Everything to do with Donald Trump results in exaggeration, both in praise and in attacks. Many defenders of the BBC have called this week for the British public body to respond to the American president with the famous letter that the satirical magazine Private eye responded in 1971 to threats of a libel suit launched against the publication by businessman James Arkell: “Dear sir, our response is this: go to hell” (Fuck youin the original). Since then, it has become a common joke to use the phrase “I refer you to the case of Arkell vs. Pressdram (Pressdram was the name of the magazine’s owner)” to deflate any frivolous legal threat against a news outlet.
The public body, however, has decided to use a more diplomatic route to try to reduce one of the biggest credibility crises it has faced. The BBC has apologized to Trump and removed the programme’s controversial documentary from its digital platform. Panorama. First of all because the error existed and needed to be corrected. The misleading editing of two audio clips of the US president’s speech on January 6, 2021, which appeared to suggest a direct order to his followers to storm the Capitol, ended up causing the resignation of the entity’s director general, Tim Davie, and the head of the News Division, Deborah Turness.
But the channel’s lawyers insist that what happened was an “error of judgement” and not manipulation resulting from the “ideological bias” that the BBC’s enemies, internal and external, have attributed to it for decades. For this reason they refused to grant Trump’s request to pay financial compensation for the “damage to his person and reputation” that the documentary may have caused.
“The BBC should shame the American TV networks that pusillanimously capitulated, and reject the meanness with which they want to force it to issue a deplorable apology or even hand over a financial donation to Trump’s presidential library. The corporation made a mistake. It corrected it (albeit a little late). And it apologized. It all ends here,” defended Alan Rusbridger, the newspaper’s legendary editor. Caretakertoday at the magazine’s headline prospect.
Trump, who has turned politics into a game of negotiation and a power duel, has used the same technique, threatening him with multimillion-dollar lawsuits, against any media, law firms or academic institutions that annoy or criticize him. Some, such as ABC or CBS networks, have decided to pay large sums of compensation in out-of-court settlements, to ease the pressure.
The BBC case, however, has acquired a symbolism that transcends the American sphere. The network has an international prestige that is difficult to match and, despite its mistakes, enjoys the respect and admiration of millions of viewers, who consider it an example of serious and rigorous journalism amid the morass of disinformation that has fueled the social networks so prized by authoritarian politicians like Trump.
A questionable flight request
The American president insisted on Friday evening (Saturday morning in Europe) to ask the chain for compensation that could range between 1,000 and 5,000 million dollars (860 and 4,600 million euros), and announced that he will present the case next week before the courts of Florida, where he legally resides. The reason given is that in that State the crime of defamation becomes statute-barred after two years, compared to just one year in British jurisdiction. The Discord documentary aired in October 2024.
Trump also revealed that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has asked to speak to him and that he plans to call him over the weekend.
However, many legal experts doubt that Trump’s maneuver will take off, because the constitutional and legal doctrine of the United States firmly protects freedom of the press.
In any case, the BBC has avoided the political battle to focus on a practical and moderate response to the White House challenge. The company’s legal team summarized the reasons for rejecting the merits of the lawsuit in five points.
First of all, the program Panorama It was not broadcast on any channels in the United States. Second, the documentary caused no harm to Trump, who was re-elected president shortly thereafter. Furthermore, they add, the revision of the fragments of the speech was carried out with the intention of shortening it, without any malice, in their opinion. They were also just 12 seconds into an hour-long report that contained many pro-Trump voices. Finally, remember, American laws protect any opinion on public or political matters.
“The BBC is to be congratulated for responding to this legal challenge in the best possible way. It has given way where it had to give way, but has stood firm in the face of excessive demand. It is the best way to always respond to these legal threats, because it eliminates the excuse to ask for more,” wrote the magazine’s former legal affairs specialist. New statesmanDavid Allen Green.
The BBC’s measured response to Trump’s intervention could end up being a shock to the network, which needs to bolster its prestige more than ever. For decades the media and the conservative right in the United Kingdom have placed her at the center of their attacks. Previous right-wing governments, such as that of Boris Johnson, have threatened to withdraw public funding and have filled their boards with like-minded advisers, such as Robbie Gibb, a well-known ultra-conservative, who has worked tirelessly to blast the entity’s image.
There have been errors ―more or less exaggerated by critics―, such as the clumsiness in the editing of Trump’s speech, or the recent broadcast of a documentary on Gaza in which it was hidden that one of the minors who reported firsthand the situation in the Strip was the son of a Hamas leader. And the BBC corrected them. The credibility of a media also consists of this. There are many friendly voices who this week denounced the crisis as an excessive and unfair response to the coordinated campaign of attacks against the company carried out by the British right and Trump’s team, and who celebrated the public body’s moderate but firm response.
