Thank you for keeping us informed about the BBC case reporting certain comments on the US president. We appreciate your time and work that is ensuring a proper appreciation of all the salient facts.
The BBC's strongest argument seems to be lack of jurisdiction. The 'lack of harm' argument seems weak. Just because Trump was reelected doesn't mean there was no harm (eg reputational harm).
At least from an English law perspective. Although a court can infer damage, if the court is not satisfied that the damage is not worth a candle then it can strike out a case.
It is also perhaps important for damages, even if Trump can establish liability. An award of a nickel, so to speak.
Sorry if I am not keeping up or misinterpreting but I am confused as to the dates of the Panorama programme. The first image shows Trump Return 2022 before midterms but most of the documentation refers to broadcast in 2024.
What's the difference between 'balanced' and 'amoral'?
Prescott's memo moralises: he's 'shocked' (at several places in the memo) and that seems to function more as moral judgment than observation on his emotional state. He repeately cries 'misleading'. He says that the Panorama programme was 'neither balanced nor impartial' and alleges a 'failure to try to balance the anti-Trump Panorama with an equally aggressive look at Harris'.
I ponder someone writing a memo about a documentary on the Allied discovery of Belsen. While most of us are shocked by the footage of Belsen, they're shocked at the way that footage has been edited and spliced topether to make the Gestapo look bad. They're dismayed there hasn't been an equally aggressive moral critique of the Allied forces and their action towards prisoners. The coverage wasn't 'balanced'.
There are now politicians in the AfD who do say broadly similar things about the way that the Holocaust and Waffen SS actions continue to be covered in the media. As far as January 6th is concerned, the actions of the crowd attacking the Capitol are viewed just as diversely. What was near-universally condemned at the time, and later judged criminal in court, has now been formally pardoned; all 'moral' judgment as much as 'legal'. The original reporting presented facts, and the courts considered facts; the pardon didn't really do either. What is 'moral' has changed over the course of just five years.
We spend a lot of time trying to navigate the uncertain ground between the world as it actually is and the world as it should be. It requires a conscious discipline of thought to distinguish the two. We often use, as I just have, hypotheticals which ask not just how the world is, or how it should be, but also what 'might' happen. This is intrinsically difficult stuff, and it's particularly difficult for the Beeb given Reith's original insistence that 'a high moral tone is paramount'.
So what does coverage of the Trump rally on January the 6th require if it's to meet the 'high moral tone' criterion. Factual truthfulness for sure; and at that point the edit is debatable: if the juxtaposition had been acknowledged it would have eliminated the bias charge, but the spliced clips were both true records of Trump's speech, albeit incomplete. The political reaction to the Panaorama prog has constantly been headlined as a question of 'editorial standards', a phrase which handily obscures that we're making primarily moral judgments. By publicly apologising, the BBC has acknowledged moral wrong.
Is 'moral' television moral by making independent moral judgment of people's actions, or by making a balanced presentation of clashing moral judgments. The BBC doesn't do much to fact-check politicians' statements, even though that would be relatively simple to do. Any kind of 'morality checking' would be much more challenging, but maybe it should do more, explicitly, of both.
Thank you for keeping us informed about the BBC case reporting certain comments on the US president. We appreciate your time and work that is ensuring a proper appreciation of all the salient facts.
The BBC's strongest argument seems to be lack of jurisdiction. The 'lack of harm' argument seems weak. Just because Trump was reelected doesn't mean there was no harm (eg reputational harm).
Not being able to prove any harm is actually a real difficulty for them - that is why a good part of their complaint is devoted to the topic.
If you were right, then they would not have needed to bother.
But the purported defence - that there is no harm *because* he was reelected - is weak, no?
No.
At least from an English law perspective. Although a court can infer damage, if the court is not satisfied that the damage is not worth a candle then it can strike out a case.
It is also perhaps important for damages, even if Trump can establish liability. An award of a nickel, so to speak.
Whistler v Ruskin comes to mind. A farthing rather than a nickel, though.
Your diligence is much appreciated, thank you
Sorry if I am not keeping up or misinterpreting but I am confused as to the dates of the Panorama programme. The first image shows Trump Return 2022 before midterms but most of the documentation refers to broadcast in 2024.
Thank you for the correction, sorrry - how embarrassing ! Amended and footnote added.
What's the difference between 'balanced' and 'amoral'?
Prescott's memo moralises: he's 'shocked' (at several places in the memo) and that seems to function more as moral judgment than observation on his emotional state. He repeately cries 'misleading'. He says that the Panorama programme was 'neither balanced nor impartial' and alleges a 'failure to try to balance the anti-Trump Panorama with an equally aggressive look at Harris'.
I ponder someone writing a memo about a documentary on the Allied discovery of Belsen. While most of us are shocked by the footage of Belsen, they're shocked at the way that footage has been edited and spliced topether to make the Gestapo look bad. They're dismayed there hasn't been an equally aggressive moral critique of the Allied forces and their action towards prisoners. The coverage wasn't 'balanced'.
There are now politicians in the AfD who do say broadly similar things about the way that the Holocaust and Waffen SS actions continue to be covered in the media. As far as January 6th is concerned, the actions of the crowd attacking the Capitol are viewed just as diversely. What was near-universally condemned at the time, and later judged criminal in court, has now been formally pardoned; all 'moral' judgment as much as 'legal'. The original reporting presented facts, and the courts considered facts; the pardon didn't really do either. What is 'moral' has changed over the course of just five years.
We spend a lot of time trying to navigate the uncertain ground between the world as it actually is and the world as it should be. It requires a conscious discipline of thought to distinguish the two. We often use, as I just have, hypotheticals which ask not just how the world is, or how it should be, but also what 'might' happen. This is intrinsically difficult stuff, and it's particularly difficult for the Beeb given Reith's original insistence that 'a high moral tone is paramount'.
So what does coverage of the Trump rally on January the 6th require if it's to meet the 'high moral tone' criterion. Factual truthfulness for sure; and at that point the edit is debatable: if the juxtaposition had been acknowledged it would have eliminated the bias charge, but the spliced clips were both true records of Trump's speech, albeit incomplete. The political reaction to the Panaorama prog has constantly been headlined as a question of 'editorial standards', a phrase which handily obscures that we're making primarily moral judgments. By publicly apologising, the BBC has acknowledged moral wrong.
Is 'moral' television moral by making independent moral judgment of people's actions, or by making a balanced presentation of clashing moral judgments. The BBC doesn't do much to fact-check politicians' statements, even though that would be relatively simple to do. Any kind of 'morality checking' would be much more challenging, but maybe it should do more, explicitly, of both.