The British Daily Telegraph has reported that the BBC deceptively edited a speech by president Donald Trump to make it look like he had ordered his supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. The footage was aired as part of the BBC documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” in October 2024. The ruse involved splicing together two statements made by Trump over an hour apart. And this then had the effect of making it appear as though president Trump had said that (quote) “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell”, when that is far from what president Trump had actually said. Following this, there have been resignations from BBC leadership, and a plan from the Trump camp to sue the BBC. Well, you’d think that this would be collectively seen as a reflection point for the mainstream media, and yet actions to hold the BBC accountable are portrayed as being contentious! And so, we then ought to address this further, emphasising why this development amounts to both a war on deception, and a triumph for free speech.

In essence, the BBC’s Panorama broadcast a programme, a week before the US election, that “completely misled” viewers by showing the president telling supporters he was going to walk to the Capitol with them to (quote) “fight like hell”, when in fact he said he would walk with them “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. The “mangled” footage was highlighted in a 19-page dossier on BBC bias, which was compiled by a recent member of the corporation’s standards committee and is now circulating in government departments. The dossier said the programme made the US president “‘say’ things [he] never actually said” by splicing together footage from the start of his speech with something he said nearly an hour later.

Now, the document raises serious questions about the culture at the BBC, how it affects impartiality and how managers including Tim Davie, the director-general (who recently resigned), are accused of turning a blind eye to evidence of bias.

As alluded to earlier, the most damaging disclosures involve a one-hour Panorama special called Trump: A Second Chance? that was broadcast in October last year. As well as altering president Trump’s words, the documentary also showed footage of flag-waving men marching on the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6th 2021 after the president spoke, which “created the impression that Trump’s supporters had taken up his ‘call to arms’”. Meanwhile, the just referenced footage was shot before president Trump had even started speaking. As such, the report said Panorama’s “distortion of the day’s events” was so egregious that viewers would ask: “Why should the BBC be trusted, and where will this all end?” And correctly so.

But, here is why this question matters: It essentially speaks to the complicity of BBC leadership on this matter. And I say this because the report also states that senior executives and the BBC’s chairman had ignored and dismissed a string of serious complaints raised by the corporation’s own standards watchdog. When the issue was raised with managers, they (quote) “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards”. The report’s author then warned Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, of the “very, very dangerous precedent” set by Panorama but received no reply. The internal whistleblower then further sent a copy of the 19-page letter to every member of the BBC Board last month. BUT, BEFORE WE PROCEED, HERE’S AN EXCERPT OF THE Panorama edit in question. The first few seconds show What panorama showed viewers, and the second shows what president Trump actually stated.

TRUMP’S CASE AGAINST BBC IS RELEVANT TO AMERICANS & AMERICAN MEDIA

Now, some Americans may dismiss this as a British affair, given that few tune into the BBC. Yet it’s profoundly relevant for America: this is considering that US outlets have engaged in near-identical manipulations of coverage on president Trump, transgender issues, and race.  As such, this report should galvanize US media owners committed to reform. Take CNN: It baselessly labeled January 6 an “insurrection” that killed five people and performed a deceptive edit of Trump’s speech—flagged by X investigator MazeMoore. He observed that it may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same: being to make the speech sound worse than what it actually was; CNN basically took everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible – which is precisely what the BBC also did.

Similarly, CNN and others were called out for distorting Trump’s comments on Liz Cheney as a “war hawk.” President Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost.” But, still, the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what President Trump said – hence, it must not be lost on us that this discussion matters for Americans and the media in America, beyond president Trump himself.

Then, secondly, the BBC case matters for Americans because of the issues that they deceptively report on, and their often global applications. For instance, the independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, who wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias noted that “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity. The central claim implied causation, (specifically that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” The entire report was then taken down, which is said to be a very rare action by the BBC, as such it had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging information. Not only this, but Prescott even noted that no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode, even as worrying questions remain.

