• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

BBC director resigns amid criticism over editing of a Trump speech

Tim Davie had articulated far reaching plans for the future of the BBC. Now all of that is up in the air, as the BBC Charter is up for revision and renewal in 2027. With the possibility of the far-right Reform Party gaining power in 2029 the Beeb will want its future path defined before then.
 
BBC News says it received legal threat from Trump over speech edit - https://www.reuters.com/business/me...um=notifications&utm_campaign=2025_engagement

Here’s more but one would think that BBC would not face legal action given that it’s outside of US jurisdiction and BBC is funded by TV fees in the UK. We have a partial picture on who is being banned from press pool but this takes it one step further than we even considered. One would think that the Trump Administration and Chairman Carr would not touch BBC but here we are today.


variety.com

Donald Trump Threatens to Sue BBC for $1 Billion Over Editing Controversy

Donald Trump has threatened the BBC with legal action over its editing of his Jan. 6 speech, according to BBC News.
variety.com variety.com
 
Y2kTheNewOldies said:
BBC News says it received legal threat from Trump over speech edit - https://www.reuters.com/business/me...um=notifications&utm_campaign=2025_engagement

Here’s more but one would think that BBC would not face legal action given that it’s outside of US jurisdiction and BBC is funded by TV fees in the UK. We have a partial picture on who is being banned from press pool but this takes it one step further than we even considered. One would think that the Trump Administration and Chairman Carr would not touch BBC but here we are today.


variety.com

Donald Trump Threatens to Sue BBC for $1 Billion Over Editing Controversy

Donald Trump has threatened the BBC with legal action over its editing of his Jan. 6 speech, according to BBC News.
variety.com variety.com
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that the BBC, like most of the U.S. press, is caving in to the demands of a wannabe dictator. And, in the case of the BBC, the U.S. has *absolutely no* legal claim over what it produces, edits, or says about the U.S. president, no matter who holds that office.

Somehow this reminds me of a question I once raised at reelradio.com; namely, did the U.S. have any say in whether or not stations in Mexico and Canada could play the uncensored versions of songs that U.S. radio stations had censored, mainly because of profanity. The response (and it came quickly) was that the U.S. government had no say whatsoever in what Canadian or Mexican radio stations whose signals could be heard in the U.S. could play. As poster Don CT said in another thread, if we don't stop caving in to the obnoxious demands of the current U.S. president, we will have nobody else to blame but ourselves when government "of, by, and for the people" goes up in smoke.
 
ted chittenden said:
The biggest problem is that the BBC, like most of the U.S. press, is caving in to the demands of a wannabe dictator. And, in the case of the BBC, the U.S. has *absolutely no* legal claim over what it produces, edits, or says about the U.S. president, no matter who holds that office.

Somehow this reminds me of a question I once raised at reelradio.com; namely, did the U.S. have any say in whether or not stations in Mexico and Canada could play the uncensored versions of songs that U.S. radio stations had censored, mainly because of profanity. The response (and it came quickly) was that the U.S. government had no say whatsoever in what Canadian or Mexican radio stations whose signals could be heard in the U.S. could play. As poster Don CT said in another thread, if we don't stop caving in to the obnoxious demands of the current U.S. president, we will have nobody else to blame but ourselves when government "of, by, and for the people" goes up in smoke.
Click to expand...
True and we had similar incidents where the Trump Administration banned ABC News Australia from a press pool in the UK. At first I thought this was some type of mix up given that it came out at the same time when Chairman Carr got involved in the Jimmy Kimmel incident with Disney's ABC Network and its owned affiliates. But its tied to an interview with an Australian correspondent. One would think non-US media outlets would not face anything from the FCC or the White House given that its outside US jurisdiction and funded by TV fees in the country.

www.theguardian.com

ABC excluded from Trump’s UK press conference as British officials deny any link to clash with Australian journalist

Australia’s national broadcaster told by Downing Street that accreditation cancelled for ‘logistical reasons’ as other international outlets also denied entry
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The ABC has been excluded from attending Donald Trump’s press conference near London this week, days after a public clash between the broadcaster’s Americas editor, John Lyons, and the president in Washington DC over his business dealings.

Both Downing Street and the Foreign Press Association (FPA) in the UK, which liaises with overseas reporters and broadcasters, said Australia’s national broadcaster had not been targeted, but rather was moved to an overflow room along with other international outlets due to space constraints.


