Why should BBC settle out of court? It has been established Panorama had very limited play in the states. It did not seem to affect the elections one way or the other. As Nick says, it is a relatively high bar to prove malice or defamation. He does not necessarily have the Florida courts in his pocket. And the Florida courts would be hard pressed to determine if it has any jurisdiction over the BBC.
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I noticed that in his Truth Social post Trump referred to the UK as a 'Foreign Country' - capital letters- that is 'supposed' to be one of the USA's closest allies.
Random Capitalization is a standard characteristic of Trump’s social media posting style.
Though BBC broadcast and on-demand services are only (legally) available to those with a TV licence (ie: those who have contributed to funding the BBC), the BBC can (and does) sell programmes to be broadcast on other channels - re-runs on other UK channels and channels in other nations. Selling programmes to other channels is a vital source of income, the costs of producing programming isn't covered by licence fees. If there's uncertainty within the BBC about whether this particular Panorama episode was broadcast in the US that presumably means that rights to broadcast it were sold to one or more US networks but the BBC don't know if it was actually broadcast - I can see why US networks might have bought a programme about former President Trump but then decide that when it became about President-elect Trump that it wasn't worth broadcasting.
Why should BBC settle out of court? It has been established Panorama had very limited play in the states. It did not seem to affect the elections one way or the other. As Nick says, it is a relatively high bar to prove malice or defamation. He does not necessarily have the Florida courts in his pocket. And the Florida courts would be hard pressed to determine if it has any jurisdiction over the BBC.
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I'm not saying the BBC should settle out of court. I would hope they'd stick to their guns and with the full support of British politicians and the viewing public.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I agree that it is different in the case of the BBC as they aren't based in the US.
Trump seems to have extended the issue beyond the Panorama programme and given the BBC an ultimatum that it should 'withdraw' any allegedly defamatory remarks it's supposed to have made about him throughout it's entire broadcast output. It's meant to do this by Friday.
He's doing his usual blustering and bullying thing. What bothers me is that others will ride on the back of this to damage the BBC or bend it to their particular agenda.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I doubt there was a strong feeling that the courts would be against them; indeed, I’d guess the media outlets probably thought they had very good, though certainly not ironclad, chances in court. Given the First Amendment, the standard for a public official or public figure to succeed in a defamation case here is very high.
Rather, I’d suspect it says more about business decisions that in the long run it would be cheaper to settle than go through drawn-out and expensive litigation, and that settling would make the attention on them, both Trump’s attention and the public’s attention, go elsewhere. In other words, better for business for there not to be a case to start with,
@Enoch just as an aside, using a VPN to access otherwise inaccessible TV and streaming services is incredibly common - both generally online and in the US specifically. In the US local teams' sports games are often not available on local TV in order to try and get people to attend games in person, so having a VPN to watch sports games is very common in the US.
I wonder if the US media outlets that settled out of court did so pragmatically because the president has some control over licencing etc which he doesn't with the BBC.
I wonder if the US media outlets that settled out of court did so pragmatically because the president has some control over licencing etc which he doesn't with the BBC.
That's a polite way of saying they collaborated in Trump's current modus operandi, which is to sue as a legalised means of soliciting bribes and/or protection money.
We seem to be talking as though BBC news is the whole of the BBC. BBC output is much much more than the news arm. Just because one arm has problems doesn’t mean that the rest should go or be diminished. There have been scandals across the BBC for years.
Yes, a very fair point @Hugal but the news arm, like the Corporation's natural history output, is one of its flagship services worldwide.
The Beeb is regarded in some quarters almost like the royal family in some respects, something we can build our national reputation on worldwide.
Hence concerns about The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince.
We no longer have an Empire or a ginormous fleet but by golly we've got excellent news coverage, Sir David Attenborough and incredible footage of tree-frogs and lemurs.
It would damage our own sense of national pride and our perceived standing abroad (from our point of view that us, or at least some of us), if the BBC was damaged.
For all its faults the BBC is still up there in many people's minds with Churchill's war-time speeches, the Spitfire and 'the little ships' at Dunkirk.
Yes, a whole load of mythology around all of that and the BBC does try to maintain that kind of vibe and mystique.
These things go in waves.
I can remember all sorts of right-wing fulminating about Play for Today, Dennis Potter, the BBC's late night arts coverage and much more besides.
