BBC doctors Trump footage, & Tim Davie should pay the price

[Biker's Nemesis]

No Bias with the BBC.

[LimmerickLad]

Biker's Nemesis said:

No Bias with the BBC.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!

[hidetheelephants]

How dare they play footage of Trump saying things he really said. The outrage.

[DaveCWK]

hidetheelephants said:

How dare they play footage of Trump saying things he really said. The outrage.

It's the words that came out of his mouth. But not actually what he said is it.

It's no different to cutting and splicing anybodies speech and making them 'say' anything as a result.
Pretty absurd for the BBC to do this tbh as it's the sort of thing thats obviously going to be picked up?

[Carl_VivaEspana]

"Not a comment on this particular incident but, these days, I view the BBC as utterly untrustworthy. I don't watch their news or political comment at any time as I believe it to be worthless because it is either misleading or just plain wrong.

In order to get some idea about what is going on in the world I read the telegraph web-site. Its biased as hell but at least they admit it! When the Beeb pretends it is "impartial" I know it's time to worry.

Break it up. Sell it off. Run one "public service" channel - and don't let them make programmes."

Don, PH Forum, 2007.

[Randy Winkman]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

"Not a comment on this particular incident but, these days, I view the BBC as utterly untrustworthy. I don't watch their news or political comment at any time as I believe it to be worthless because it is either misleading or just plain wrong.

In order to get some idea about what is going on in the world I read the telegraph web-site. Its biased as hell but at least they admit it! When the Beeb pretends it is "impartial" I know it's time to worry.

Break it up. Sell it off. Run one "public service" channel - and don't let them make programmes."

Don, PH Forum, 2007.

So to get an idea of what's going on you look at a site that doesnt even pretend to be un-biased?

Anyway, is anyone other than the Telegraph running this story? It sounds massive so I assume they are.

[Carl_VivaEspana]

My approach, read them all and then come to PH for the actual facts

[Biker's Nemesis]

Randy Winkman said:

Anyway, is anyone other than the Telegraph running this story? It sounds massive so I assume they are.

Couldn't find it on any BBC channels.

[captain_cynic]

hidetheelephants said:

How dare they play footage of Trump saying things he really said. The outrage.

Yep...

The irony of calling the BBC biased whilst using the Telegraph.

You couldn't make this up, except that's exactly what they did.

[captain_cynic]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Randy Winkman said:

Anyway, is anyone other than the Telegraph running this story? It sounds massive so I assume they are.

Couldn't find it on any BBC channels.

Perhaps thats because the telegraph made it all up.

[Ridgemont]

Randy Winkman said:

So to get an idea of what's going on you look at a site that doesnt even pretend to be un-biased?

Anyway, is anyone other than the Telegraph running this story? It sounds massive so I assume they are.

Erm. But the evidence is pretty plain no?
The BBC spliced 2 segments to seem he was inciting a riot?

FWIW I have every reason to believe that Trump was attempting to influence Pence but that cut is saying something different which was to incite insurrection. Which it appeared to not happen.
Ignore the messenger: is the issue substantive? It seems clear yes?

It looks damning. What on earth was the BBC playing at?

[Ridgemont]

captain_cynic said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

Randy Winkman said:

Anyway, is anyone other than the Telegraph running this story? It sounds massive so I assume they are.

Couldn't find it on any BBC channels.

Perhaps thats because the telegraph made it all up.

What exactly? What’s the made up part?

[Ridgemont]

captain_cynic said:

hidetheelephants said:

How dare they play footage of Trump saying things he really said. The outrage.

Yep...

The irony of calling the BBC biased whilst using the Telegraph.

You couldn't make this up, except that's exactly what they did.

Oh screw ‘bias’: what the Telegraph is laying out is clear misrepresentation????

[hidetheelephants]

Ridgemont said:

Erm. But the evidence is pretty plain no?
The BBC spliced 2 segments to seem he was inciting a riot?

FWIW I have every reason to believe that Trump was attempting to influence Pence but that cut is saying something different which was to incite insurrection. Which it appeared to not happen.
Ignore the messenger: is the issue substantive? It seems clear yes?

It looks damning. What on earth was the BBC playing at?

Right after his speech over a thousand people attempted insurrection, so arguing he wasn't inciting insurrection is a losing hand as they clearly thought he was. Why are there still ostensibly sentient people who deny the obvious?

[tim0409]

captain_cynic said:

hidetheelephants said:

How dare they play footage of Trump saying things he really said. The outrage.

Yep...

The irony of calling the BBC biased whilst using the Telegraph.

The Telegraph doesn't claim to be unbiased though, unlike the BBC.

[Ridgemont]

hidetheelephants said:

Ridgemont said:

Erm. But the evidence is pretty plain no?
The BBC spliced 2 segments to seem he was inciting a riot?

FWIW I have every reason to believe that Trump was attempting to influence Pence but that cut is saying something different which was to incite insurrection. Which it appeared to not happen.
Ignore the messenger: is the issue substantive? It seems clear yes?

It looks damning. What on earth was the BBC playing at?

Right after his speech over a thousand people attempted insurrection, so arguing he wasn't inciting insurrection is a losing hand as they clearly thought he was. Why are there still ostensibly sentient people who deny the obvious?

What? So even if he didn’t invite insurrection the fact that it happens after his speech means that he incited it?

fk me the logic gap is huge.

[hidetheelephants]

Multiple insurrectionists literally testified that he told them to go up the hill and stop the count, or words to that effect. It's a matter of public record.

[ChocolateFrog]

I kind of want to know what they did but I'm not clicking on a telegraph link.

It's beyond trash these days, worse than the Mail, much worse.

[Ridgemont]

hidetheelephants said:

Multiple insurrectionists literally testified that he told them to go up the hill and stop the count, or words to that effect. It's a matter of public record.

No. It. Isn’t. The speech is recorded.

The speech didn’t say that.
The mob may have believed that but that wasn’t what the speech said.

The speech *as reported* may have said that.
Numptards may have believed that.
That isn’t the same.

Unless Trump went around on the sly and said ‘March up and fight’ that explicitly *wasnt* what was said and I for one at the time assumed he was….


Mad. You don’t see the problem with this?
It’s gross misconduct and misinformation?

[Ridgemont]

ChocolateFrog said:

I kind of want to know what they did but I'm not clicking on a telegraph link.

It's beyond trash these days, worse than the Mail, much worse.

It’s a YouTube link. No need to sully your hands with the Telegraph.