WEBVTT - Trump vs the BBC

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Already and this this is the Daily Ars.

0:00:03.400 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 2>This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.

0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:17.680
<v Speaker 2>Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,

0:00:17.720 --> 0:00:20.239
<v Speaker 2>the eighteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.

0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:21.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm Lucy Tassel.

0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:25.440
<v Speaker 2>US President Donald Trump has announced plans to sue the BBC,

0:00:25.920 --> 0:00:29.680
<v Speaker 2>the British Broadcasting Corporation, for up to seven point five

0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 2>billion Ossie dollars. It comes after the British broadcaster apologized

0:00:34.240 --> 0:00:37.239
<v Speaker 2>to Donald Trump over an allegedly misleading edit of a

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.319
<v Speaker 2>speech he gave on the sixth of January twenty twenty one,

0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 2>the day of the deadly Washington insurrection. But the BBC

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:49.160
<v Speaker 2>has rejected compensation claims from Trump's lawyers. And today we'll

0:00:49.200 --> 0:00:52.280
<v Speaker 2>explain that the speech edit in question, the fallout, and

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 2>whether Trump is likely to succeed in his action against

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 2>the broadcaster.

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Emma, this story has been in the global spotlight for

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:06.960
<v Speaker 1>a little over a week now. But let's go back.

0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:10.360
<v Speaker 1>So much is changing so fast. Where did this actually start?

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 2>I think to understand all the pieces of the puzzle,

0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 2>we probably need to take it all the way back

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:17.480
<v Speaker 2>to twenty twenty. That was the year that Donald Trump

0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 2>lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden. And you may

0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:26.160
<v Speaker 2>remember that Trump initially refused to concede defeat. He alleged

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 2>election fraud and was accused of spreading false claims and

0:01:30.040 --> 0:01:34.320
<v Speaker 2>obstructing the transition of power to President Biden. All of

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 2>that came to a head on the sixth of January

0:01:36.959 --> 0:01:40.520
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty one, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:45.480
<v Speaker 2>and attempted to block official procedures confirming Biden's victory. It

0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 2>was a huge day in global media in US history.

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 2>Seven people ended up dying as a result of the riots,

0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 2>and there have been countless inquiries and questions ever since

0:01:57.440 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 2>in terms of the conduct that led to that.

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>So then what's the connection between January sixth and the

0:02:04.760 --> 0:02:05.880
<v Speaker 1>BBC documentary.

0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:09.520
<v Speaker 2>So about a week before the US presidential election in

0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:12.960
<v Speaker 2>November last year, So fast forward to twenty twenty four,

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:17.600
<v Speaker 2>the BBC's flagship current affairs program, a show called Panorama,

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:22.239
<v Speaker 2>aired an episode called Trump a Second Chance question Mark.

0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 2>So the documentary was essentially analyzing Trump's history and you know,

0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:30.280
<v Speaker 2>his reelection bid, whether or not it was looking likely

0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 2>to succeed, And part of painting that picture included a

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 2>bit of analysis around the Jan six riots. So the

0:02:38.360 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 2>episode showed excerpts of Donald Trump's speech on that day

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twenty one, the day his support had stormed

0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 2>the Capitol, and the episode was later accused of appearing

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 2>to suggest that Trump encouraged the attack. So at the

0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:56.799
<v Speaker 2>time after the Panorama episode aired, an independent editorial standards

0:02:56.840 --> 0:03:01.240
<v Speaker 2>advisor wrote to the BBC board describing the program as

0:03:01.320 --> 0:03:05.359
<v Speaker 2>quote neither balanced nor impartial. Now that is important as

0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:07.640
<v Speaker 2>it retains to the BBC because it is the public

0:03:07.680 --> 0:03:12.559
<v Speaker 2>broadcaster in the UK. British citizens residents pay a licensing

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 2>fee to keep it running and it's held to certain

0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 2>standards like our ABC, certain editorial standards about its news

0:03:20.280 --> 0:03:24.080
<v Speaker 2>coverage and impartiality. But this review of the Panorama episode

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:27.880
<v Speaker 2>found that it quotes spliced together two clips from separate

0:03:27.919 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 2>parts of a speech that Trump made almost an hour

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:34.320
<v Speaker 2>apart to suggest quote Trump said something he did not.

0:03:34.880 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 2>The report also alleged that BBC managers dismissed concerns raised

0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:42.840
<v Speaker 2>about this edit. And we've only recently become aware of

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:46.000
<v Speaker 2>all of this because this review, that report by the

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:50.520
<v Speaker 2>independent advisor was leaked to the Telegraph. A conservative British

0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 2>newspaper and published earlier this month.

0:03:53.600 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 1>What did the White House say in response to this report?

0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:58.880
<v Speaker 2>The Trump administration and the White House has been very

0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 2>critical of the BBC. In response, White House Press Secretary

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 2>Caroline Levitt called the edit election interference. She said it

0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:09.720
<v Speaker 2>was designed to influence the results of the twenty twenty

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 2>four election, given the documentary aired just days before American

0:04:14.280 --> 0:04:18.760
<v Speaker 2>voters headed to the polls. Trump has been similarly critical.

