Why should BBC settle out of court? It has been established Panorama had very limited play in the states. It did not seem to affect the elections one way or the other. As Nick says, it is a relatively high bar to prove malice or defamation. He does not necessarily have the Florida courts in his pocket. And the Florida courts would be hard pressed to determine if it has any jurisdiction over the BBC.
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I noticed that in his Truth Social post Trump referred to the UK as a 'Foreign Country' - capital letters- that is 'supposed' to be one of the USA's closest allies.
Random Capitalization is a standard characteristic of Trump’s social media posting style.
Though BBC broadcast and on-demand services are only (legally) available to those with a TV licence (ie: those who have contributed to funding the BBC), the BBC can (and does) sell programmes to be broadcast on other channels - re-runs on other UK channels and channels in other nations. Selling programmes to other channels is a vital source of income, the costs of producing programming isn't covered by licence fees. If there's uncertainty within the BBC about whether this particular Panorama episode was broadcast in the US that presumably means that rights to broadcast it were sold to one or more US networks but the BBC don't know if it was actually broadcast - I can see why US networks might have bought a programme about former President Trump but then decide that when it became about President-elect Trump that it wasn't worth broadcasting.
Why should BBC settle out of court? It has been established Panorama had very limited play in the states. It did not seem to affect the elections one way or the other. As Nick says, it is a relatively high bar to prove malice or defamation. He does not necessarily have the Florida courts in his pocket. And the Florida courts would be hard pressed to determine if it has any jurisdiction over the BBC.
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I'm not saying the BBC should settle out of court. I would hope they'd stick to their guns and with the full support of British politicians and the viewing public.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I agree that it is different in the case of the BBC as they aren't based in the US.
Trump seems to have extended the issue beyond the Panorama programme and given the BBC an ultimatum that it should 'withdraw' any allegedly defamatory remarks it's supposed to have made about him throughout it's entire broadcast output. It's meant to do this by Friday.
He's doing his usual blustering and bullying thing. What bothers me is that others will ride on the back of this to damage the BBC or bend it to their particular agenda.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I doubt there was a strong feeling that the courts would be against them; indeed, I’d guess the media outlets probably thought they had very good, though certainly not ironclad, chances in court. Given the First Amendment, the standard for a public official or public figure to succeed in a defamation case here is very high.
Rather, I’d suspect it says more about business decisions that in the long run it would be cheaper to settle than go through drawn-out and expensive litigation, and that settling would make the attention on them, both Trump’s attention and the public’s attention, go elsewhere. In other words, better for business for there not to be a case to start with,
@Enoch just as an aside, using a VPN to access otherwise inaccessible TV and streaming services is incredibly common - both generally online and in the US specifically. In the US local teams' sports games are often not available on local TV in order to try and get people to attend games in person, so having a VPN to watch sports games is very common in the US.
I wonder if the US media outlets that settled out of court did so pragmatically because the president has some control over licencing etc which he doesn't with the BBC.
I wonder if the US media outlets that settled out of court did so pragmatically because the president has some control over licencing etc which he doesn't with the BBC.
That's a polite way of saying they collaborated in Trump's current modus operandi, which is to sue as a legalised means of soliciting bribes and/or protection money.
We seem to be talking as though BBC news is the whole of the BBC. BBC output is much much more than the news arm. Just because one arm has problems doesn’t mean that the rest should go or be diminished. There have been scandals across the BBC for years.
Yes, a very fair point @Hugal but the news arm, like the Corporation's natural history output, is one of its flagship services worldwide.
The Beeb is regarded in some quarters almost like the royal family in some respects, something we can build our national reputation on worldwide.
Hence concerns about The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince.
We no longer have an Empire or a ginormous fleet but by golly we've got excellent news coverage, Sir David Attenborough and incredible footage of tree-frogs and lemurs.
It would damage our own sense of national pride and our perceived standing abroad (from our point of view that us, or at least some of us), if the BBC was damaged.
