Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily Ars.
Speaker 2: This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
Speaker 2: the eighteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1: I'm Lucy Tassel.
Speaker 2: US President Donald Trump has announced plans to sue the BBC,
Speaker 2: the British Broadcasting Corporation, for up to seven point five
Speaker 2: billion Ossie dollars. It comes after the British broadcaster apologized
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump over an allegedly misleading edit of a
Speaker 2: speech he gave on the sixth of January twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: the day of the deadly Washington insurrection. But the BBC
Speaker 2: has rejected compensation claims from Trump's lawyers. And today we'll
Speaker 2: explain that the speech edit in question, the fallout, and
Speaker 2: whether Trump is likely to succeed in his action against
Speaker 2: the broadcaster.
Speaker 1: Emma, this story has been in the global spotlight for
Speaker 1: a little over a week now. But let's go back.
Speaker 1: So much is changing so fast. Where did this actually start?
Speaker 2: I think to understand all the pieces of the puzzle,
Speaker 2: we probably need to take it all the way back
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty. That was the year that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden. And you may
Speaker 2: remember that Trump initially refused to concede defeat. He alleged
Speaker 2: election fraud and was accused of spreading false claims and
Speaker 2: obstructing the transition of power to President Biden. All of
Speaker 2: that came to a head on the sixth of January
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol
Speaker 2: and attempted to block official procedures confirming Biden's victory. It
Speaker 2: was a huge day in global media in US history.
Speaker 2: Seven people ended up dying as a result of the riots,
Speaker 2: and there have been countless inquiries and questions ever since
Speaker 2: in terms of the conduct that led to that.
Speaker 1: So then what's the connection between January sixth and the
Speaker 1: BBC documentary.
Speaker 2: So about a week before the US presidential election in
Speaker 2: November last year, So fast forward to twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: the BBC's flagship current affairs program, a show called Panorama,
Speaker 2: aired an episode called Trump a Second Chance question Mark.
Speaker 2: So the documentary was essentially analyzing Trump's history and you know,
Speaker 2: his reelection bid, whether or not it was looking likely
Speaker 2: to succeed, And part of painting that picture included a
Speaker 2: bit of analysis around the Jan six riots. So the
Speaker 2: episode showed excerpts of Donald Trump's speech on that day
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty one, the day his support had stormed
Speaker 2: the Capitol, and the episode was later accused of appearing
Speaker 2: to suggest that Trump encouraged the attack. So at the
Speaker 2: time after the Panorama episode aired, an independent editorial standards
Speaker 2: advisor wrote to the BBC board describing the program as
Speaker 2: quote neither balanced nor impartial. Now that is important as
Speaker 2: it retains to the BBC because it is the public
Speaker 2: broadcaster in the UK. British citizens residents pay a licensing
Speaker 2: fee to keep it running and it's held to certain
Speaker 2: standards like our ABC, certain editorial standards about its news
Speaker 2: coverage and impartiality. But this review of the Panorama episode
Speaker 2: found that it quotes spliced together two clips from separate
Speaker 2: parts of a speech that Trump made almost an hour
Speaker 2: apart to suggest quote Trump said something he did not.
Speaker 2: The report also alleged that BBC managers dismissed concerns raised
Speaker 2: about this edit. And we've only recently become aware of
Speaker 2: all of this because this review, that report by the
Speaker 2: independent advisor was leaked to the Telegraph. A conservative British
Speaker 2: newspaper and published earlier this month.
Speaker 1: What did the White House say in response to this report?
Speaker 2: The Trump administration and the White House has been very
Speaker 2: critical of the BBC. In response, White House Press Secretary
Speaker 2: Caroline Levitt called the edit election interference. She said it
Speaker 2: was designed to influence the results of the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election, given the documentary aired just days before American
Speaker 2: voters headed to the polls. Trump has been similarly critical.
Speaker 2: He posted on truth social saying the BBC had been
Speaker 2: caught red handed in his words, and calling for action
Speaker 2: against what he described as fake news.
Speaker 1: What has been the fallout at the BBC over this.
Speaker 2: It's been pretty significant. So we saw two senior news
Speaker 2: executives resign on the tenth of November, and then on Friday,
Speaker 2: the BBC issued a formal apology to Donald Trump. The
Speaker 2: Director General of the broadcaster, Tim Davies, said the edit
Speaker 2: quote did not meet the BBC's editorial standards. He said
Speaker 2: the corporation apologizes for this error and announced that the
Speaker 2: BBC has launched an internal review into the processes into
Speaker 2: the decision behind the edit. To kind of paint more
Speaker 2: of a picture to understand that Panorama episode.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back with more on this story, Emma,
Speaker 1: but first a quick word from our sponsor. Now we're
Speaker 1: at the point of there being a possible lawsuit. When
Speaker 1: did Trump threaten to sue and what are his grounds.
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the BBC actually last week,
Speaker 2: demanding compensation. They've claimed that the edit is defamatory, that
Speaker 2: it damaged Trump's reputation, and they've argued that the doco
Speaker 2: portrays him as inciting violence. On January sixth, which Trump
Speaker 2: has consistently denied since twenty twenty one, Trump gave a
Speaker 2: little bit more of an indication about the sum of
Speaker 2: money he is seeking in terms of the scale of
Speaker 2: these alleged damages. Here's a little bit of what he
Speaker 2: said to reporters aboard Air Force one over the weekend. Well,
Speaker 2: we'll sue them.