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:21.800
<v Speaker 2>He posted on truth social saying the BBC had been

0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 2>caught red handed in his words, and calling for action

0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:27.719
<v Speaker 2>against what he described as fake news.

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:31.880
<v Speaker 1>What has been the fallout at the BBC over this.

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:35.680
<v Speaker 2>It's been pretty significant. So we saw two senior news

0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:40.040
<v Speaker 2>executives resign on the tenth of November, and then on Friday,

0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:44.359
<v Speaker 2>the BBC issued a formal apology to Donald Trump. The

0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.279
<v Speaker 2>Director General of the broadcaster, Tim Davies, said the edit

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:51.000
<v Speaker 2>quote did not meet the BBC's editorial standards. He said

0:04:51.040 --> 0:04:55.159
<v Speaker 2>the corporation apologizes for this error and announced that the

0:04:55.200 --> 0:04:59.360
<v Speaker 2>BBC has launched an internal review into the processes into

0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 2>the decision behind the edit. To kind of paint more

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 2>of a picture to understand that Panorama episode.

0:05:06.279 --> 0:05:08.840
<v Speaker 1>We'll be right back with more on this story, Emma,

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 1>but first a quick word from our sponsor. Now we're

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:17.279
<v Speaker 1>at the point of there being a possible lawsuit. When

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:20.160
<v Speaker 1>did Trump threaten to sue and what are his grounds.

0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 2>Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the BBC actually last week,

0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:29.120
<v Speaker 2>demanding compensation. They've claimed that the edit is defamatory, that

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.919
<v Speaker 2>it damaged Trump's reputation, and they've argued that the doco

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:37.000
<v Speaker 2>portrays him as inciting violence. On January sixth, which Trump

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:41.880
<v Speaker 2>has consistently denied since twenty twenty one, Trump gave a

0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 2>little bit more of an indication about the sum of

0:05:44.400 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 2>money he is seeking in terms of the scale of

0:05:46.960 --> 0:05:49.719
<v Speaker 2>these alleged damages. Here's a little bit of what he

0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:53.520
<v Speaker 2>said to reporters aboard Air Force one over the weekend. Well,

0:05:53.560 --> 0:05:54.359
<v Speaker 2>we'll sue them.

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:57.560
<v Speaker 1>We'll sue them for anywhere between a bidion and five

0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:01.680
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars, probably sometime next week. So now the BBC

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:05.039
<v Speaker 1>has apologized to Trump, but have they responded to these

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:06.080
<v Speaker 1>threats of legal action.

0:06:06.520 --> 0:06:09.839
<v Speaker 2>The BBC has rejected the compensation claims. It needs to

0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:13.080
<v Speaker 2>be said. So they did issue that apology. They've made

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:16.600
<v Speaker 2>it clear that they understand the editing of that Panorama

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.000
<v Speaker 2>episode was perhaps misleading, but they've also made it clear

0:06:20.080 --> 0:06:23.200
<v Speaker 2>they will not be paying these billions in dollars that

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:27.560
<v Speaker 2>Trump is demanding as compensation. A BBC spokesperson said the

0:06:27.600 --> 0:06:32.120
<v Speaker 2>corporation does take its editorial standards seriously. It's apologized for

0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:35.840
<v Speaker 2>the error, but that they believe Trump's compensation demands are

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:36.920
<v Speaker 2>without merit.

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:41.520
<v Speaker 1>This is all centering on a BBC documentary that aired

0:06:42.080 --> 0:06:45.920
<v Speaker 1>in the UK on UK public television in November twenty

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.320
<v Speaker 1>twenty four. Did it ever actually air anywhere else?

0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:53.600
<v Speaker 2>This is a really important detail because no, the Panorama

0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:57.479
<v Speaker 2>documentary never aired in the US. It was broadcast, as

0:06:57.520 --> 0:07:00.880
<v Speaker 2>you said, Lucy, on BBC one. In the US, it

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.320
<v Speaker 2>was available on the BBC's streaming platform, a service called

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:09.400
<v Speaker 2>iPlayer that is primarily accessible in the UK. You could

0:07:09.560 --> 0:07:13.200
<v Speaker 2>suggest that there's a gray area with VPNs. Some Americans

0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 2>may have been able to access it through VPNs or

0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 2>other means, but there was no official US broadcast or

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:22.920
<v Speaker 2>distribution of the program. The reason that that is significant

0:07:23.200 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 2>is if Trump is proceeding with legal action, the US

0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 2>has very strong protections for freedom of speech and the press.

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 2>The standard for proving defamation there, particularly for public figures

0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:38.600
<v Speaker 2>like Trump, is extremely high, and there would be a

0:07:38.640 --> 0:07:41.320
<v Speaker 2>bit of a gap that would need to be filled

0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 2>or prosecutors would need to be enlightened as to why

0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:49.000
<v Speaker 2>a UK program would matter to a US election. In

0:07:49.040 --> 0:07:51.360
<v Speaker 2>the UK, though the burden of proof is different, there

0:07:51.360 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 2>are fewer protections for publishers compared to the US. But

0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:57.600
<v Speaker 2>it does seem Trump wants to sue in the US.

