Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, November thirteen, twenty twenty five. Former Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Paul Ketting has blasted the outgoing head of the RSL
Speaker 1: for his Remembrance Day speech. Greg Melick criticized the government's
Speaker 1: lacks attitude to defense spending in the speech, but Keating
Speaker 1: says he's got it wrong and is beating up the
Speaker 1: military threat posed by China. Donald Trump says he'll sue
Speaker 1: the BBC for a billion dollars and the UK public broadcasters,
Speaker 1: two most senior executives have left their jobs in the
Speaker 1: warshop from a drama. That's part of a pattern the
Speaker 1: US presidents suing news organizations for what he says is
Speaker 1: unfair and selective reporting. So what exactly did the BBC
Speaker 1: do to enrage Trump and should Australia's own ABC be worried.
Speaker 1: James Madden is The Australian's media editor and he is
Speaker 1: joining me to talk about the threat that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has made to sue the BBC. James, Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: given the BBC a deadline of Friday to apologize and
Speaker 1: give him some money or he's going to launch a
Speaker 1: legal suit in his home state of Florida. This is
Speaker 1: all about the BBC selectively editing a speech that Trump
Speaker 1: made in Washington, DC on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: to a crowd of people, some of whom later marched
Speaker 1: down to the Capitol and staged a riot. What's the
Speaker 1: essence of Trump's problem with what the BBC did.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is arguing that he's been defamed by the
Speaker 2: BBC because the Panorama program effectively characterized his remarks as
Speaker 2: a call to arms to the assembled crowd to march
Speaker 2: on the Capitol and behave in a violent manner. The
Speaker 2: remarks that Trump made on that day were misrepresent to
Speaker 2: buy the program, which ran two separate remarks which were
Speaker 2: made fifty minutes apart, and ran them into one, making
Speaker 2: it appear that he said, and I'm paraphrasing, let's all
Speaker 2: march down to the Capitol and fight.
Speaker 1: And what they missed in that edit was something that
Speaker 1: Trump said in the middle of the speech, which was
Speaker 1: urging the crowd to be patriotic and to be peaceful.
Speaker 1: Here's what the BBC aired.
Speaker 3: We're going to walk down to the capital and I'll
Speaker 3: be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell,
Speaker 3: and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going
Speaker 3: to have a country anymore.
Speaker 1: Here's what Trump actually said. This is from the raw
Speaker 1: footage you'll hear there's a slight digital glitch, but we
Speaker 1: haven't edited this at all. It's the full speech as
Speaker 1: ed on American TV live that day.
Speaker 3: And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll
Speaker 3: be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're
Speaker 3: going to walk down anyone you want. But I think
Speaker 3: right here, we're going to walk down to the Capital
Speaker 3: and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and
Speaker 3: congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be
Speaker 3: cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never
Speaker 3: take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength,
Speaker 3: and you have to be strong.
Speaker 4: We have come to demand that Congress do the right
Speaker 4: thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated,
Speaker 4: lawfully slated.
Speaker 3: I know that everyone here will soon be marching over.
Speaker 5: To the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your
Speaker 5: voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong.
Speaker 1: More than fifteen minutes later, in the original spaege T
Speaker 1: said this.
Speaker 3: Something's wrong here, something's really wrong can have happened, and
Speaker 3: we fight, We fight like hell.
Speaker 5: And if you don't fight like hell, you're.
Speaker 4: Not going to have a country anymore.
Speaker 5: Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors.
Speaker 3: Have not yet begun, my fellow Americans, for our movement,
Speaker 3: for our children, and for our beloved country. And I
Speaker 3: say this, despite all that's happened, the best is yet
Speaker 3: to come.
Speaker 1: So the BBC cut out the line about brave senators
Speaker 1: and congressmen and women. It put the line from the
Speaker 1: very end of the speech about fighting like hell right
Speaker 1: after the line from the beginning of the speech about
Speaker 1: marching to the Capitol, and it also didn't include Trump's
Speaker 1: warning to the crowd to be peaceful. James, I think
Speaker 1: you could make a pretty good argument that many of
Speaker 1: the people who rioted at the Capitol were Donald Trump's supporters.
Speaker 1: They were mobilized by Donald Trump's complaint about Mike Pence
Speaker 1: and about the election having been stolen. This feels like
Speaker 1: the BBC has tripped itself up up in doing something
Speaker 1: that they didn't need to do. They could have just
Speaker 1: played the speech as.
Speaker 2: It was that's exactly right, and the speech history shows.