Speaker 1: We'll sue them for anywhere between a bidion and five
Speaker 1: billion dollars, probably sometime next week. So now the BBC
Speaker 1: has apologized to Trump, but have they responded to these
Speaker 1: threats of legal action.
Speaker 2: The BBC has rejected the compensation claims. It needs to
Speaker 2: be said. So they did issue that apology. They've made
Speaker 2: it clear that they understand the editing of that Panorama
Speaker 2: episode was perhaps misleading, but they've also made it clear
Speaker 2: they will not be paying these billions in dollars that
Speaker 2: Trump is demanding as compensation. A BBC spokesperson said the
Speaker 2: corporation does take its editorial standards seriously. It's apologized for
Speaker 2: the error, but that they believe Trump's compensation demands are
Speaker 2: without merit.
Speaker 1: This is all centering on a BBC documentary that aired
Speaker 1: in the UK on UK public television in November twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. Did it ever actually air anywhere else?
Speaker 2: This is a really important detail because no, the Panorama
Speaker 2: documentary never aired in the US. It was broadcast, as
Speaker 2: you said, Lucy, on BBC one. In the US, it
Speaker 2: was available on the BBC's streaming platform, a service called
Speaker 2: iPlayer that is primarily accessible in the UK. You could
Speaker 2: suggest that there's a gray area with VPNs. Some Americans
Speaker 2: may have been able to access it through VPNs or
Speaker 2: other means, but there was no official US broadcast or
Speaker 2: distribution of the program. The reason that that is significant
Speaker 2: is if Trump is proceeding with legal action, the US
Speaker 2: has very strong protections for freedom of speech and the press.
Speaker 2: The standard for proving defamation there, particularly for public figures
Speaker 2: like Trump, is extremely high, and there would be a
Speaker 2: bit of a gap that would need to be filled
Speaker 2: or prosecutors would need to be enlightened as to why
Speaker 2: a UK program would matter to a US election. In
Speaker 2: the UK, though the burden of proof is different, there
Speaker 2: are fewer protections for publishers compared to the US. But
Speaker 2: it does seem Trump wants to sue in the US.
Speaker 2: That appears to be what he's indicating, and US courts
Speaker 2: generally won't hear defamation cases about material that was only
Speaker 2: published in another country. If the BBC had done a
Speaker 2: distribution deal with a broadcaster like the PBS, and it
Speaker 2: had played to US audiences on a public service network,
Speaker 2: we might be talking about a different set of circumstances.
Speaker 1: What does that mean for Trump's legal options?
Speaker 2: Then he could try to file a suit in the UK,
Speaker 2: but he would need to show that he suffered serious
Speaker 2: harm to his reputation because of the documentary. Now, given
Speaker 2: that Trump went ahead and won the election after the
Speaker 2: doco aired, it'd be difficult to argue that he suffered
Speaker 2: any serious reputational or financial harms because of it.
Speaker 1: Could he argue something along the lines of the edit
Speaker 1: being misleading, with that strengthen his case.
Speaker 2: In some way potentially, But the BBC has already acknowledged
Speaker 2: that the edits didn't meet its standards. I do think
Speaker 2: it's important to note, though, that acknowledge of a mistake
Speaker 2: is not an knowledge of defamation. They have an admitted defamation.
Speaker 2: The challenge here is that the words in the edit,
Speaker 2: so the way the speech was edited together, were still
Speaker 2: Trump's own words. It's not as though, you know, you
Speaker 2: sometimes hear about the way Reality TV is produced. A
Speaker 2: Frankenstein editor in a phrase that might refer to when
Speaker 2: you can hear that seven different words from seven different
Speaker 2: contexts are stitched together as one sentence. These were Trump's
Speaker 2: words from his speech. So legal experts have been pretty
Speaker 2: skeptical about his chances of success, particularly if he tries
Speaker 2: to sue in the US. He also, it has to
Speaker 2: be noted, has a long history of these kinds of threats.
Speaker 2: You know, Trump is no stranger to a civil lawsuit.
Speaker 2: He regularly threatens news organizations. Many of those threats never
Speaker 2: result in actual court filings, but sometimes they do result
Speaker 2: in settlements outside of courts, and some commentators are suggesting
Speaker 2: that this is a lot more about intimidation and a
Speaker 2: lot more about Trump's relationship with legacy media traditional media
Speaker 2: quote unquote mainstream media than it is about actually winning
Speaker 2: damages and taking it to court.
Speaker 1: What do we think are going to be the next
Speaker 1: steps here.
Speaker 2: Well, so far, nothing has been filed officially in terms
Speaker 2: of legal action, but the BBC is continuing with that
Speaker 2: internal review that will take some time, and there might
Speaker 2: be some revelations about editorial processes that come to light
Speaker 2: that could give Trump more of a case whether or
Speaker 2: not this ends up in court. You know, I doubt
Speaker 2: it's going to be the last time we hear about
Speaker 2: Donald Trump having issues with mainstream media. I doubt it's
Speaker 2: going to be the last time we see a bit
Speaker 2: of a back and forth about him disagreeing with the
Speaker 2: way certain news publishers talk about him or the way
Speaker 2: he's presented in traditional media. Either way, you know, there's
Speaker 2: plenty to come, I think, Lucy.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for explaining that, Emma, and thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us today on the Daily Ohs. We'll be
Speaker 1: back this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have a
Speaker 1: great day. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a
Speaker 1: proud Arunda Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily
Speaker 1: oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands
Speaker 1: of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal
Speaker 1: and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay our respects
Speaker 1: to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.