0:07:57.680 --> 0:08:00.600
<v Speaker 2>That appears to be what he's indicating, and US courts

0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 2>generally won't hear defamation cases about material that was only

0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:08.440
<v Speaker 2>published in another country. If the BBC had done a

0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 2>distribution deal with a broadcaster like the PBS, and it

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.840
<v Speaker 2>had played to US audiences on a public service network,

0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:18.280
<v Speaker 2>we might be talking about a different set of circumstances.

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>What does that mean for Trump's legal options?

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:24.080
<v Speaker 2>Then he could try to file a suit in the UK,

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:27.960
<v Speaker 2>but he would need to show that he suffered serious

0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:32.439
<v Speaker 2>harm to his reputation because of the documentary. Now, given

0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 2>that Trump went ahead and won the election after the

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:38.800
<v Speaker 2>doco aired, it'd be difficult to argue that he suffered

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:42.320
<v Speaker 2>any serious reputational or financial harms because of it.

0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:45.000
<v Speaker 1>Could he argue something along the lines of the edit

0:08:45.040 --> 0:08:47.960
<v Speaker 1>being misleading, with that strengthen his case.

0:08:47.760 --> 0:08:52.199
<v Speaker 2>In some way potentially, But the BBC has already acknowledged

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.360
<v Speaker 2>that the edits didn't meet its standards. I do think

0:08:55.400 --> 0:08:58.240
<v Speaker 2>it's important to note, though, that acknowledge of a mistake

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:02.960
<v Speaker 2>is not an knowledge of defamation. They have an admitted defamation.

0:09:03.800 --> 0:09:07.240
<v Speaker 2>The challenge here is that the words in the edit,

0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:11.120
<v Speaker 2>so the way the speech was edited together, were still

0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:14.480
<v Speaker 2>Trump's own words. It's not as though, you know, you

0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:17.559
<v Speaker 2>sometimes hear about the way Reality TV is produced. A

0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:21.040
<v Speaker 2>Frankenstein editor in a phrase that might refer to when

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:24.520
<v Speaker 2>you can hear that seven different words from seven different

0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 2>contexts are stitched together as one sentence. These were Trump's

0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:33.000
<v Speaker 2>words from his speech. So legal experts have been pretty

0:09:33.040 --> 0:09:36.240
<v Speaker 2>skeptical about his chances of success, particularly if he tries

0:09:36.280 --> 0:09:38.960
<v Speaker 2>to sue in the US. He also, it has to

0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 2>be noted, has a long history of these kinds of threats.

0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:44.600
<v Speaker 2>You know, Trump is no stranger to a civil lawsuit.

0:09:45.000 --> 0:09:49.960
<v Speaker 2>He regularly threatens news organizations. Many of those threats never

0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:53.400
<v Speaker 2>result in actual court filings, but sometimes they do result

0:09:53.440 --> 0:09:57.440
<v Speaker 2>in settlements outside of courts, and some commentators are suggesting

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:00.199
<v Speaker 2>that this is a lot more about intimidation and a

0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:04.600
<v Speaker 2>lot more about Trump's relationship with legacy media traditional media

0:10:04.880 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 2>quote unquote mainstream media than it is about actually winning

0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:10.520
<v Speaker 2>damages and taking it to court.

0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:12.600
<v Speaker 1>What do we think are going to be the next

0:10:12.600 --> 0:10:13.320
<v Speaker 1>steps here.

0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 2>Well, so far, nothing has been filed officially in terms

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.160
<v Speaker 2>of legal action, but the BBC is continuing with that

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.240
<v Speaker 2>internal review that will take some time, and there might

0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:26.200
<v Speaker 2>be some revelations about editorial processes that come to light

0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:29.839
<v Speaker 2>that could give Trump more of a case whether or

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 2>not this ends up in court. You know, I doubt

0:10:32.400 --> 0:10:34.680
<v Speaker 2>it's going to be the last time we hear about

0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:38.679
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump having issues with mainstream media. I doubt it's

0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:40.360
<v Speaker 2>going to be the last time we see a bit

0:10:40.360 --> 0:10:43.480
<v Speaker 2>of a back and forth about him disagreeing with the

0:10:43.480 --> 0:10:46.760
<v Speaker 2>way certain news publishers talk about him or the way

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:50.480
<v Speaker 2>he's presented in traditional media. Either way, you know, there's

0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:52.160
<v Speaker 2>plenty to come, I think, Lucy.

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:55.199
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for explaining that, Emma, and thank you

0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 1>for joining us today on the Daily Ohs. We'll be

0:10:57.840 --> 0:11:00.920
<v Speaker 1>back this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have a

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:07.400
<v Speaker 1>great day. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a

0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:12.160
<v Speaker 1>proud Arunda Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily

0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:15.280
<v Speaker 1>oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:18.520
<v Speaker 1>of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal

0:11:18.600 --> 0:11:21.520
<v Speaker 1>and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay our respects

0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:24.720
<v Speaker 1>to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.