The BBC has formally apologized to Donald Trump following the former US President’s assertion that he feels compelled to pursue legal action against the network due to the way his speech was edited.
Trump alleged that the BBC’s show “Panorama” misled viewers by altering footage to imply that he incited violence ahead of the January 6 Capitol riot.
The BBC acknowledged the incident as a lapse in judgment, stating that the episode “will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms.”
However, the broadcaster maintained that, despite their regret over the editing decision, they “strongly disagree that there is any basis for a defamation claim.”
Facing a deadline to respond to Trump’s $1 billion legal threat, the BBC faced criticism for potentially deceiving its audience with the program’s portrayal.
Trump remarked, “I suppose I have to [sue]. Why not? They misled the public, and they’ve admitted it. This comes from one of our supposed great allies.”
‘That’s a pretty sad event. They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical.’
Referencing how director-general Tim Davie had quit on Sunday over the furore, the President added: ‘They showed me the results of how they butchered it up. It was very dishonest and the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit.’
He also told Fox News on Tuesday: ‘I think I have an obligation to [sue] because you can’t allow people to do that.’
US President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House yesterday
Outgoing BBC director-general Tim Davie outside Broadcasting House in London on Tuesday
In a scathing letter this week, Mr Trump’s team demanded a full retraction, immediate apology and an offer of compensation from the BBC over the ‘fabricated depiction of President Trump’.
Mr Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, also demanded that ‘false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements’ made are retracted immediately.
A failure Mr Trump said he would be ‘left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights… including by filing legal action for no less than 1,000,000,000 dollars [£760million] in damages,’ the letter states.
When asked about Mr Trump’s legal threats, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters yesterday the corporation is a ‘Leftist propaganda machine’.
She also said that it is ‘unfortunate’ the broadcaster is funded by British taxpayers, before adding that the legal action is expected to continue.
BBC chairman Samir Shah has apologised for an ‘error of judgment’ over the edit, which was first broadcast in October last year, on Monday after it led to Mr Davie and Deborah Turness, chief executive of news, resigning.
A BBC spokesman said it ‘will review the letter and respond directly in due course’.
BBC chairman Samir Shah (pictured) has apologised for an ‘error of judgment’ over the edit
The BBC’s apology comes hours after it emerged that a second clip of the same Donald Trump speech was also edited by the BBC.
It was shown in an episode of Newsnight in June 2022, more than two years before a similarly spliced clip was aired in a BBC Panorama documentary.
Both clips seem to make it look as if the US president urged supporters to ‘walk down to the Capitol’ with him and ‘fight like hell’ – two statements that he made around an hour apart in his speech.
Concerns about the Newsnight footage were reportedly raised internally the day after it aired, although discussions were supposedly shut down.
A BBC spokesperson said in a statement tonight: ‘Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.
‘BBC chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the president’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.
‘The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any BBC platforms.
‘While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.’
