Yup, my prediction was based on legality, I wasn’t anticipating a Trump administration, but in that context it’s not surprising.Looks like they settled for $5 million.
Trump administration agrees to pay nearly $5M to settle suit over Ashli Babbitt shooting in Capitol
The Trump administration has agreed to pay just under $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit that Ashli Babbitt’s family filed over her shooting by an officer during the U.S.apnews.com
6 Jan 2020 U.S. Events (Split from A Deeply Fractured US)
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,005
- Points
- 1,260
In today's news, Ashli will receive full military honours.
The Capitol Police Chief described the J6 pardons as, "probably one of my worst days in this job."
The Fraternal Order of Police and International Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the pardons of 1,500 individuals convicted of crimes against law enforcement on J6:
She still died in the act of betraying her oath to her country and constitution. That stain will never be wiped away. If people want to honour that, well, it just says something about them I guess.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,635
- Points
- 1,040
Not that this will change any of the hardcore anti-Trump and anti-US people's minds. But it is a serious problem worth thinking about, and if one side can and is doing it then eventually the side you don't support will. Dishonest, politically motivated media is causing untold damage. Not just to their political opponents but to the fabric of western society. Set aside your personal distastes of a person for a moment, think about how this wrecks our collective purpose in the free and democratic west. Who really benefits?
nationalpost.com
This week, the Telegraph reported that the BBC “doctored” U.S. President Donald Trump’s words in a way that suggested he had incited the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot.
Worse, when the distortions were flagged to BBC executives as “completely misleading,” they dismissed it as a “normal practice” and “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards.” One BBC executive justified the editing, pointing to a congressional meeting packed with Democrats, which concluded that Trump was trying to overturn the 2020 election, as if that excused it. It appears Trump was right: the BBC is fake news.
According to a memo written by Michael Prescott, former independent external advisor to the broadcaster’s editorial guidelines and standards committee, and sent to its board of directors, the BBC has “serious and systemic problems” with its reporting.
The doctored speech was found in an hour-long episode of “Panorama” titled, “Trump: A Second Chance?” which aired in October 2024. Anyone watching the program would have been led to believe that Trump, standing at a podium in front of his supporters on the day of the Capitol Hill riot, said, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In actuality, what Trump said was, “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Quite the difference.
There were other manipulations, as well. Immediately after the doctored speech, the video cut to an audio clip of police warning about “300 Proud Boys” heading toward the Capitol, while showing footage of Proud Boys members carrying flags and marching toward the building. The insinuation was that they were reacting to Trump’s words, when in reality, the footage was taken an hour before Trump’s speech even began.
Fifty-four minutes after Trump urged supporters to march peacefully to the Capitol, he complained about elections being “corrupt.” Speaking about election day, he said, “Most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, ‘I wanna thank you very much,’ and they go off to some other life. But I said: something’s wrong here, something’s really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In the memo, Prescott wrote: “Examining the charge that Trump had incited protesters to storm Capitol Hill, it turned out that Panorama had spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech. This created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.”
He pointed out that this is why charges were never laid against Trump: “The fact that (Trump) did not explicitly exhort supporters to go down and fight at Capitol Hill was one of the reasons there were no federal charges for incitement to riot.”
Having editorial standards is good practice, but it means nothing if executives ignore, or worse, explain away or excuse, serious issues. Executives should be consistently concerned about bias and disinformation. Like all relationships, audience trust takes a long time to earn, and is much more quickly lost.
When Prescott brought his concerns to management, he said that they “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards.” BBC chairman Samir Shah was warned of the “very, very dangerous precedent” this kind of selective editing set. But according to Prescott, Shah never replied.
Last month, the BBC apologized for committing a “serious breach” of broadcasting rules when it failed to disclose that the 13 year-old subject of its documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” was the son of a Hamas official.
In Canada, we’ve seen similar media manipulation and anti-conservative bias. Last September, CTV was caught splicing together two different segments of a speech by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. It took a clip of Poilievre talking about a “carbon tax election,” and placed it in a way that appeared to present him as directly attacking the dental-care program.
In CTV’s apology, the broadcaster claimed that it “presented a comment by the official Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context,” claiming that a “misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation.”
In the 2024-25 fiscal year, the CBC fielded 10,384 “comments, complaints and expressions of concern,” 117 per cent more than the previous year. Despite this high number, the CBC ombudsman’s annal report is only 16 pages long and responds dismissively to a highly curated list of 17 examples said to reflect the “broader public mood.” Strangely, the report doesn’t feature a summary of findings, nor recommendations, and concludes with recently appointed CBC ombud Maxime Bertrand’s heartfelt thank you for her position. I kid you not.
