Don Surber
Trump v. BBC
Sue for $10 billion, settle for $10 million
Our favorite president filed a defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation seeking $10 billion (£7.4 billion). He filed it in the U.S. district court in Miami and its summary says succinctly:
In the BBC Panorama documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance” (the “Panorama Documentary,” or the “Documentary”), which was first broadcast on October 28, 2024, the BBC intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 (the “Speech”).
The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.
Pretty much everyone in the media concedes the facts. The media, however, is flummoxed about having to pay for the damages BBC caused.
The BBC aired a clip which spliced together quotes—55 minutes apart—to make it sound as if the president ordered people to storm the Capitol. BBC fired/accepted resignations from its top two executives over this, but only after the Daily Telegraph exposed an internal report that admitted the error.
The report was issued two months after the Propaganda Documentary aired. The firings came 10 months after the report.
The report also said:
- The BBC ignored its own guidelines about not giving undue weight to a single poll and gave excessive coverage to the rogue ‘Iowa poll’—which suggested a Harris victory days out from the election. This poll dominated coverage in the days leading up to polling day while other polls that contradicted its findings were underplayed.
- ???The BBC focused too heavily on campaign issues promoted by the Harris campaign, such as abortion and women’s rights, at the expense of giving greater weight to jobs, the economy and immigration—which proved to be a significant driver of how people voted.
- In covering Trump’s legal wrangles during the campaign, (in May he was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying records), the BBC often failed to highlight that many US prosecutors are political appointees. This prevented viewers from having an understanding of the anti-Trump ‘lawfare’ at play during the presidential race.
- There was an over-emphasis on certain events, such as Trump’s comments about people eating pets in Springfield. That dominated the coverage for a week which, David’s report warned, appeared “excessive” and risked compromising impartiality.
- The BBC sometimes fell into using, without attribution, contested language such as “reproductive rights”. This signals to many BBC viewers, particularly those in America, a biased mindset.
- There was an overall tendency to frame issues in a way that was similar to the Harris campaign and less fact checking of “questionable statements” she made as opposed to Trump. Words used by the Harris camp were also echoed in some BBC coverage, such as referring to Trump supporters as “election deniers”. The phrase “baseless” was also used to describe some of Trump’s contested claims but never in association with questionable claims made by his opponent.
- The use of aggregate economic and immigration data skewed coverage because it masked important class and regional variations which contributed to the election result.
- The balance of more in-depth programs was “markedly anti Trump/pro Harris”. The internal review couldn’t find a single program that looked more critically at Harris and her record than at Trump.
The report damns not just on the BBC but the entire mainstream media because the American press wallowed in all 8 claims of schlock journalism. The boobs at the Beeb lowered BBC’s standards to those of the DNC press.
I am not defending the American press. I spent nearly 40 years in it. Please subscribe.
Upgrade to paid
Welcome to the sewers, BBC.
But did BBC make the edit or was something more sinister afoot? Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, made an astonishing discovery.
Lindell TV tweeted:
Enrique Tarrio confirms the exact same edited clip aired by the BBC was shown to his jury—falsely implying President Trump said something he never did.
“It wasn’t until weeks ago I realized—those words weren’t even close together. They were 40 minutes apart.”
Tarrio says the Justice Department knew the clip was misleading, used it anyway, and now legal action against both the BBC and the DOJ is on the table.
Key detail? The clip cut out Trump’s actual words:
“We’re going to peacefully and patriotically make our voices heard.”
Tarrio: “That fake clip didn’t just influence my trial—it influenced the President’s case and justice itself.”
How is this not prosecutorial misconduct?
Tarrio’s trial was in 2023—18 months before BBC’s report. Trump likely knew this before filing his lawsuit.
Oh, the media is busy assuring the unwashed masses that Trump has no chance in hell or DC in prevailing in the case. But Melania already succeeded in her litigation against the Daily Mail and Trump already succeeded in cases against ABC, CBS and NBC. Out-of-court settlements usually count as a win for the plaintiff.
BBC believes an apology was all that was necessary.
CNN dug out Associate Professor Dylan McLemore at the University of Oklahoma to tell the news channel, “The decision to file in Florida goes back to the question at the heart of all of the president’s defamation suits against media companies—is he filing them to win in court or to create headlines and chill critical speech from the press?”
Both and also for the money.
McLemore later said, “An apology is not an admission of guilt. In fact, in defamation cases, the defendant can actually argue that the public apology reduces harm to the plaintiff.”
If that were the case then why bother with defamation law at all? Just say my bad, President Trump. Sorry my little oopsie cost you that election.
BBC has made plenty of errors over the years without paying the price. Consider its anti-Semitic coverage of the FAFO War in Gaza.
British taxpayers pay for this garbage via their annual license fee.
John Hinderacker, an actual lawyer with 41 years experience in litigation, weighed in.
He concluded, “In my opinion, if Trump draws a reasonably friendly judge and a favorable jury, he could very possibly win this case. So another in a series of settlements could be in the offing.”
BBC’s Katie Razzall wrote, “Clearly one downside of fighting is that it will be costly. Chris Ruddy, a friend and ally of Trump and chief executive of the US news network Newsmax, told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that going to court would cost $50-100 million, whereas he claimed the BBC could settle for $10 million.”
Plus there is having to swim to Miami and back every day during the trial . . .
Trump has sued for defamation throughout his career beginning in 1973 when he countersued HUD and got it to drop charges of discrimination. That was 52 years ago.
A settlement is what the president wants. Why waste time in court? He wants the media to pay for its mistakes like any other business. Ask for $10 billion and settle for $10 million—and make that presidential library 10 feet higher. |