The Australian broadcaster said earlier on Thursday its London bureau was informed by Downing Street that its accreditation to attend the press conference had been withdrawn for “logistical reasons”.
Click to expand...

www.bbc.com

Trump clashes with Australian journalist over business deals in office

The US leader said the journalist was "hurting Australia very much" as he said he would meet the country's PM "very soon".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.pbs.org

Kimmel suspension and self-censorship set dangerous precedent, FCC commissioner says

The debate continues over Disney’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air indefinitely. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested that ABC affiliates should pull Kimmel’s show or face action from his agency. But Carr rejected accusations that he was punishing free speech. There is also pushback...
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

www.bbc.com

BBC TV licence fee: How much is it and who needs to have one?

The licence fee generated £3.8bn for the BBC in 2024-25, 65% of the corporation's total income.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com



www.theguardian.com

ABC now costs each Australian four cents a day – half of what it did 30 years ago

Broadcaster’s inaugural public meeting told of savings to taxpayers and further upheaval as it restructures for the digital age
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
ted chittenden said:
The biggest problem is that the BBC, like most of the U.S. press, is caving in to the demands of a wannabe dictator. And, in the case of the BBC, the U.S. has *absolutely no* legal claim over what it produces, edits, or says about the U.S. president, no matter who holds that office.
Click to expand...
As, probably, the only person here who has actually owned a bunch of stations outside the United States, I can say that this is not that simple.

Since the creation of the Monroe Doctrine 202 years ago, the United States has created policies of the nation that push, impose or otherwise have the intent to influence the policies of other nations. I have seen indirect influences of "the American Embassy" towards radio and "the media" as the owner of about a dozen stations in Ecuador; I have seen "American Influence" in markets where I managed or programmed stations ranging from Chile to Guatemala.

Any country which depends on the United States economically will necessarily be affected by the pressures of the American government anywhere from the power of border zone radio stations to the retraction or change in import regulations and other trade conditions.
ted chittenden said:
Somehow this reminds me of a question I once raised at reelradio.com; namely, did the U.S. have any say in whether or not stations in Mexico and Canada could play the uncensored versions of songs that U.S. radio stations had censored, mainly because of profanity. The response (and it came quickly) was that the U.S. government had no say whatsoever in what Canadian or Mexican radio stations whose signals could be heard in the U.S. could play. As poster Don CT said in another thread, if we don't stop caving in to the obnoxious demands of the current U.S. president, we will have nobody else to blame but ourselves when government "of, by, and for the people" goes up in smoke.
Click to expand...
However, were this a major issue of concern, "broadcast standards" could have been included in the regulatory situation that resulted in NARBA in the 1930's and the ongoing technical coordination still in effect in most of North America.

This example is unfounded to begin with since there was not real interest by Mexican or Canadian stations in broadcasting a couple of "uncensored" versions of some songs. In fact, the two other nations in question are (and were) more highly regulated than U.S. stations are.
 
Theater of My Mind said:
Trump world gloats over its latest victory as the American far right goes after British democracy.

View attachment 10807
Click to expand...
I have no idea what "Shot" and "Chaser" mean in this context. Personally, I don't think a foreign administration should be messing around and interfering with something that isn't theirs, it belongs to the UK public. If the BBC wants to make programming that criticizes Trump, we are a free and independent nation and we're allowed to say what we like over our own airwaves in our own country. The BBC comes in for a lot of domestic criticism, but if anything is likely to galvanise support for the broadcaster, it's getting pot shots from Trump!

Anyway, I guess we will get another round of these "please save the BBC" ads on the BBC soon!


When I was in Ireland a few weeks ago, I noticed most of the programming on RTÉ TV had "funded by your licence fee" or "Ireland's public service media" as a caption at the start and end.
 
Last edited:
apnews.com

What to know about the BBC's latest crisis after its apology to Trump

The BBC has apologized to U.S. President Donald Trump over a misleading edit of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, but said it strongly disagreed that there was a basis for a defamation lawsuit.
apnews.com apnews.com
www.theguardian.com

Trump says he will take legal action against BBC, despite its apology

US president tells reporters he will sue the corporation for ‘anywhere between a billion and $5bn’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

There are talks that the Trump Administration will sue BBC News over a segment. Wait I thought the BBC is protected by UK laws and not subjected to a lawsuit from the White House or Chairman Carr at the FCC over anything BBC News airs via streaming here in the US or OTA in the UK.
 