The “broader public” will likely not be impressed by the news about the BBC, or CBC’s curated musings. While the BBC ignored its independent external advisor’s warnings, CBC doesn’t even seem to understand the concept of an external independent advisor.
Prior to taking the ombud role, Bertrand worked for CBC for over 30 years. Prescott, on the other hand, spent a decade as a reporter and editor with the Sunday Times before working with the BBC as an external advisor. The CBC should follow suit.
Terry Newman: BBC a case study in how liberal media loses trust
A leaked memo details how the broadcaster edited the president's speech to make him look complicit in the Capitol Hill riot
nationalpost.com
This week, the Telegraph reported that the BBC “doctored” U.S. President Donald Trump’s words in a way that suggested he had incited the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot.
Worse, when the distortions were flagged to BBC executives as “completely misleading,” they dismissed it as a “normal practice” and “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards.” One BBC executive justified the editing, pointing to a congressional meeting packed with Democrats, which concluded that Trump was trying to overturn the 2020 election, as if that excused it. It appears Trump was right: the BBC is fake news.
According to a memo written by Michael Prescott, former independent external advisor to the broadcaster’s editorial guidelines and standards committee, and sent to its board of directors, the BBC has “serious and systemic problems” with its reporting.
The doctored speech was found in an hour-long episode of “Panorama” titled, “Trump: A Second Chance?” which aired in October 2024. Anyone watching the program would have been led to believe that Trump, standing at a podium in front of his supporters on the day of the Capitol Hill riot, said, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In actuality, what Trump said was, “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Quite the difference.
There were other manipulations, as well. Immediately after the doctored speech, the video cut to an audio clip of police warning about “300 Proud Boys” heading toward the Capitol, while showing footage of Proud Boys members carrying flags and marching toward the building. The insinuation was that they were reacting to Trump’s words, when in reality, the footage was taken an hour before Trump’s speech even began.
Fifty-four minutes after Trump urged supporters to march peacefully to the Capitol, he complained about elections being “corrupt.” Speaking about election day, he said, “Most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, ‘I wanna thank you very much,’ and they go off to some other life. But I said: something’s wrong here, something’s really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
In the memo, Prescott wrote: “Examining the charge that Trump had incited protesters to storm Capitol Hill, it turned out that Panorama had spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech. This created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.”
He pointed out that this is why charges were never laid against Trump: “The fact that (Trump) did not explicitly exhort supporters to go down and fight at Capitol Hill was one of the reasons there were no federal charges for incitement to riot.”
Having editorial standards is good practice, but it means nothing if executives ignore, or worse, explain away or excuse, serious issues. Executives should be consistently concerned about bias and disinformation. Like all relationships, audience trust takes a long time to earn, and is much more quickly lost.
When Prescott brought his concerns to management, he said that they “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards.” BBC chairman Samir Shah was warned of the “very, very dangerous precedent” this kind of selective editing set. But according to Prescott, Shah never replied.
Last month, the BBC apologized for committing a “serious breach” of broadcasting rules when it failed to disclose that the 13 year-old subject of its documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” was the son of a Hamas official.
In Canada, we’ve seen similar media manipulation and anti-conservative bias. Last September, CTV was caught splicing together two different segments of a speech by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. It took a clip of Poilievre talking about a “carbon tax election,” and placed it in a way that appeared to present him as directly attacking the dental-care program.
In CTV’s apology, the broadcaster claimed that it “presented a comment by the official Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context,” claiming that a “misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation.”
In the 2024-25 fiscal year, the CBC fielded 10,384 “comments, complaints and expressions of concern,” 117 per cent more than the previous year. Despite this high number, the CBC ombudsman’s annal report is only 16 pages long and responds dismissively to a highly curated list of 17 examples said to reflect the “broader public mood.” Strangely, the report doesn’t feature a summary of findings, nor recommendations, and concludes with recently appointed CBC ombud Maxime Bertrand’s heartfelt thank you for her position. I kid you not.
The “broader public” will likely not be impressed by the news about the BBC, or CBC’s curated musings. While the BBC ignored its independent external advisor’s warnings, CBC doesn’t even seem to understand the concept of an external independent advisor.
Prior to taking the ombud role, Bertrand worked for CBC for over 30 years. Prescott, on the other hand, spent a decade as a reporter and editor with the Sunday Times before working with the BBC as an external advisor. The CBC should follow suit.
Similar threads