It could be quite bold and cutting edge at times and let's be honest, at times it's flown close to the wind in various directions. I can remember a documentary way back that came under criticism for its negative portrayal of the Army and over-turning of generally accepted heroics.
I knew someone who was friends of the director of that particular programme and he admitted that he'd deliberately set up situations to show officers and army spokespeople in a bad light.
I didn't disagree with the programme's premise but the methods used to get the footage was highly questionable to my mind.
Anyhow, I doubt very much whether some of the dramas and documentaries aired in the 1970s would even get made today.
Yes you are right but you would think that the news arm is the whole BBC the way it is being reported by some media outlets and certain parties who want it gone.
There has been talk that Trump’s legal team sent the letter to the wrong address and have now missed the one year limit for definition.
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
Is anyone else finding that the link to the Beeb's headline trump article relating to Epstein this morning is dead? Everything else on the page seems to be working.
So are other commentators. We need to wait and see.
As @chrisstiles has said it gives Farage an excuse to avoid media scrutiny and another reason for his supporters to avoid 'legacy media' and get their news from sources that aren't subject to the same level of accountability as the BBC and other mainstream media outlets.
One of the tropes these people thrive on is the idea that mainstream or 'legacy media' is unreliable and all run by leftists and liberals.
Tommy 'Ten Names' Robinson is hailed by some of them as a 'journalist' even though he has no formal journalistic qualifications as far as I am aware.
The BBC is far from perfect but look at the alternatives and it's enough to make us starry-eyed and uncritical - which isn't the best response either.
I wonder if the US media outlets that settled out of court did so pragmatically because the president has some control over licencing etc which he doesn't with the BBC.
So far as I know or can recall, none of the media outlets that settled out of court are licensed by the FCC. Neither Paramount Global, which owns CBS News, nor Disney, which owns ABC News, are licensed by the FCC. It is local ABC and CBS affiliates, which can chose not to air ABC and CBS programs (as we saw with the Jimmy Kimmell situation) that are licensed.
FWIW, neither the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, both of which Trump has sued (and neither of which settled, as best I recall), have federal licenses. And it was a federal district court judge* in Florida who dismissed the case against the New York Times.
* Broadly speaking, a case based solely on state tort law can be brought in federal court if the amount in controversy exceeds $75k and if the plaintiff(s) and the defendants(s) are citizens of/domiciled in different states. Under some circumstances, this can include defendants from/domiciled in other countries. In cases such as these, the federal court applies the relevant substantive state laws and is bound by state court precedents.
Yes @Pomona, absolutely. I had a long and fruitless discussion with a Reform supporter on this issue.
They also thought it was highly suspicious that media reports often contained the same phrases and detail. I explained that this was because there's a tendency for them to lift details out of press-releases, a practice I don't particularly condone but generally not something they do with nefarious intent.
I've never been a journalist but have worked in PR so have some idea how these things work.
This same person was convinced The Guardian wasn't being transparent about its donors when a quick Google search revealed its annual report and accounts.
I'm not saying The Grauniad is perfect, far from it, but at least it is subject to more scrutiny than some of the whacko-jacko 'news' sites this Reform voter follows.
'But they are Christian journalists, so they must be reliable ...'
Trump vs BBC.... the saga continues .... Did anyone expect Trump to behave graciously?What changes will be forced on the BBC? Yet more cuts so certain oligarths can increase their dominance of the media?
But .... will the new scrutiny of that fateful speech backfire on Trump? One hopes.
Trump vs BBC.... the saga continues .... Did anyone expect Trump to behave graciously?What changes will be forced on the BBC? Yet more cuts so certain oligarths can increase their dominance of the media?
But .... will the new scrutiny of that fateful speech backfire on Trump? One hopes.
Normal people - human beings - recognize an apology and look to restore a cordial or neutral relationship.
But this is not about the human being Trump. This is about the Brand and the Name and the value of that brand and name.
An apology is an admission of wrongdoing which is tantamount to a confession of culpability.
Anybody who is schooled in the art of lawfare understands the rules of engagement. Nobody who understands this would expect Trump to do anything other than press the advantage opened by the apology.
Indeed, I don't think anyone expected the President not to pursue a lawsuit.
The question now is whether the BBC will fight that or settle out of court.
I don't know how the Federal courts work nor how a lawsuit would fare in Florida but from what I can gather, there is a mechanism by which a US Court could put it to a jury over there.
If that's the case then they've only got to gather a bunch of MAGA jurors then he's got every chance of winning his case.