To win, the president has to prove he was harmed in some way. He won the election. The people in the UK can't vote.

As I often say, the president is a sore winner. He's not satisfied with merely winning. He wants to pound everyone into submission.
 
Did the White House think they can sue BBC News because there are local NPR and PBS affiliates that air BBC News as part of the local public media station role in providing international news content to their audiences? Yes I agree the Trump Administration has no case against BBC News because of jurisdiction reasons but that sets the local public media stations that do have content agreements to air BBC News in political interference from the CPB, The FCC and the White House.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251114_200030_Firefox Focus~2.jpg
    Screenshot_20251114_200030_Firefox Focus~2.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 3
Y2kTheNewOldies said:
Did the White House think they can sue BBC News because there are local NPR and PBS affiliates that air BBC News as part of the local public media station role in providing international news content to their audiences? Yes I agree the Trump Administration has no case against BBC News because of jurisdiction reasons but that sets the local public media stations that do have content agreements to air BBC News in political interference from the CPB, The FCC and the White House.
Click to expand...

The President may think that way, but remember: the CPB is no more and he has absolutely no control over what U.S. public radio stations decide to air about him.

I just heard a report by the BBC on this subject and it said that the network has now learned that the U.S. Department of Justice is looking for a U.S. court in which to file the case. Apparently our beloved (not!) President is judge-shopping.
 
Y2kTheNewOldies said:
Did the White House think they can sue BBC News because there are local NPR and PBS affiliates that air BBC News as part of the local public media station role in providing international news content to their audiences? Yes I agree the Trump Administration has no case against BBC News because of jurisdiction reasons but that sets the local public media stations that do have content agreements to air BBC News in political interference from the CPB, The FCC and the White House.
Click to expand...
The program in question was Panorama, which went out on domestic BBC One TV (not radio) and only to a domestic UK audience. It wasn't shown in the U.S. at all.

President Trump was unpopular here before the show was broadcast, and he's still unpopular now. It hasn't harmed his standing with the UK public.

This is really a case of whether an independent country is free to choose what to say over its own public airwaves without getting sued by butthurt foreign elites. Just like American TV has that right, so does every other country.
 
Miss Tuned said:
The program in question was Panorama, which went out on domestic BBC One TV (not radio) and only to a domestic UK audience. It wasn't shown in the U.S. at all.

President Trump was unpopular here before the show was broadcast, and he's still unpopular now. It hasn't harmed his standing with the UK public.

This is really a case of whether an independent country is free to choose what to say over its own public airwaves without getting sued by butthurt foreign elites. Just like American TV has that right, so does every other country.
Click to expand...
All true
 
Miss Tuned said:
This is really a case of whether an independent country is free to choose what to say over its own public airwaves without getting sued by butthurt foreign elites. Just like American TV has that right, so does every other country.
Click to expand...
+1000 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Trump would have more credibility if he was to also sue China Central Television. Why hasn’t he done that?

Perhaps foreign leaders should sue Fox News, Newsmax and OANN.
 
Miss Tuned said:
The program in question was Panorama, which went out on domestic BBC One TV (not radio) and only to a domestic UK audience. It wasn't shown in the U.S. at all.

President Trump was unpopular here before the show was broadcast, and he's still unpopular now. It hasn't harmed his standing with the UK public.

This is really a case of whether an independent country is free to choose what to say over its own public airwaves without getting sued by butthurt foreign elites. Just like American TV has that right, so does every other country.
Click to expand...
We shall see how the UK Parliament responds to the attempted lawsuit against the BBC. If this really gets filed it will come down to a hearing in Parliament to respond to stop the lawsuit and its tied to how Parliament handles TV and Radio fees to BBC.
 
Miss Tuned said:
The program in question was Panorama, which went out on domestic BBC One TV (not radio) and only to a domestic UK audience. It wasn't shown in the U.S. at all.

President Trump was unpopular here before the show was broadcast, and he's still unpopular now. It hasn't harmed his standing with the UK public.

This is really a case of whether an independent country is free to choose what to say over its own public airwaves without getting sued by butthurt foreign elites. Just like American TV has that right, so does every other country.
Click to expand...
We shall see how the UK Parliament responds to the attempted lawsuit against the BBC. If this really gets filed it will come down to a hearing in Parliament to respond to the allegations or the power to stop the lawsuit and its tied to how Parliament handles TV and Radio fees to BBC.
 


Back
Top Bottom