Another instance of the BBC’s bias, which matters for Americans, involved a significant story about doctors inflicting severe harm on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. As Prescott notes: “In March 2024, leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (or WPATH) sparked widespread media coverage over concerns about the quality of care for so-called gender-distressed children. The story was covered by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, The Times, and others—but not the BBC.” This indicates the BBC’s censorship and bias on transgender issues. This is considering that the BBC ignored detransitioners—individuals who regret undergoing hormone treatments or surgeries in attempts to change their sex or gender. It failed to report on a major lawsuit filed by nurses after their hospital permitted a man to use the women’s changing room. And, aside from the WPATH leaks, the BBC provided minimal or no coverage of the broader trans medical scandal, despite the UK government’s ban on puberty blockers.

Meanwhile, in stark contrast, the BBC aired an unusually high volume of stories celebrating drag queens, praised a male wrestler competing in the women’s category, and ran an article headlined: “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” The reporter wrote: “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” – which weirdly tries to attribute the horrific actions of this so-called transgender person on their actual gender as a man, almost as if to imply that they are no longer capable of this same crime now that they identify as transgender – which, of course, is nonsensical. 

But, ultimately, Prescott identified these areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem; which is that the Executive over at the BBC repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems of bias and misinformation, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all. They thus spewed gross misinformation that contributed to many misleading narratives on issues of global concern – like race, the transgenderism hoax, and wars. As such, this is why this should matter to Americans (and everyone, for that matter): it is because your views might have been potentially influenced by people, reporters, writers, and mere conversations that were informed by the BBC’s deceptive reporting and doctoring of events. This is why we cannot afford to dismiss this as a Trump and BBC matter. RATHER, it is a matter that concerns everyone with a vested interest in truth and factual accuracy.

THE BBC’S BIAS AGAINST TRUMP IN THE PERIOD OF THE NOVEMBER 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 

Now, here is another crucial reason why the case between Trump and the BBC matters beyond them: simply, it has led to the exposure of the BBC’s potential election interference. In light of this,  an internal BBC whistleblowing report listed ways in which the corporation allegedly displayed anti-Trump bias during the 2024 US election. Aside from the Panorama documentary we’ve just discussed, which “doctored” Donald Trump’s 2021 speech on the day of the Capitol Hill riots, the author of the letter sent to BBC Board members highlights nine other alleged examples. 

In addition to the misrepresentation of Trump;s remarks on Liz Cheney (which we’ve discussed), The letter from Michael Prescott indicated that the BBC “ignored its own guidelines about not giving undue weight to a single poll” and gave excessive coverage to a rogue poll conducted in Iowa days before the election that suggested Ms Harris was on course for victory in the state. The poll “dominated coverage” in the days before polling day “while other polls that contradicted its findings were underplayed”.

Secondly, the BBC focused too heavily on campaign issues promoted by Ms Harris, such as abortion and women’s rights, “at the expense of giving greater weight” to the economy, immigration and employment, which proved to be a significant factor in how people voted.

The third issue highlighted by Prescott is that the coverage of president Trump’s May 2024 convictions for allegedly falsifying records “often failed to highlight that many US prosecutors are political appointees” which meant viewers did not have a good understanding of the so-called lawfare at play during the election campaign.

Then, the BBC sometimes fell into using contested language such as “reproductive rights” without attributing the phrases to the campaigners that promoted them, which signalled “a biased mindset” to viewers, particularly those in America. There was also a tendency to frame issues in a way that was similar to the Harris campaign and there was less fact-checking of “questionable statements” she made compared with those made by president Trump. Meanwhile, the use of aggregate economic and immigration data skewed coverage because “it masked important class and regional variations which contributed to the election result”. AGAIN, this should matter to Americans because your views and vote might have been potentially influenced by reporters and writers who themselves were informed by the BBC’s deceptive reporting and doctoring of events. 

Of course, I imagine some of you watching are asking: What differentiates media houses and news stations in their reporting? Doesn’t everyone inherently have a bias, which they depicted in the coverage of the US elections? Well, if you are asking this question, you’re certainly not wrong. But, what matters are substantive considerations and nuances on what drives a respective media house or news station. For instance, here at LN24 International, our responsibility IS to report truthfully, so that viewers have sufficient or an abundance of information to make an informed decision – whatever that decision might be, which therefore, carries the responsibility not to try to manipulate people with doctored information.