Speaker 2: The speech has been shown endlessly over the years, and
Speaker 2: there's still a stain on the way Donald Trump conducted
Speaker 2: himself on that day. But in a way, it's a
Speaker 2: separate issue to what we're talking about right now, which
Speaker 2: is that the BBC, the public broadcaster in Great Britain,
Speaker 2: egregiously misrepresented the words of the sitting US president to
Speaker 2: make it look like he specifically called for acts of
Speaker 2: violence on that day, when in fact it was far
Speaker 2: more nuanced than that.
Speaker 1: Trump's saying he wants a billion US dollars from the BBC.
Speaker 1: He's given them this deadline of Friday. But I wonder
Speaker 1: if the BBC is going to do what a couple
Speaker 1: of other media companies have done under similar threads. Paramount
Speaker 1: Global and ABC News in the United States both paid
Speaker 1: him around fifteen million US dollars to settle claims before
Speaker 1: they got to court. Trump's also threatened to sue various
Speaker 1: other media outlets, including divisions of News Corps, which we
Speaker 1: both work for. What would you think the BBC will
Speaker 1: do now, give him some money, hope it'll go away,
Speaker 1: or can they not do that given they're a public broadcaster.
Speaker 2: As it stands, they're in a hopeless bargaining position. Claire,
Speaker 2: I mean they have admitted faults on this. There's no
Speaker 2: black and white here. The BBC is in the wrong.
Speaker 2: They failed to meet their own editorial benchmarks, and there's
Speaker 2: no question they characterized Donald Trump as an agitator of
Speaker 2: public violence. I would think it's most likely that they'll
Speaker 2: have to, as you say, offer some kind of financial
Speaker 2: settlement in the hope that Trump will drop the action
Speaker 2: move on and then the BBC can regroup and move forward.
Speaker 2: But they're in the wrong.
Speaker 1: The editing of this speech came to the President's attention
Speaker 1: really because of adossier published by The Telegraph in the
Speaker 1: UK which revealed not only this editing, but also a
Speaker 1: couple of other issues going on at the BBC. One
Speaker 1: was what the dossier said was biased reporting of the
Speaker 1: Israel Gaza conflict, including a documentary which turned out to
Speaker 1: have featured, without disclosure, the son of a Hamas official,
Speaker 1: and their coverage of trans issues. Something that wasn't included
Speaker 1: in the dossier but has received a lot of attention
Speaker 1: was newsreader Martine Croxel being slapped over the hand by
Speaker 1: the BBC for the way she corrected a headline that
Speaker 1: had been written for her by trans people.
Speaker 6: Let's hear that of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, How's released
Speaker 6: research which says that nearly six hundred heat related deaths
Speaker 6: are expected in the UK. Malcolm Mystery, who was involved
Speaker 6: in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people, women
Speaker 6: and those with pre existing health conditions need to take precautions.
Speaker 1: When she said the word people, Martin Croxel kind of
Speaker 1: widened her eyes and made it clear from her facial
Speaker 1: expression that she thought this was ridiculous. That's what she's
Speaker 1: in trouble for. It seems ludicrous that the BBC is
Speaker 1: in this place, doesn't it?
Speaker 2: It does, and in a way, the Croxall matter was
Speaker 2: symptomatic of a whole range of concerns, both within and
Speaker 2: outside the BBC about the direction of the broadcaster. The
Speaker 2: overarching problem really is the perception that there is institutional
Speaker 2: bias at the BBC, and that the BBC indeed has
Speaker 2: been captured by for one of a better word, a
Speaker 2: number of activists who work within the BBC. The idea
Speaker 2: that a journalist could be disciplined for using the word
Speaker 2: women rather than pregnant people does seem utterly absurd, but
Speaker 2: perhaps within the BBC it's not as strange as you
Speaker 2: might think. There is also accusations, and have been for
Speaker 2: a while, of the issue of groupthink within the BBC,
Speaker 2: and that's to say that possibly a minority of powerful
Speaker 2: people within that organization dictate what's acceptable and what's not.
Speaker 2: When you think of the BBC and its obligations to
Speaker 2: the wider British public, the idea that a few privileged
Speaker 2: people within the organization basically can be the arbiters of
Speaker 2: what's right and what's wrong is a pretty die situation.
Speaker 1: That brings us to the ABC, which in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: on the Full Corners program aired a version of that
Speaker 1: same speech by Donald Trump, the January sixth, twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one speech, but they had a slightly different edit. Let's
Speaker 1: hear what Full Corners put to air.
Speaker 3: And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll
Speaker 3: be there with you, because you'll never take back our
Speaker 3: country with weakness. You have to show strength and you
Speaker 3: have to be strong.
Speaker 1: So what's missing there is the line about supporting brave
Speaker 1: senators and congressmen and women. This is that line from
Speaker 1: the original speech.
Speaker 3: And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll
Speaker 3: be there with you.
Speaker 4: We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down
Speaker 4: anyone you want.