For all its faults the BBC is still up there in many people's minds with Churchill's war-time speeches, the Spitfire and 'the little ships' at Dunkirk.
Yes, a whole load of mythology around all of that and the BBC does try to maintain that kind of vibe and mystique.
These things go in waves.
I can remember all sorts of right-wing fulminating about Play for Today, Dennis Potter, the BBC's late night arts coverage and much more besides.
It could be quite bold and cutting edge at times and let's be honest, at times it's flown close to the wind in various directions. I can remember a documentary way back that came under criticism for its negative portrayal of the Army and over-turning of generally accepted heroics.
I knew someone who was friends of the director of that particular programme and he admitted that he'd deliberately set up situations to show officers and army spokespeople in a bad light.
I didn't disagree with the programme's premise but the methods used to get the footage was highly questionable to my mind.
Anyhow, I doubt very much whether some of the dramas and documentaries aired in the 1970s would even get made today.
Yes you are right but you would think that the news arm is the whole BBC the way it is being reported by some media outlets and certain parties who want it gone.
There has been talk that Trump’s legal team sent the letter to the wrong address and have now missed the one year limit for definition.
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
Is anyone else finding that the link to the Beeb's headline trump article relating to Epstein this morning is dead? Everything else on the page seems to be working.
Comments
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I'm not saying the BBC should settle out of court. I would hope they'd stick to their guns and with the full support of British politicians and the viewing public.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I agree that it is different in the case of the BBC as they aren't based in the US.
Trump seems to have extended the issue beyond the Panorama programme and given the BBC an ultimatum that it should 'withdraw' any allegedly defamatory remarks it's supposed to have made about him throughout it's entire broadcast output. It's meant to do this by Friday.
He's doing his usual blustering and bullying thing. What bothers me is that others will ride on the back of this to damage the BBC or bend it to their particular agenda.
Rather, I’d suspect it says more about business decisions that in the long run it would be cheaper to settle than go through drawn-out and expensive litigation, and that settling would make the attention on them, both Trump’s attention and the public’s attention, go elsewhere. In other words, better for business for there not to be a case to start with,
That's a polite way of saying they collaborated in Trump's current modus operandi, which is to sue as a legalised means of soliciting bribes and/or protection money.
The Beeb is regarded in some quarters almost like the royal family in some respects, something we can build our national reputation on worldwide.
Hence concerns about The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince.
We no longer have an Empire or a ginormous fleet but by golly we've got excellent news coverage, Sir David Attenborough and incredible footage of tree-frogs and lemurs.
It would damage our own sense of national pride and our perceived standing abroad (from our point of view that us, or at least some of us), if the BBC was damaged.
For all its faults the BBC is still up there in many people's minds with Churchill's war-time speeches, the Spitfire and 'the little ships' at Dunkirk.
Yes, a whole load of mythology around all of that and the BBC does try to maintain that kind of vibe and mystique.
These things go in waves.
I can remember all sorts of right-wing fulminating about Play for Today, Dennis Potter, the BBC's late night arts coverage and much more besides.
It could be quite bold and cutting edge at times and let's be honest, at times it's flown close to the wind in various directions. I can remember a documentary way back that came under criticism for its negative portrayal of the Army and over-turning of generally accepted heroics.
I knew someone who was friends of the director of that particular programme and he admitted that he'd deliberately set up situations to show officers and army spokespeople in a bad light.
I didn't disagree with the programme's premise but the methods used to get the footage was highly questionable to my mind.
Anyhow, I doubt very much whether some of the dramas and documentaries aired in the 1970s would even get made today.
There has been talk that Trump’s legal team sent the letter to the wrong address and have now missed the one year limit for definition.
But yes, I can see the point you are making about the reportage.
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
No, but it's an easy out for him to avoid scrutiny. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/12/reform-uk-pulls-out-of-bbc-film-amid-trump-speech-edit-row