Secondly, our responsibility, as truth protagonists, is also to highlight and expose areas of deception. And then, finally, in light of our unique agenda, which here at LN24 International, is rooted in the Word of God, and not mere inclinations on the political spectrum, our responsibility is to serve that agenda by constantly anchoring our discussions on the yardstick and guide that God’s Word offers. This means, my considerations about the US election were not about subjective considerations of Trump as a candidate, but rather on what God says about him.

As such, at no point do we manufacture information or doctor facts and speeches. Instead, we propagate truth and expose deception, constantly emphasising what God’s word teaches us concerning specific developments around the world. So, yes: every media house and news station has an agenda, and perhaps even an inherent bias. But, what matters is substantive consideration of what that agenda is, and what influences that agenda. For us, it is the Word of God and the teachings of His Prophet, the Man of God and President of Loveworld Incorporated, Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD. ANd we do this understanding that we have a responsibility to mount guard over the hearth of men with the truth, for deception is the harbinger of the end times.

BBC DG TIM DAVIE & NEWS CEO DEBORAH TURNESS RESIGN OVER MISLEADING TRUMP SPEECH EDIT

Now, in a seismic shake-up at the BBC, Director-General Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness announced their resignations on 9 November 2025, following intense backlash over the misleading edit in a Panorama documentary featuring a speech by president Donald Trump.

Davie and Turness, both long-serving BBC stalwarts, framed their departures as acts of accountability rather than forced exits. Davie, who assumed the director-general role in September 2020 amid the corporation’s post-Brexit funding battles, wrote an exiting email to the BBC’s 20,000 staff, stating that (quote): “Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made, and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility. While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.” He further pledged an “orderly transition” over the coming months, praising the BBC’s alleged resilience in “increasingly polarised times.”

Then Deborah Turness, who helmed BBC News since 2022 after stints at ITV and NBC, also had her memo, and her memo was actually more pointed, stating that (quote): “The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on president Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love. As the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.” She rejected claims of “institutional bias,” insisting: “Our journalists aren’t corrupt and I will stand by their journalism.

TRUMP PUTS BBC ON NOTICE: RETRACT & APOLOGISE, OR FACE $1 BILLION LAWSUIT

In addition, president Donald Trump is seeking to hold the BBC responsible for “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements,” giving the British broadcaster a Friday deadline to make things right or face a $1 billion lawsuit.

Trump is essentially taking action against the BBC, and his litigation counsel sent a scathing notice of intent to bring a civil action lawsuit on Sunday to BBC Chair Samir Shah, along with general counsel Sarah Jones. The letter demands that “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” made about Trump must be retracted immediately.

TRUMP’S CASES AGAINST THE DECEPTIVE MEDIA COVERAGE ARE A TRIUMPH FOR FREE SPEECH

Now, I believe that Trump’s potential lawsuit against the BBC and even his successful one against CBS are a triumph for free speech. Let’s begin with some context: You’d recall that president Trump announced a lawsuit against CBS, ’60 Minutes’, and Paramount, alleging election fraud through manipulation of interview content involving Kamala Harris. And we ought to begin with why Trump is right about this accusation; looking at some context. 

In essence, for a long time in the campaign period before the November election, Kamala Harris did not give time to sit-down interviews with the media – in fact, she was notorious for this fact. Instead, she had prioritised rallies, under the pretentious justification that her campaign began late, and so she had to cover much ground. Obviously, this was a bogus justification because she had every opportunity to do both campaign rallies and sit-down media interviews (like most presidential candidates do). But, eventually, this aversion to sit down interviews began to work against Harris because she had no dominant policy narrative associated with her, and was avoiding sit-down interviews – which were supposed to be an opportunity for her to communicate her policy direction. And so, her poll numbers were tanking, and then eventually Kamala Harris was then desperate enough to consider mainstream media interviews.

But, even the focus on mainstream media interviews was a soft entry for Kamala Harris into the world of sit-down discussions on policy, because the mainstream media has a very obvious liberal bias, meaning that it was far from being the bedrock of adequate election coverage. But still, the mainstream media, during elections, generally is supposed to focus explicitly on administrative and policy issues. This is why, despite bias and misinformation from the likes of CNN, CBS, and MSNBC, JD Vance appeared steadily on those platforms and discussed policy and critical issues of governance.

