BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but rejects demand for $1bn compensation
The BBC has apologized to Donald Trump for editing out a speech in a documentary after the US president threatened a $1 billion lawsuit.
The company said Thursday evening that chairman Samir Shah sent a personal letter to the White House apologizing for media coverage of Trump’s speech. Panorama The episode was aired last October.
But the broadcaster refused to compensate the president, adding: “I absolutely disagree that there is any basis for the libel claim.”
Trump threatened to sue the BBC over the editing of the speech, which made it appear as if he was openly calling for people to attack the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Its lawyers wrote a letter to the company earlier this week demanding a retraction and compensation by Friday.
In the retreat broadcast by the BBC, ‘Trump: Second Chance?’ It was stated that the episode “will not be broadcast in this form on any BBC platform again.”
The following statements were included in the retraction: “This program was reviewed following criticism of how President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 was edited.
“During this sequence, we showed quotes from different parts of the conversation.
“However, we acknowledge that our editing inadvertently created the impression that we were showing a single portion of the speech throughout, rather than excerpts from different points of the speech, creating the false impression that President Trump was directly calling for violent action.
“The BBC wishes to apologize to President Trump for this error of judgment.”
This comes amid reports that the company faces accusations that it misled viewers about Mr Trump’s speech at the US Capitol more than two years before the controversial Panorama edit was released.
In an episode broadcast in June 2022, Newsnight reportedly played a similar edit of the US president’s speech to that used on the Panorama program in October 2024 – both of which appeared as if he were openly urging people to storm the Capitol.
Responding to the new allegations on The Daily T podcast, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now reviewing it.”
The chairman, who has not yet responded to the BBC’s letter, said earlier this week that he had an “obligation” to take legal action against the company.
In an interview with Fox News, he said the BBC had “defrauded the public” in editing the speech, which made it seem as if he was openly urging people to attack the US Capitol.
Two of the BBC’s most senior figures, director general Tim Davie and news director Deborah Turness, have resigned amid anger sparked by the leak of a memo written by Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the BBC’s broadcasting standards committee.
The memo shares concerns about institutional bias within the company and notes that the way clips of Mr. Trump’s speech in the 2024 episode were put together made it seem like he told his supporters he would march with them to the U.S. Capitol to “fight like hell”; The section in which Mr. Trump said he wanted his supporters to demonstrate peacefully is being removed.
Addressing staff on Tuesday morning, Davie admitted the organization had “made some mistakes that cost us” but lashed out at the BBC’s “enemies” and called on his colleagues to “fight for our journalism”.
Mr. Trump has previously filed lawsuits against media companies. New York Times and CNN.
In a letter to the BBC, his lawyer Alejandro Brito demanded the immediate retraction of “false, defamatory, derogatory and inflammatory statements” made about Mr Trump and said the BBC had violated Florida’s libel law.
On Monday, Mr. Shah issued an apology to the company for an “error of judgment” in editing the speech for the Panorama episode.
Responding to a letter from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Mr Shah said more than 500 complaints had been received since the Michael Prescott memo raising concerns about the Panorama episode was published, adding: “We accept that the way the speech was edited gave the impression of a direct call for violent action.”