Speaker 3: But I think right here, we're going to walk down
Speaker 3: to the Capital and we're going to cheer on our
Speaker 3: brave senators and congressmen and women.
Speaker 1: What's your take on what the ABC did hear and
Speaker 1: whether it's any different from what the BBC did.
Speaker 2: I think for Corners has got some pretty serious questions
Speaker 2: to answer here. In the past few days, they have
Speaker 2: publicly stated that they defend the journalism of Sarah Ferguson,
Speaker 2: who was the reporter who worked on that story, and
Speaker 2: they have argued that they have reviewed the program. It's
Speaker 2: fine as it stands. However, what they did is not
Speaker 2: terribly different to what the BBC did. Basically, the ABC
Speaker 2: doctored footage to misrepresent what Trump was saying on that day.
Speaker 2: Now you can get into the semantics of whether or
Speaker 2: not the clip they used was not as bad as
Speaker 2: what the BBC put to air, but it's the same problem.
Speaker 2: Someone within the ABC decided to clip up a speech
Speaker 2: to fit a particular narrative, a narrative that was damaging
Speaker 2: or more damaging to Trump. And if we're in the
Speaker 2: business of truth and the media is then what the
Speaker 2: ABC put to air wasn't the truth.
Speaker 1: Coming up the new defamation landscape Donald Trump has created
Speaker 1: for the ABC and all media. There was another instance
Speaker 1: where the ABC was accused of selectively editing footage, and
Speaker 1: that's in relation to Australian troops in Afghanistan. This is
Speaker 1: a promo for a report about allegations of war crimes.
Speaker 1: The ABC's admitted included the insertion of gunshot sounds that
Speaker 1: were not present in the original recording. One of the
Speaker 1: people concerned in that matter was Heston Russell, a former
Speaker 1: commando who sued the ABC for defamation successfully. He's very
Speaker 1: agitated about it. But the ABC, despite having admitted that
Speaker 1: this happened, really hasn't faced any consequences, have they not?
Speaker 2: Really? They apologized over the Heston Russell matter. The apology
Speaker 2: and their claim that the inserted gunshots was inadvertent rather
Speaker 2: than deliberate, underplays the seriousness of what they did. I mean,
Speaker 2: this was on their flagship carent affairs program Four Corners.
Speaker 2: Somebody had to be responsible for inserting gunshot audio. It
Speaker 2: doesn't happen by itself or accidentally, just as the clip
Speaker 2: up of the Trump speech doesn't happen by accident.
Speaker 1: The implication from the ABC in the Heston Russell gunshot
Speaker 1: matter was that somebody junior had done this sort of
Speaker 1: a well meaning editor, you presume making a promo has
Speaker 1: thought that this would sound better with a few more
Speaker 1: gunshots in it. And it seems that they've got themselves
Speaker 1: into a similar kind of pickle with a doctored image
Speaker 1: of the front page of the Australian. Now what's that about.
Speaker 2: Well, on the Insiders program on Sunday, Claire, they docted
Speaker 2: a front page of the Australian newspaper in a bid
Speaker 2: to I suppose poke fun at a liberal politician Jane Hume.
Speaker 2: If you can believe this, The defense for Doctor and
Speaker 2: The Australian to make a joke at the expense of
Speaker 2: a conservative politician was that it was satire that only
Speaker 2: really flies if the satire is easily detectable, which it wasn't.
Speaker 2: And you also have to question why a serious program
Speaker 2: like Insiders, which lets be honest, is not fronted by comedians,
Speaker 2: is attempting satire anyway.
Speaker 1: I can't recall the President of the United States, who's
Speaker 1: quite as lawsuit happy as Donald Trump. Is this, James,
Speaker 1: a new reality that we need to get used to
Speaker 1: here where I think once we might have thought in
Speaker 1: Australia that we're so far away from international affairs that
Speaker 1: the likelihood of getting sued by a foreign politician was
Speaker 1: very low.
Speaker 2: Well, possibly that might have been previously been the case,
Speaker 2: but in this brave new digital world, in a sense,
Speaker 2: all bets are off. I mean, with the BBC example,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was apparently unaware of this, still was brought
Speaker 2: to his attention recently, but that particular Panorama program virtually
Speaker 2: got no play in the US, and it was only
Speaker 2: until the recent leak to the Telegraph newspaper about the
Speaker 2: memo that the issue surfaced. So you know, it may
Speaker 2: well have stayed hidden forevermore. But it's also an indication
Speaker 2: that it doesn't take much for a damaging, potentially defamatory
Speaker 2: piece of journalism to be uncovered and for it to
Speaker 2: be seized upon by him. Ever.
Speaker 1: James Madden is Media editor of The Australian. You can
Speaker 1: check out James's reporting and all the nation's best news
Speaker 1: right now at the Australian dot com, dot au