Which then brings us to the CBS 60 Minutes interview that became central to the lawsuit. The issue with this interview was that CBS News literally manipulated the final product they showed to viewers of that particular interview. In fact, CBS was even formally issued with an FCC complaint charging “significant and intentional news distortion” regarding its surreptitious editing of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview. And you get to understand how intentional that was when you juxtapose the actual answer from Harris and what CBS showed.

In essence, CBS KNEW that Harris was notorious from incoherent and verbose responses, and how that made her less appealing and trustworthy to voters. The edited interview was thus a deliberate effort to clean up her image as a presidential candidate in this respect! In fact, we can note this intention to clean up Kamala Harris’ image at the time when we contrast the ‘60 Minutes’ interview with others that Kamala Harris did. For instance, in her desperation as her numbers were tanking, Harris also appeared on Fox News for an interview with Bret Baier. The consensus with Bret Baier is that he has the most diverse viewers, inclusive of conservatives, liberals and centrists – which means this was a decent opportunity for Harris to endeavour to speak sensibly. Well, she was asked critical and very expected questions, but the quality of her responses continued to show that she has been pampered by a media that is biassed towards her, and that when she is pressed in the slightest, she crumbles.

All of this is to say that the lawsuit from Trump is valid because CBS did edit or “doctor” the contents of the 60 Minutes interview in order to try to remedy Kamala Harris’ image as a political candidate in a manner that amounted to a manipulation of voters, because the 60 Minutes interview was not an accurate display of Kamala Harris.

Furthermore, I should also state in light of this discussion that the election manipulation aspect does not stem from the fact that CBS brought in Kamala Harris on their 60 Minutes programme, or even the fact that CBS has a liberal bias – all media companies have an agenda, and this is how CBS has inclined itself. RATHER, the election manipulation aspect is primarily found in the fact that CBS was intentionally trying to make Kamala Harris appear in a manner far different to how she actually is – they used editing capacities to make her a presentable candidate, thus robbing voters and viewers of the opportunity to adjudicate her on the basis of an objective and unedited depiction of herself. This is where the election manipulation issue is.

Now, here is a really important question pertaining to all of this: Is president Trump’s lawsuit against CBS, 60 Minutes and Paramount then equivalent to a war on media freedom? And I will state now that the answer is categorically no. In fact, this is precisely what a world where free speech has absolute protections ought to look like.

Let me explain. CBS, 60 Minutes and Paramount are free to produce content that they wish to broadcast. In fact, as far as I am concerned, this lawsuit is neither trying to police the content that these companies and programmes produce, nor is it trying to stop them from producing content altogether. Instead, what this lawsuit is about is holding these entities accountable for misleading content that they were free to produce and broadcast. This is to say that this lawsuit is addressing abuses of media freedom, as a result of manipulated programming.

And in this case, the manipulated programming is because the entities whom the lawsuit is directed towards intentionally doctored an interview in order to make a contender in a presidential election look far more appealing than she actually was. When you look at the contrast between the actual answer that Kamala Harris gave and the doctored version from CBS, you can clearly see that they were trying to cover her propensity to be incoherent in her responses – which, at that time, was a big critique against her. Therefore, this lawsuit is about accountability for ill conduct from media entities.

I should also highlight that in a world where free speech is regarded as an absolutely protected inalienable freedom, no one (including media corporations) should have ANY limits placed on their freedom to speak or produce content and information – no matter how hateful, and misinforming. HOWEVER, where the content is, in fact, riddled with issues such as inciting violence against others or misinformation, there should be a fair and objective legal process that allows litigation. This is what an absolute value of free speech looks like; as opposed to censorship laws that try to police and speech – like we see in Europe, something that JD Vance warned Europe against during the Munich Security Conference.

That, in essence, is what the CBS lawsuit reflected. It was not a legal measure aimed at taking away press and media freedom, it is one that holds the media accountable within the ambit of absolute protection of free speech. And so, it is a triumph for free speech because it demonstrates a constructive way to deal with a deceptive media, WITHOUT censorship. EVEN for the BBC lawsuit: Trump has given them time to retract the documentary AND apologise, before he doubles down on the lawsuit. This is what an intersection between absolute protections for free speech and accountability look like! And this is something that was long emphasised by the President of Loveword Incorporated.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso