Trump to sue Auntie?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Is the current kerfuffle at the BBC terminal?
The Corporation has hardly covered itself with glory recently and habitually responds badly to crises.
It's now emerged that Trump is threatening to take legal action against the Beeb and is crowing online that senior heads are rolling.
I'm a big BBC fan but not an uncritical one. Nevertheless, it concerns me to see who is jumping on this particular band-wagon.
Badenoch would run it into the ground if she had a chance.
Trump would sue it into oblivion if he saw the opportunity.
Farage would rub his hands with glee ... oh wait, he'd lose free air-time and would have to pay more for coverage than the Licence Fee.
It suits The Telegraph's agenda to weaken the BBC.
It suits the agenda of senior Tory Party donors also.
Likewise Trump as Sir Ed Davey observes.
It does look like Number 10 is leaping to Aunty's defence but for how long?
Now, I know many here on the left don't trust the BBC, and I can understand that.
But the Beeb is also being accused of an institutional anti-Israel agenda and of an unbalanced and uncritical approach to transgender issues.
Whatever our own views on whether or not that's the case, it does worry me where these criticisms are coming from. Trump. The Tories. Reform.
Would a weakened BBC give even more rein to Gammon TV (GB News), whacko-jacko You Tube channels and other online guff?
Or is the Corporation getting no more than its just desserts?
Would my reaction, and that of No 10's and Sir Ed's differ if it someone on the left threatening legal action against the BBC?
Although someone on the left wouldn't have the clout and resources to do any dangerous damage to what is still a respected broadcaster internationally.
It's not that I think the BBC is perfect or doesn't need to get its act together but I am concerned about the alternatives if the Corporation is holed below the waterline.
Is this a legitimate concern?
The Corporation has hardly covered itself with glory recently and habitually responds badly to crises.
It's now emerged that Trump is threatening to take legal action against the Beeb and is crowing online that senior heads are rolling.
I'm a big BBC fan but not an uncritical one. Nevertheless, it concerns me to see who is jumping on this particular band-wagon.
Badenoch would run it into the ground if she had a chance.
Trump would sue it into oblivion if he saw the opportunity.
Farage would rub his hands with glee ... oh wait, he'd lose free air-time and would have to pay more for coverage than the Licence Fee.
It suits The Telegraph's agenda to weaken the BBC.
It suits the agenda of senior Tory Party donors also.
Likewise Trump as Sir Ed Davey observes.
It does look like Number 10 is leaping to Aunty's defence but for how long?
Now, I know many here on the left don't trust the BBC, and I can understand that.
But the Beeb is also being accused of an institutional anti-Israel agenda and of an unbalanced and uncritical approach to transgender issues.
Whatever our own views on whether or not that's the case, it does worry me where these criticisms are coming from. Trump. The Tories. Reform.
Would a weakened BBC give even more rein to Gammon TV (GB News), whacko-jacko You Tube channels and other online guff?
Or is the Corporation getting no more than its just desserts?
Would my reaction, and that of No 10's and Sir Ed's differ if it someone on the left threatening legal action against the BBC?
Although someone on the left wouldn't have the clout and resources to do any dangerous damage to what is still a respected broadcaster internationally.
It's not that I think the BBC is perfect or doesn't need to get its act together but I am concerned about the alternatives if the Corporation is holed below the waterline.
Is this a legitimate concern?
Comments
Building on comments made by various senior BBC figures (mostly appointed by the last conservative government).
The letter sent by his attorneys cite a Florida state statute, so it would appear their intent is to file suit in Florida state court. That means they’ll have to deal with the issue of whether the BBC can be sued in a Florida state court. I suspect they will also have to deal with he can actually prove any damage from the alleged defamation, since he claims it was for the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election he won.
But on top of that, Trump is a public official, so unless he can get SCOTUS to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)*, he will have to prove “actual malice,” meaning he’ll have to prove that the BBC made the statement—or edit—at issue with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. It’s a pretty high bar, and perhaps one that’s even higher when applied not to what someone else said, but to how what Trump unquestionably did say was edited.
* Granted, Justice Thomas, during Trump’s first term, has suggested the Court should revisit Sullivan.
The memo criticising this itself contains an edited clip, which I suppose just shows Trump generally speaks in a disjointed and rambling manner.
In an English court the Defamation Act, (DA 2013), would apply and a claimant must demonstrate that the publication of the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. This presupposes the claimant has a reputation capable of being defamed
No, anyone who helps publish a lible can be sued jointly or severally. Some years ago the late James Goldsmith believed he'd be liabled by Private Eye over the Lucan case*. He attempted to sue not only that publication and it's journalists but also the printers, the distribution firms and the retailers ( W H Smith didn't carry The Eye for many years because of this). Goldsmith eventually dropped the case when Private Eye refused to give in to the legal bullying
* The Lucan case concerned the British peer Lord Lucan. His children's nanny who bore a passing resemblance to his wife was murdered, and he mysteriously disappeared. It was rumoured that several influential people helped him escape from the UK. No one was ever arrested for the murder
If you know who they are, then that's very very telling.
It is likely Trump may have a case for defamation, . . .
Nick Replied:
Why do you say that?
Robertus L pointed to
In an English court the Defamation Act, (DA 2013)
I used two conditional phrases. Trump alleges defamation. He has to prove it in a court of law. I asked which court of law would give him standing. I did not think he would have standing in the US Federal Court. I overlooked the Florida state court, but Nick pointed out there could be a problem with whether the BBC could be sued in a state court. I do not know if the British courts would hear him out.
