jimbob wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:13 am
It was foolish but it doesn't change the fact that he was inciting violence
The big story is that the BBC Director General and the Head of News have both resigned over it. The Grauniad is
mithering over whether this is some kind of a coup by the right-winger(s) inserted into the BBC board during the previous administration.
Just a little while ago, many people were suggesting that the BBC had misunderstood what political balance meant, so making them such a useful soapbox for Nigel Farage. And they seemed to bring in a higher degree of deference to the previous government than they previously had to governments in general, in response to threats to defund them, it would seem. Laura Kuenssberg is often seen as a symptom of this.
And so it is a bit of a turn up for the books that suddenly they have got themselves into trouble for leaning the other way, with some very clumsy editing of Trump. Trump makes himself look bad, you don't have to help him.
Of course this is a splendid opportunity for Trump to demand compensation and threaten to sue.
In the US they don't even have the media impartiality rules we have in Britain. What the BBC did would - normally - be no scandal at all in the US, it would be business as usual. Though that hasn't stopped Trump suing various media companies in US courts. Although he had no real prospect of winning at law in these cases, nevertheless several defendants have preferred to make him offers to settle, typically of several tens of millions of dollars. They do that because of Trump's powers to damage their business if they don't do that. I think the WSJ case has not been settled - the WSJ has applied to dismiss the case. Trump's main aim there was to get Murdoch to turn up in person to testify, and tried to do that with dispatch in case he died first. But the court has refused that, and is due to consider the motion to dismiss first.
I guess the US libel courts, being state courts, would probably say that they are not the right venue for a libel case against the BBC, for a programme mainly viewed in Britain. But maybe I'm wrong. If he managed to set up a case, he'd have no chance at law. But maybe the BBC would want to settle, like those other defendants. Would the BBC settle a case it should win, to placate him? One threat is that it would cost the BBC a lot of money to defend itself. Another is that Trump can kick them out of press conferences, etc, and reduce their ability to report the news. I guess there would be discussions between the BBC and the British government, which ultimately owns it, what it should do, because of the foreign policy aspect, as well as use of taxpayers money. Maybe on these grounds they might try and settle. It might depend how much money it is about.
British broadcasters have duties of impartiality. Ofcom's sanctions include fines, but there is no financial compensation to individuals. The best an individual can get out of an Ofcom complaint is an apology and correction.
Trump can't try the English libel court. According to the Grauniad,
he's already out of time for that. The Graun posted this while I have been typing this post.
I suspect Arkell vs Pressdram is not a suitable reply to Mr Trump in this case. I would start by making a public apology and broadcasting a correction. And write to advise him of these things, and telling him of his right to complain to Ofcom if he considers these have been insufficient, while reminding him that there is no financial compensation to individuals payable in these cases.
