.png?width=1200&auto=webp&trim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0)
Independent readers have been weighing in after Donald Trump filed a $10bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC, prompted by the edited Panorama broadcast of his 6 January 2021 speech.
Many argued the corporation had brought the crisis on itself, accusing the BBC of long-standing bias, moralising journalism and selective scrutiny. For these readers, the Panorama edit crossed a line, undermining trust in an institution expected to uphold accuracy and impartiality.
In a statement, the BBC said it would not be changing its previous stance on defending the case, but refused to comment further.
A recurring concern was cost, with several commenters objecting to licence fee payers footing the bill for legal fees or damages.
Others focused on the legal reality, suggesting the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, particularly given the high bar for defamation claims involving public figures in US courts.
While some hoped Trump would prevail as a form of accountability, others defended the BBC’s right to stand firm, warning against political pressure and foreign legal threats to a public broadcaster.
The corporation previously apologised for the Panorama edit, but refused to pay the president compensation.
In November, a spokesperson said: “BBC chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the president’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.
“The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any BBC platforms. While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.”
Here’s what you had to say:
It will be the UK taxpayer that foots the bill
In truth, the BBC have had this, or something similar, coming for a very long time. Their moralising journalistic style has warped fact on many issues, and that is not acceptable for an organisation that is supposedly independent and funded by the taxpayer.
To make matters worse, there are plenty of subjects where the BBC could have stood for honesty and integrity but ran away from the issue. Brexit being a prime example of when straight answers should have been demanded in the public interest.
You can’t just pick the subjects you choose to lead on and drop the difficult or inconvenient ones, and you can’t take sides, which is also an issue for the Beeb.
At the end of this particular instance, it will be the UK taxpayer that foots the bill for the error. I wonder how many of those who insist on BBC innocence will be happy giving Trump their money.
A totally self-inflicted situation
The BBC, in effect, manipulated the news, and continue to either deny or minimise what they did. The fact that, for some, the focus of the claim is someone many disagree with is irrelevant.
A totally self-inflicted situation. If the case proceeds, it will hopefully be based on the evidence only and not the opinions of those for and against the BBC.
Proving malice
Trump’s lawsuit stands no chance of success.
In the US, public figures bringing a defamation lawsuit must, in addition to the usual elements for a defamation claim, prove “actual malice” for a claim to be successful (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)). Successfully proving the BBC had “actual malice”, rather than plain incompetence, seems very unlikely.
I hope he wins
Good. I hope he wins. Years ago I would have defended the BBC. But today it has developed an agenda that conflicts with its obligation to be impartial. In particular, it actively promotes any environmental and multicultural cause it addresses.
Those two subjects alone are ones on which there are very real differences of opinion. The BBC should not promote either side of the debate but instead inform people to allow them to make up their own minds.
Historic lows in trust
It’s very sad that there are no longer any investigative journalistic news programmes that can be trusted.
Trust in Western media is down to historic lows of around 30 per cent; the BBC enjoys a far higher 62 per cent, but it seems they are eager to join the others in the cesspool.
That said, the lawsuit should be challenged.
The BBC must not capitulate
The BBC must not capitulate.
They have multiple legal defences available to them – that is, if it even gets that far.
Maybe they will increase the licence fee to cover it?
Defending the ridiculous lawsuit will cost a lot of money in legal fees, I assume. Licence payers’ money being well spent again. Maybe they’ll increase the licence to £1,000 to cover it.
The day it changes to pay-per-view can’t come quick enough. I don’t pay for one as I don’t watch it, iPlayer or live stream, and have no legal requirement to do so in accordance with the rules.
The BBC has destroyed its worldwide reputation
Surely the important thing, never mind the Trump haters here, is that the BBC has destroyed its worldwide reputation.
They have admitted their error, and resignations happened.
What this Trump legal action is doing is keeping this breach of trust in the public eye, and not doing the BBC any favours – not that they deserve any.
A key technical issue
Worth noting that the lawsuit claims that the Panorama programme in question was available on the BritBox streaming service in the US, at least for a while. Given the BBC has already admitted unintentional manipulation causing misrepresentation (“unintentionally created the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”), this will be a key technical issue.
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
Starmer under pressure to tell Trump to call off ‘outrageous’ lawsuit against BBC
BBC right to ‘stand firm’ in face of Trump lawsuit, says minister
Trump sues BBC for up to £7.5bn over Panorama speech edit
Dozens treated after ‘carbon monoxide leak’ at M&S
HMRC issues warning to seasonal Christmas workers
Michelle Obama was due to see Rob Reiner and his wife the night they were killed
