Posted on 11/13/2025 3:13:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The BBC has apologised to US President Donald Trump for a Panorama episode that spliced parts of his 6 January 2021 speech together, but rejected his demands for compensation.
The corporation said the edit had given "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" and said it would not show the 2024 programme again.
Lawyers for Trump have threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him.
The fallout from the scandal led to the resignations of BBC director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness on Sunday.
BBC News has approached the White House for comment.
The apology comes hours after a second similarly edited clip, broadcast on Newsnight in 2022, was revealed by the Daily Telegraph.
In its Corrections and Clarifications section, published on Thursday evening, the BBC said the Panorama programme had been reviewed after criticism of how Trump's speech had been edited.
"We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action," it said.
Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump's legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday, a BBC 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Keep in mind: Libel and slander laws are much, much stricter in the U.K. than they are in the U.S.
Read it carefully.
That is NOT an apology.
They can “reject his demands for compensation” all they want, but Trump is gonna Trump. He’ll exact some form or other of compensation from those weasels. They never learn. 🤦♀️
Unintentionally.
Bwahaha.
“Keep in mind: Libel and slander laws are much, much stricter in the U.K. than they are in the U.S.”
Beat me to the punch. This could get interesting. However, the UK will have Dorkbama-level leftist joke judges, just as we have, so who knows.
> That is NOT an apology. <
Right. Their statement makes it sound like it was just an innocent mistake.
Which it certainly was not.
“We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression…”
Unintentionally? Uh, no.
There have been two that we know of.
Accident, my bum.
They will imprison people for years over something set against islam. They need to be bankrupted over this. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Don’t think he can sue in UK. Deadline passed.
Really? I thought David Irving sues Deborah Lipstadt later than that.
See you in court?
Drag their asses to court💯💯💯
Not “mistaken”. Deliberate, intentional, purposeful.
I believe the SOL is one year for libel and slander in the UK. * I’m not a licensed solicitor or barrister in the UK
People have mentioned british law...
I’m pretty sure that the thread would be to file the lawsuit in Florida, and as the bbc is broadcast or streamed in Florida, Trump would have standing there.
And the deliberate editing and misrepresenting what was said, would be a clear win for Trump.
The BBC is already morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Now they need to hit the trifecta with financially.
Okay Donald they apologized so only sue them for half a billion.
No Problem, just Sanction 'em and take the Billion Dollars.
A mistake? That level of editing a "mistake"?
It seems it was a much of a "mistake" as their editing of Queen Elizabeth "storming out" of a photo session showing the clip of her *arriving* at the photo session and presenting it as her abruptly leaving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPlfUt4S9U
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.