of deliberate distortion to fit a narrative.
The BBC should be independent in exactly the same way that Sky or Virgin or whoever else is. They can then choose their funding model – presumably a monthly subscription but others are available. I am sick of the BBC (and the NHS) and their preening about their brilliant uniqueness. Both organisations go on about this all the time.
Paul is absolutely correct. Every news source has an agenda for good or ill or whatever*. I am well aware of that because I’m typing this comment on a blog with the strapline “A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective”. Samizdata doesn’t hide it’s light under a bushel – that is as much a mission statement as a description.
There are no neutrals in this World. What matters is being honest about the lens you see the World by and not the gratuitous, patronising, vainglorious concept of pontificating the TRUTH from the skies. That was dubious when Old Testament prophets did it. When the skies are full of Starlink it is obvious nonsense. Or should be.
It is a crack in the pedestal of the great icon. We shall see if that can be jacked further open. I dearly hope so because the whole structure of the mind-set of modern Britain is supported entirely upon the twin pillers of the BBC and the NHS. Both of these are rotten to the core but way too many people believe they are fundamentally sound but need more “funding” by which I mean papering over the fundamental cracks** to keep people believing in the Gold Standard news source and a health service which is the Envy of the World.
*I quite like “The Babylon Bee” – It is “Fake News I Can Trust”.
**Sometimes quite literally. Wythenshawe Hospital (where my father was treated for several weeks last year) has loads of very professional framed posters proclaiming it’s “Diversity and Excellence” over it’s crumbling walls.
BBC disinformation is not confined to President Trump – it covers a multitude of subjects and is designed to further an agenda of international collectivist power-and-control – by the way there is a conference in Brazil right now (with Prince William being sent to carry out the role that Prince Charles used to carry out) – and, like the 1992 meeting in Brazil – it is NOT really about the climate, “climate” is an excuse for a pre existing international establishment agenda of power-and-control.
Brazil itself is a large scale (very large scale) example of what the international community wishes to achieve – rigged elections, the suppression (by vicious action of the “justice” system) of dissent, and most of the population dependent on money from the government and living in conditions of severe poverty. That people who depend on the government are likely to be compliant is not a new discovery – Mayor Curley of Boston (over a century ago) deliberately promoted poverty (undermined business enterprises) to get more people dependent on the government dole – as he believed they would be more likely to vote for the person, himself, who was the most “generous” with such “aid” – and he was correct, it worked, which is why this tactic is called the “Curley Effect”.
Indeed the idea goes back to Ancient Rome – with the politician (and mob boss) “Clodius” (the name he adopted – he was really from an aristocratic family, but wished to pretend he was not) instituting free food (the existing system of rigged prices and government supply was bad enough – but Clodius went the whole way) which helped undermine the Roman Republic.
The idea of a long-term regular, professional, army which fought for money and was loyal only to the General who provided the money, was established in Rome by Marius – and his nephew Julius Caesar used the same idea, he boasted of killing one third of the entire population of Gaul (modern France) and selling another third of the population into slavery (men, women, children – it did not matter to him, he would kill them or sell them) – and then he used his mercenary army (men who fought for money – and had no loyalty to the Republic) to overthrow the Republic itself – yet Julius Caesar was popular (wildly popular) with many people – as he came back with loot and showered it on the mob.
Remember the city of Rome at that time was not like Alexandra in the Roman period – Alexandra had large scale industries, the city of Rome did not (there was some industry – but only a fraction of what would have been needed to give productive employment to the population) – like modern Western cities (such as New York and Chicago) which once had large scale industry – but now have little industry, but still millions of people. Millions of people who now look to the GOVERNMENT to support them – as there is no longer a real alternative (they can not farm, there is no farm land, and they can not work in productive industry – for there is little productive industry left in so many of these cities).
Nor are the Collectivist lies, with their political and cultural control agenda confined to the BBC – most of the commercial broadcasters also follow this line, they are pushed in that direction both by the international Corporations (such as Comcast and Disney – which own many television stations) and by the regulator “Ofcom” – which, for example, persecuted Mark Steyn into the heart attacks that almost killed him.
The idea that putting the BBC “under Ofcom” is pointless (indeed it is a dishonest diversion) – as “Ofcom” serves the same international collectivist ideology that the BBC itself serves.
An agenda of both destroying independent nations (partly by making people despise their own culture and history – via endless lies and distortions, which many historians have complained to the BBC about – only to receive mockery in return), and destroying independent people – by making individuals and families (if families are to exist at all in the terrible future that is planned) depend on the “aid” of the authorities.
“Mistakes have been made” – meaning it was accidental and nothing to do with me. The fact is that the groupthink at the BBC is blindingly obvious and has everything to do with weak leadership. Nothing will change at the BBC until they ensure that all employees and contributors understand that the job is to report the news in an impartial way and not influence the viewers in favour of what they perceive as being the “right” point of view. If they cannot achieve this then they can have no justification for a license-based funding model.
The ongoing bbc bullshit about Hamas, climate change, immigration and the “far right” is one thing.
Deliberate and malicious
lyrics about the words of a former US President, made at a time when the elation at his defeat was still heady and the US establishment was throwing everything it had at DJT and his supporters, is something else altogether.
And now he’s back, not a man to take this sort of thing lying down.
MPRG,
Nobody is impartial and that is why an institution that claims to be should go. “Justifying” the license fee is in principle impossible. I would much rather receive news from my worst enemy who was open about their mindeset than from a cosy “Auntie” who claimed to be the fountain of All Truth.
John – the truth will come out.
The truth that the 2020 election was rigged (massively rigged) and the truth about FBI, and other government institution, involvement in January 6th – including who really planted the “pipe bomb” outside the Democratic National Committee building.
NickM – agreed, the BBC should go – it is an abomination.
And “Ofcom” (which pushes the same leftist lies and distortions) should also go.
But how?
In Britain everything is controlled by the left (by radical Collectivists – filled with hatred for the British people) and this “everything” includes Parliament.
And there will not be another General Election till mid 2029. Little of Britain will be left by then.
If there is any hope for this land, I do not see it.
Concerning this land, concerning ourselves, I am filled with a terrible despair.
@bobby b
Do you really believe that these two people looked at the situation and decided “I’ve screwed up, I should go, for the good of the nation/organization”?
No I’m sure they tried to stay, but I’ve seen many cling on with the tips of their fingernails and manage to ride it out. But your probably right. Just call me a cockeyed optimist.[*]
Do you think that any of my past clients said “I’ve screwed up by raping that girl, I should go to jail”?
What? I assumed all the people you represented were innocent and unjustly accused?
[*] I’m feeling unreasonably optimistic because the dems in congress just got their asses handed to them. I thought those big Dem wins in New England were going to cause this shutdown thing to drag out way longer. Apparently as soon as senators can’t get a plane home they fold like a wet paper bag.
Except he did say it. In context though it was not as damning as the edit made it seem.
–big Dem wins in New England
You mean like this one?
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/11/07/new-jersey-governor-voter-turnout/
Turnout this year far eclipsed that of the state’s two most recent gubernatorial races. In 2021, more than 2.6 million voted, or about 40%. Four years earlier, that number was just under 2.2 million, or 39%.
Last week a barely conceivable 3.6 million votes were cast. Barely conceivable unless you also believe that Biden’s 81 million votes on 2020 were all legit.
If the Republicans want to keep hold of both houses next year they’d better wake up to potential shenanigans and malarkey.
Bobby:
Fraser:
While i basically agree with both of you, the reason why i am cheered by the resignations is slightly different. They resigned because they thought that their positions had become untenable. They are probably right about that, and that is what cheers me up: there are still some boundaries of decency — even at the BBC!!
There is that, too. Although i still do not fully understand. The people were blaming mostly the Democrats for the shutdown, so it is not surprising that 7 D.Senators defected. What is puzzling to me is that there weren’t more and earlier defections.
Per the BBC (so it’s bound to be…) President Trump has adumbrated a $1bn (£760,000,000) lawsuit against the BBC, which would put around £31 on the annual licence fee.
There is something not right here. Why did these two senior people not simply identify those underlings who made or approved the Trump speech distortions, and sack them? Who are they protecting by resigning? They could have achieved hero status if they also, subsequently fingered those responsible for their appalling contributions to climate scaremonger8ng, and the demonising of Israel.
?
If you told me “I did not kill him” and I edit out the word “not” from that and put in a different camera angle so you can’t see the jump cut, would you still say you said it?
No. You wouldn’t.
This is what the BBC did here. They cut the sentence where he said “we will peacefully make our voices heard” and replaced it “we will fight”.
Then after that, they put in a clip of the proud boy’s kicking off that happened _before_ Trumps speech.
Go and read Prescotts memo. Then cancel your licence fee payment.
Spiro Ozer
This isn’t just any unfair and biased reporting. This is actually *deliberately lying* about a very serious matter.
It is pretty standard off the shelf spin. Taking two true things and justapositioning them to be misleading. It is standard operating practice in the media.
Really? Can you cite a bigger one?
Climate change, Trump’s 2016 campaign was a Russian operation, Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, Rochdale rape scandal, BLM in Britain, George Floyd. So many stories spun with such deep levels of mendacity it is hard to choose. Auntie Beeb deliberately misrepresenting Donald Trump and what he said is about as common as beans and chips.
I’m not saying that it is good, it is horrible, and for sure the bosses should have resigned, but it is like one dead body in the bloody meadow of the battle of Towton: a single example of a massive problem.
Climate change and the rape scandal(s) are odd men out, in the sense that they were not a one-off thing.
It is the case, of course, that the one-off things are still being mentioned.
To that list, let me add, from the BBC, on Nov 4, 2020:
Trump falsely claims election win.
I could mention other examples, but this, to me, is the most blatant BS defecated by the BBC.
I call it BS, instead of a lie, because i have no evidence that the BS-ters at the BBC knew for a fact that there was significant election fraud.
The fact that it is BS makes it more pernicious, because the BBC cannot be sued for libel.
In a country where the existence if not the activities of the 77th Brigade and the Nudge Unit (formerly the Behavioral Insights Team) is openly admitted a cynic might question how much of the BBC’s worldview and output is down to its own personnel.
Snorri Godhi –
I see your BBC defecation and raise you one.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, back when I was listening to Radio 4’s Today programme every morning, I grew increasingly angry that the programme was blaming George W Bush for failing to do things that he had no Constitional ability to do. I remain convinced that there is no one in the BBC who understands American federalism.
Then there was a book by a former BBC journalist (whose name I don’t remember) who claimed that there was a poster of Dubya as Hitler hanging the news room. So yes, perfectly impartial.
One point that defenders of the BBC and certain other organisations claim is that they’re part of the “soft power” of Britain.
Well, after recent weeks I think this rather complacent attitude needs to be put on the fire.
And the way the BBC has covered the Middle East and Israel in particular has, I think, played a small but significant part in fuelling hatred of the one functioning democracy of the ME.
“Auntie” needs to go.
@Philip Scott Thomas
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, back when I was listening to Radio 4’s Today programme every morning, I grew increasingly angry that the programme was blaming George W Bush for failing to do things that he had no Constitional ability to do.
I clearly remember Bush on TV announcing that he was sending $100billion dollars in aid to the south after this event. My jaw dropped at the enormity of that amount. I think I calculated it as something like $100,000 for each resident in the affected areas, though maybe my math is off there. My FIL lived in Mississippi at the time which was peripherally affected, and he described to me the unbelievable amount of graft and corruption that went on with that money. People would go out with their trucks and move a fallen tree off the road and get paid $500 for their trouble being one example that sticks out in my mind.
Of course today $100 billion dollars is peanuts, and any President offering that after a major disaster would be considered a skinflint at best though more likely an evil monster whole hates children and eats kittens for dinner.
I remain convinced that there is no one in the BBC who understands American federalism.
In fairness to the BBC, I’m not sure there is anyone in the American government who understands federalism either. Or come to that, private insurance.
End the BBC – and end “Ofcom” as well.
Both organizations are taxpayer funded (the “license fee” is a tax) and both push the same leftist world view.
This is why you should never speak to them. Never give them a quote. Never agree to an interview. If you have to, make your own recording so that you can challenge the inevitable editing.
Paul Marks –
the “license fee” is a tax
Correct. That is not just a matter of opinion. It’s also the official position of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). If you remember, back in January 2006 they changed the classification of the licence fee from a service charge to a tax. They said: “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable”.
A Guardian editorial on the matter…
“The Guardian view on the BBC under siege: Britain must defend its own truth”
Emphasis – mine. Says a lot doesn’t it?
Philip S.T.: at the time of Katrina, i was still unaware of the BBC “bias”.
I remember needling an American academic (in Denmark, where i was at the time) with the words of Grover Cleveland, when he refused to assist Texas during a drought in 1887. Cleveland had much more backbone that Bush 43.
But i do not remember noticing any bias in the BBC coverage; and i did not much understand constitutional theory at the time, anyway.
— To understand why the BS that i mentioned (and btw Natalie mentioned it at the time, on this site) is BS; or why the lie that Trump is going to pursue in court is a lie; does not take any understanding of constitutional theory: that is why i call them *blatant*.
As a historical curiosity: IIRC in Italy it used to be the case (and maybe it still is) that the 3 largest parties got their pick of the directors of the 3 State TV stations.
Given that the 3 largest parties during the Cold War were the Christian Democrats, the Commies, and the Socialists, that was a rather limited choice of viewpoints.
OTOH they had to make sensible choices of directorships, to retain viewership.
The system was less than ideal, but workable.