The BBC Apologizes to Trump for the Stitch-Up but Vows It Will Never Pay Him Compensation

This is from the dodgy state media propaganda mill itself.

So I wouldn't believe any of it.

The BBC has apologised to US President Donald Trump for a Panorama episode that spliced parts of his 6 January 2021 speech together, but rejected his demands for compensation.
The corporation said the edit had given "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" and said it would not show the 2024 programme again.
Lawyers for Trump have threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn (£ 759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC Breakfast she was confident the corporation was "gripping this with the seriousness that it demands", adding her role was to ensure "the highest standards are upheld".
But she also told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the BBC's editorial standards and guidelines were "in some cases not robust enough and in other cases not consistently applied", adding that there would need to be people "at a very senior level with a journalistic background".

So what was the problem? Too many hard-left liberals at the BBC?

Don't be a sap, Jack! The real problem at the BBC is that they allowed conservative-leaning political appointees on the BBC's board.

Political appointments to the corporation's board would be examined in the BBC's charter review, she said in response to a question asking if member Sir Robbie Gibb, a former political adviser to Theresa May, had overstepped his remit and weighed into politics.

May was the UK PM and leader of the "Conservative" Party from 2016 to 2019. Her political advisor, presumably, leans right (by British standards, anyway).

So that's where the BBC is looking for a problem: There's one slightly conservative man on the board! The problem has nothing to do with the 99% hard-left staffers, "journalists" and editors!

While this was a matter for the board and its chairman, she said, those appointments "damaged confidence and trust in the BBC's impartiality".

Yes it's just this one dude. Once you get rid of him, you will be officially bias-free.

You might say "But the BBC was just responding to a (left-wing) 'journalist's' question."

Um, no. The BBC chose to insert this claim into their own story acknowledging their guilt in the matter of the doctored video of Trump. The BBC is trying to suggest that there's no bias at the BBC, but if there is any bias, it's just this one slightly-conservative-leaning dude.

I'm sure this will not surprise you but the "European Broadcasting Union" also doctored Trump's remarks in a similar way to doctoring of the BBC.

HOLY SHIT

European Broadcasting Union appears to have ALSO deceptively EDITED Trump’s speech like the BBC, to make it look like Trump was calling for an insurrection on January 6th

The NRK or Norweigan Broadcasting Corporation who aired this clip, is a state run public… pic.twitter.com/BA3sHd9Rso
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 13, 2025

The rest of the post will be a grab-bag of Woke Media stories that are important enough to post but not big enough for their own post.

First up: The BBC is openly propagandizing for powerful artificial hormone induced "breastmilk" in men, claiming that hormone-filled "milk" coming out of a transgender "woman's" non-breasts are every bit as healthful for a child as an actual real woman's milk. (Required disclaimer: Trans women are women, bigot.)

BBC News actually ran a story on “trans milk” tasting just like real breast milk. You cannot make this stuff up.

This is not news, it's nonsense. What happened to common sense? Get a grip people. pic.twitter.com/g5WDJtuHKi
— Chad Prather (@WatchChad) November 12, 2025

Mmm, space-age trans man-milk.

Below, Ricky Gervais blows the whistle on "journalists' : easy resort to straight up lying. I'll just link the video first, so as not to spoil the story if you want to watch, but then after the video I'll relay the story in Easy-To-Read Words.

So here's the story: He had an interview scheduled with a "journalist" from one of the "Tony" British papers, one of the "Sundays." The "journalist" mistook the date of the interview, and didn't show up to Gervais' office at the appointed time. No problem, Gervais gave her a phone interview.

But when he read the actual story produced by this interview, she claimed that she sat in his office for a face-to-face interview and described his "body language" during the interview, which showed he really didn't want to be there. She at one point a photographer came to take his picture, and then his face "looked relieved."

During the interview, she asked him if she could go long, and he agreed to do so. In the story, she claimed that he liked the interview (and interviewer) so much that he asked her if she could stay longer to interview him.

Minor lies-- but it shows how absolutely contemptuous they are of their first, highest, and only duty: To tell the truth.

Next up: Ruby Rose attacks Sydney Sweeney as a "cretin" for taking the role in the boxing movie Cristy away from her.