It wouldn't be difficult to gather such a jury in Florida I wouldn't have thought.
I must admit, I winced at the time when I saw the Panorama broadcast. This isn't just hindsight but I remember thinking at the time that the edit looked pretty dodgy. That doesn't exonerate Trump of course but two wrongs don't make a right.
The Beeb was right to apologise but should have done so way back.
Now they could potentially face the prospect of an expensive payout involving public money.
Legal-eagles like @Nick Tamen will be able to assess the odds of that but I must admit I think the chances of them recruiting a jury of complete screwballs and MAGA-morons is pretty likely should that be the way it goes.
I hope that, with regard to damages, the BBC refers Trump to Arkell vs Pressdram. If, on the other hand, they settle and hand over licence fee payers' money I will be cancelling my licence. I don't watch TV or use iPlayer but I prefer a world with the BBC in it to one without; however if they surrender to Trump it's open season for any powerful person who doesn't like how they're portrayed and that's the end of news and current affairs coverage.
Indeed, I don't think anyone expected the President not to pursue a lawsuit.
Trump has a history of unpredictability here; sometimes he follows through on the threats, sometimes they’re bluffs.
Legal-eagles like @Nick Tamen will be able to assess the odds of that but I must admit I think the chances of them recruiting a jury of complete screwballs and MAGA-morons is pretty likely should that be the way it goes.
The population of Florida is over 23 million—about half the population of England. If he files in state court, he would presumably file in Palm Beach County, which has a population of about 1.5 million. (And I wouldn’t count on all of Trump’s neighbors in Palm Beach County having a high opinion of him.) If he files in federal court, that would be in the Southern Distruct of Florida, with a population of over 7 million. “Florida Man” notwithstanding, your conjecture that a Florida jury would likely be made up of “complete screwballs and MAGA-morons strikes me as a conjecture based on stereotype. Floridian shipmates @jedijudy and @ChastMastr might have thoughts.
I’ll wait until we actually see a filed complaint before making any further comment about what might happen in court.
“Florida Man” notwithstanding, your conjecture that a Florida jury would likely be made up of “complete screwballs and MAGA-morons strikes me as a conjecture based on stereotype. Floridian shipmates @jedijudy and @ChastMastr might have thoughts.
If I've read wikipedia correctly, Palm Beach County is in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which has voted for the Democrat in every election listed since 2008. And Harris' 52% in 2024 was actually on the low end, eg. Obama got 64% in 2008.
“Florida Man” notwithstanding, your conjecture that a Florida jury would likely be made up of “complete screwballs and MAGA-morons strikes me as a conjecture based on stereotype. Floridian shipmates @jedijudy and @ChastMastr might have thoughts.
If I've read wikipedia correctly, Palm Beach County is in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which has voted for the Democrat in every election listed since 2008. And Harris' 52% in 2024 was actually on the low end, eg. Obama got 64% in 2008.
I didn’t take the time to look that up, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I seem to recall reading that the "Florida Man" phenomenon was largely an artifact of how the state publishes reports of crime, which makes them easy for news site and clickbait merchants to pick up, and that just as much stupid shit happens in other parts of the US. Not sure how true that is.
About a decade ago, Slate.com tried to coast the Florida Man meme with a series of columns about how weird Florida supposedly is. In the column dedicated to wacky Florida religion, they gave the example of a pastor who embezzled money and had affairs with his congregants.
I assume the writer was rather naive about general clerical behaviour.
I seem to recall reading that the "Florida Man" phenomenon was largely an artifact of how the state publishes reports of crime, which makes them easy for news site and clickbait merchants to pick up, and that just as much stupid shit happens in other parts of the US. Not sure how true that is.
This is true, although some parts of Florida - the Keys in particular - do have a culture of attracting more eccentric types (and of course eccentricity isn't the same as crime). However, this is not at all restricted to Florida.
Florida has historically been a very purple state, and includes some very liberal regions - the Orlando area has a very very high LGBTQ+ population for instance because so many are employed by Disney. The Keys aka the Conch Republic ("conch" pronounced like "conk") is LOATHED by DeSantis for its liberalism and independence. Florida is very far from perfect but there are certainly worse states in terms of liberalism. I'd rather be in Florida than Utah (pretty much an actual theocracy at this stage) or Indiana (the modern Klan's HQ).
