Well if the BBC are going to blatantly publish prejudiced misinformation they need to make sure it is not against someone who has the means & motive to challenge back, they picked the wrong guy that time.
Both David and Alisdair make compelling points, and I do not seek to undermine either. But is this ultimately a case of principle versus pragmatism?
We know the risks and costs of major litigation, particularly if the US government becomes involved. Will the BBC's jurisdictional challenge succeed? If it doesn't, is the real battleground liability or quantum? Given the BBC's admission that the splice was misleading, might a Florida jury conclude that it was intentional or reckless? Might that risk substantial damages?
At what point does this uncertainty, huge legal cost and institutional risk make compromise a more attractive outcome? What am I overlooking?
I think this is a very unfortunate piece. While I was, and remain, dismayed by the ending of Law in Action, and was not particularly impressed by The Law Show, using that as the basis of why the BBC should settle is not very impressive.
Trump uses litigation as a weapon, hoping to force people to settle and pay money, including by making vague statements about consequences that will follow for their licensing etc.. (ABC, CBS) Where news providers stick to their guns (CNN, NY Times and even the Wall Street Journal) he has lost. The issue here is not just the wrong editing, it is whether that editing misled anyone. I suspect few people who watched the events of January 6 thought Trump was an emissary of Peace and trying to cool things down...
Litigation involves disclosure, particularly in the USA, and the fact that he is now trying to get the DoJ involved shows, as many serious commentators (including your successor at The Grauniad), suggest, that he realises he has made a mistake and lots of things he wants hidden could come out.
It would be a very sad day for journalism if a broadcaster settled every time someone in power resorts to litigation, and it would be a deep chilling of free speech.
I do so agree with Alisdair: any overtures from the beeb which could in any way be wrenched into seeming appeasement would merely encourage this “leader of the free world” who possesses cunning, a short attention span and infantile petulance in equal degrees to go for broke.
I agree in particular that disclosure should be the focal point since to be even handed there are many US lawyers and JUDGES with unfailing integrity, as witness the reports from the much admired Joyce Vance who are facing down Trump and sycophants and accomplices in falsity with courage. The less said about those of our profession who have sold out to this dangerous, unprincipled clown the better.
My sense of his current standing? Come further disclosures over Epstein as judge ordered and elsewhere, come his record breaking nosedive in popularity and come (probably) disastrous (for him) midterm elections we need also NOW on his (probably equally bad) potential Republican successor. After all whatever the manifest failings of the Democrats anyone remotely “Trump Mark Two” would be a global rather than merely domestic disaster.
Someone has to stand up to the bully. It is clear that standing up usually produces better outcomes than folding early. Also, this effort is already producing potentially very interesting disclosure requests which Trump should comply with. Maybe someone in the US will report on the issues fully.
Well if the BBC are going to blatantly publish prejudiced misinformation they need to make sure it is not against someone who has the means & motive to challenge back, they picked the wrong guy that time.
Wonder why BBC VERIFY missed that one???? LMFAO!
Both David and Alisdair make compelling points, and I do not seek to undermine either. But is this ultimately a case of principle versus pragmatism?
We know the risks and costs of major litigation, particularly if the US government becomes involved. Will the BBC's jurisdictional challenge succeed? If it doesn't, is the real battleground liability or quantum? Given the BBC's admission that the splice was misleading, might a Florida jury conclude that it was intentional or reckless? Might that risk substantial damages?
At what point does this uncertainty, huge legal cost and institutional risk make compromise a more attractive outcome? What am I overlooking?
The fact remains that the ‘error’ in editing was a monumental blunder. And unnecessary.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
So, though I agree that bullies, even wealthy ones, should be challenged, this is not the occasion to do so. Settle!
Realistically, the BBC had no choice but to fight this case.
Suggesting anything else is pretty silly.
I think this is a very unfortunate piece. While I was, and remain, dismayed by the ending of Law in Action, and was not particularly impressed by The Law Show, using that as the basis of why the BBC should settle is not very impressive.
Trump uses litigation as a weapon, hoping to force people to settle and pay money, including by making vague statements about consequences that will follow for their licensing etc.. (ABC, CBS) Where news providers stick to their guns (CNN, NY Times and even the Wall Street Journal) he has lost. The issue here is not just the wrong editing, it is whether that editing misled anyone. I suspect few people who watched the events of January 6 thought Trump was an emissary of Peace and trying to cool things down...
Litigation involves disclosure, particularly in the USA, and the fact that he is now trying to get the DoJ involved shows, as many serious commentators (including your successor at The Grauniad), suggest, that he realises he has made a mistake and lots of things he wants hidden could come out.
It would be a very sad day for journalism if a broadcaster settled every time someone in power resorts to litigation, and it would be a deep chilling of free speech.
I do so agree with Alisdair: any overtures from the beeb which could in any way be wrenched into seeming appeasement would merely encourage this “leader of the free world” who possesses cunning, a short attention span and infantile petulance in equal degrees to go for broke.
I agree in particular that disclosure should be the focal point since to be even handed there are many US lawyers and JUDGES with unfailing integrity, as witness the reports from the much admired Joyce Vance who are facing down Trump and sycophants and accomplices in falsity with courage. The less said about those of our profession who have sold out to this dangerous, unprincipled clown the better.
My sense of his current standing? Come further disclosures over Epstein as judge ordered and elsewhere, come his record breaking nosedive in popularity and come (probably) disastrous (for him) midterm elections we need also NOW on his (probably equally bad) potential Republican successor. After all whatever the manifest failings of the Democrats anyone remotely “Trump Mark Two” would be a global rather than merely domestic disaster.
Someone has to stand up to the bully. It is clear that standing up usually produces better outcomes than folding early. Also, this effort is already producing potentially very interesting disclosure requests which Trump should comply with. Maybe someone in the US will report on the issues fully.
There's a lot of coverage on social media - and a lot of support from people in the US.
If the Beeb needs financial help, they just need to open a world-wide crowdfunder - I'm sure they'd do really well.