If you don't know who Ruby Rose is, congratulations, you share that with 8 billion people. She's a former model and a current -- excuse the number of quotes I'm about to deploy -- " " " " " " " actress " " " " " " " -- who doesn't actually get any acting roles because her " " " " " " " acting " " " " " " " is dogshit.

She was the female assassin in John Wick 2. To avoid the problem of her attempting to speak actual words, they made the character a deaf mute.

She's also the idiot who played the world's most annoying character, "Batwoman," who dissed Bruce Wayne with a girlboss smirk for having dared to build his own bat-suit without making it fit a superior woman like herself.

Importantly for this story -- she quit that show and left them in a bind.

Now I'm no Joe Hollywood but I think when you just up and quit a show despite being under contract, leaving this expensive (well, it's CW, so "expensive" is a relative term) production without its lead, I think other producers might not be willing to take you on as a lead actress in a movie. Especially because she claimed she quit Batwoman due to injuries from the fight scenes, and the movie she claims she had won the lead role in, Cristy, is about... a female boxer and would require a lot of fight scenes.

Anyway, Ruby Rose is pissed at Sydney Sweeney for taking the role from her.

Australian actress Ruby Rose attacked Hollywood megastar Sydney Sweeney, calling her a "cretin" after the recently released film, Christy -- which stars Sweeney -- flopped at the box office.
"The original Christy Martin script was incredible. Life changing. I was attached to play Cherry. Everyone had experience with the core material. Most of us were actually gay. It's part of why I stayed in acting. Losing roles happens all the time," a seemingly envious Rose wrote in a Monday Threads post.
The Orange Is the New Black actress went on to attack the Euphoria star for the remarks she made in response to Christy's low box office results, in which Sweeney said, in part, "We don't always just make art for numbers, we make it for impact."
"For her PR to talk about it flopping and saying SS did it for the 'people.' None of 'the people' want to see someone who hates them, parading around pretending to be us," Rose reacted.
"You're a cretin and you ruined the film. Period," Rose said to Sweeney, before asserting that "Christy deserved better."
Sweeney -- who stars in Christy, a biopic about lesbian boxer, Christy Martin -- took to Instagram on Monday to say that she is "deeply proud" of the film and "the story we told," sharing several behind-the-scenes photos from the set.
In her Instagram caption, Sweeney added that she was "proud to represent someone as strong and resilient as Christy Martin."

A female presenter on Sky News Australia pointed out that Ruby Rose's attack on Sweeney for taking the role of a lesbian despite not being a lesbian herself is deeply hypocritical. First, she points out, Ruby Rose isn't lesbian -- she's "non-binary," whatever that means.

Maybe she claimed she was "non-binary" so she could play the lesbian character Batwoman. Maybe she was just Gay for Pay-Day. I don't know, but apparently she's not lesbian, so why should she get the role based on that?

Second, Batwoman is a Jewish character, and Ruby Rose herself got mobbed on Twitter for not being lesbian and also not being Jewish but stealing the role of Batwoman from whatever lesbian Jewish actress was "owed" it based on identity.

Ruby Rose didn't care about that. She took the role. Until she abruptly quit it.

But now only lesbians, to which group Ruby Rose does not belong, can play a lesbian boxer. Okay, whatever.

Lastly, the low-rated deadeyed diversity hire Abby Phillip says that she has a special mission on The Scott Jennings Show on CNN. (Which is incorrectly called "The Abby Philip Show" in CNN listings.)

She says her special mission is to correct all the "misinformation" conservatives believe, because we live in bubbles where we hear nothing but "misinformation" and not the truth that messianic left-wing black women like Abby Phillip have special access to.

Based on Michelle Obama and Abby Phillip and Joy Reid... and Jasmine Ratchet...

I'm starting to think that while left-wing women generally exist in the thickest, sturdiest propaganda bubbles in the world, I think the propaganda bubbles that left-wing black women live in might be the Ultimate Bubbles.

Posted by: Ace at 04:10 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Court time!

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at November 14, 2025 04:11 PM (ExV1e)

2 I told 'em.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at November 14, 2025 04:11 PM (ExV1e)

3 And now we wait.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at November 14, 2025 04:11 PM (ExV1e)

4 As the suspense grows.