As I said, given that the letter his lawyers sent the BBC cites only a Florida defamation statute, they seem to have clearly signaled they’re relying on Florida law, and therefore that any lawsuit would likely be in Florida state court.
My point about having a reputation worth defaming wasn't ( entirely) sarcastic. Juries can find for a defendant and award a deliberately derisory sum in compensation such as one pound or even one penny if they believe the plaintiff had little reputation to defend. This in turn can affect legal fees, because under English law you can win a case and not only have to pay your own legal fees but some or all of your opponents too.
* There's strictly speaking no such thing as a British court because, despite not being a federal nation, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have separate legal systems. Only the Supreme Court is British in this sense ( and it has limited jurisdiction in Scotland).
Agreed
I agree. Unfortunately, they won't. They tend to grovel before the right wing, which just encourages them.
Worst case scenario: send the bill to Charlie, he can well afford it.
Indeed he can, but these sorts of people will always find a way to ensure that their wealth remains untouched while the taxpayer foots the bill.
I think that's pessimistic. The Beeb has many friends and supporters, who have not really spoken. I know that Starmer will be supine, but when you think that the enemies include the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Farage, there is a clear political divide. Which side are you on?
Its commercial arm, BBC Studios, has posted record revenues (in the billions) and growing profits.
The question is will the BBC continue to prioritise high-cost UK/quality journalism and production, or will it shift more to global commercial content, or scale down?
This trump thing will be merely a blip imo.
My gut tells me that a Florida court would ultimately find it does not have jurisdiction over the BBC, but that’s really just my gut. I think it could be a complicated question.
That, I think, is one of the big questions, assuming a case doesn’t get dismissed outright. The argument in the letter appears to have to do with the parts of the program being shared and replayed on social media, but that’s something the BBC has limited if any control over.
The other big question, I think, would be damages. Trump’s claim seems to be based on an argument that the BBC was trying to affect the outcome of the election. But Trump won the election. And the program aired only a few days before the election, so it seems reasonable to guess that the election was over by the time all but a relative few Americans found out about it.
FWIW, I found this in this article from the BBC: I did find it interesting that the BBC doesn’t seem to know if it broadcast or streamed the show in the US.
One more FWIW, the statute of limitations for defamation in Florida is, as I understand it, two years.
Trump's threats are nothing to do with an alleged anti-Israel or pro-transgender agenda. Those accusations come from elsewhere and as @chrisstiles says, from senior BBC figured appointed by the last Conservative government.
I don't want to get into Epiphanous territory but can't say I've noticed an anti-transgender agenda in the BBC, although I know some Guardian columnists take that kind of stance.
I was simply listing those accusations to indicate a wider general background of attacks on the BBC, irrespective of whether we think those accusations are justified or not.
I have a friend who is convinced that the former Conservative government appointed right-wingers to senior BBC posts because they knew they'd mess up and that would give them the excuse they need to abolish the licence fee and nobble the BBC once and for all.
Others here are convinced that the BBC is itself right-wing.
I'm not convinced that it's as simple as that. I was interested to hear Chris Patten, former Conservative Party Chairman, last Governor of Hong Kong and a former Chair of the BBC Trust dismiss Conservative claims that the BBC is full of raving lefties.
But then, it perhaps shows how far things have shifted that Patten himself is probably considered a lefty by Badenoch and Co.
The Beeb doesn't always help itself and does drop major clangers.
I hope those more optimistic posters are right and that this is a blip rather than a torpedo below the water-line.
The Telegraph used to be a respected newspaper for all its very evident political bias. The Daily Mail we all know about. Fox News and GB News, well, look who is behind those...
I'm concerned.
I think it was more simply a case of ability to influence, and now they've chosen to leave (Davie has been in the BBC for 17 years), they are choosing to do so in the most damaging way possible.
Structurally that won't be so for the simple reason that for the larger part of their history they excluded 'raving lefties' at the recruitment stage (and that's just going on the things made public).
They've given a lot of airtime to transphobes on Radio 4, often just unchallenged throwaway comments that they'd never air if they were about people of colour of even cis gay people. They've allowed the normalisation of transphobia.
I'm not saying there haven't been any and I'm sure a transgender friend who is an activist on such issues could cite instances.
But I can't think of any instances off the top of my head. Back in the '70s there were openly anti-gay and openly racist comments on all media channels all the time, and not just throwaway comments.
Ok, these things are easier to spot in retrospect than they might have been at the time. They were 'normalised' back then, but there were concerns. The documentary 'It ain't half racist, Mum,' exposed some of it and there was push-back against that from some quarters.
I'm not 'own voice' on these issues so some concerns from within the transgender community will undoubtedly pass me by.
@Alan Cresswell I am a bit surprised at this comment's lack of distinguishing between "own voice" commentary and other commentary. A Reform MP saying that the BBC isn't a mouthpiece for anti-refugee or racist views doesn't mean that's evidence that the BBC is actually more liberal on those issues than eg a refugee charity thinks. Especially when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right and far-right views have become so normalised.
The BBC rejected a complaint that it should have had someone on to balance things out. I've not followed the link you provided to the podcast @Pomona but have just Googled and found news reports that Maitlis claimed credit for reversing NHS policy as the result of this broadcast.
She also appears to have twice faced complaints from Conservatives for allegedly showing partiality.
I will try to listen to the podcast when I have more time.
So what? Tories lie.
Yeah, the BBC is very liberal, but on the other hand Simon Jones spends all his time chasing boats of refugees around the channel and Reform MPs are angry that a black person might occasionally present the news.