Meanwhile, I was blocked on a certain social media site by an actual 'Florida Man' who thought my woolly liberalism was completely 'off the scale.'
I am not suggesting that everyone in Florida is a Trumpist.
Pundits I've heard quoted by the BBC, that well-known outlet for leftist propaganda, have said that the likes of ABC and Disney have settled with Trump out of court rather than take a risk with juries recruited in Florida.
So there's the BBC reinforcing stereotypes. Blame them, not me. 😉
More seriously, I'm sure that @Nick Tamen is right with the reasons he's given as to why they might have settled out of court.
FWIW the 'Florida Man' I know is completely barking when it comes to politics but no more so than some right-wing fruitcakes I've encountered over here.
Pundits I've heard quoted by the BBC, that well-known outlet for leftist propaganda, have said that the likes of ABC and Disney have settled with Trump out of court rather than take a risk with juries recruited in Florida.
So there's the BBC reinforcing stereotypes. Blame them, not me. 😉
Well, Disney owns ABC. So, if it was a Disney-related case, I wonder if Florida juries having a pre-existing bias against a local corporate behemoth might've been a concern as well.
I am a little confused. I have tried to follow this. The claimed defamation did not take place in the US. So how can it be tried in the US? Morally at least that sounds odd, illogical even.
AIUI, the claim is that because the clip in question has been shared on social media that defamation has occurred in the US, even if the original broadcast was not seen there. It does, of course, open a different question because what's been shared on social media is a clip edited out of the whole Panorama programme ... is the defamation then in the edit made for Panorama or the subsequent edit for social media posts?
The claim is being made in Florida because that is where Trump lives.
I am a little confused. I have tried to follow this. The claimed defamation did not take place in the US. So how can it be tried in the US? Morally at least that sounds odd, illogical even.
Do a google on "libel tourism".
I believe in the UK, for example, if a foreigner can show that a) the libel was read by a significant number of people in the UK, and b) they have interests in the UK, they can sue in the UK.
American outlets have also settled because they are afraid of losing their licenses.
No. The media outlets that have settled with Trump that I can think of are CBS News, ABC News, Meta, YouTube and X, none of which are licensed by the federal government. As I said above:
Neither Paramount Global, which owns CBS News, nor Disney, which owns ABC News, are licensed by the FCC. It is local ABC and CBS affiliates, which can choose not to air ABC and CBS programs (as we saw with the Jimmy Kimmell situation) that are licensed.
The licenses that would be at issue are licenses to broadcast over the air, which national networks do not do directly, and which are inapplicable to cable- and internet-based outlets. Threatening local affiliates’ licenses could be used as a bullying tactic—though we saw the reaction, even from Republicans, when the chairman of the FCC suggested possible action by the FCC in the Jimmy Kimmel situation. But the outlets that actually settled with Trump have no licenses to lose.
I am not a lawyer. Only an interested amateur. I therefore claim no legal expertise. Moreover, given the jurisdictional issues - i.e. Florida law vs Federal US law vs English law and having standing; given the different specific requirements of defamation in each location, potential statutes of limitations, etc. etc. I suspect it would take a few legal experts to bring all this together...
...having said all this, the following is what I think:
1. Trump would not win in court, whichever court he chose.
2. The BBC will probably settle out of court because the cost of that is likely to be a lot less than the cost of (successfully) fighting this pathetic suit.
Would it be enough to demonstrate that he did a pretty good job of destroying his own repution before the BBC broadcast that clip. No reputation left for anyone else to destroy.
Would it be enough to demonstrate that he did a pretty good job of destroying his own repution before the BBC broadcast that clip. No reputation left for anyone else to destroy.
Depending on which legal system you're talking about, the exact requirements vary but in essence Trump would need to demonstrate that Panorama caused him reputational harm.
I do not think he could possibly do that in any court room.* And discovery would be extremely difficult for Mr Trump. Much more so than the BBC. Which is why this isn't going to court anywhere.
Trump is doing what he's always done: using his money and power to subvert justice to his own advantage. His record in lawsuits is lamentable. He's lost or had dismissed the vast majority but that's not the point. The point is to intimidate his enemies. He's only ever made money** by shafting subcontractors who cannot afford to match his legal team because the costs are so high. Even defending a totally spurious suit is often ruinously expensive.***
The BBC can afford to defend this but I don't believe the current leadership have the spine for it.
AFZ
*If he did manage to get a MAGA jury, then it is at least possible but he'd still need to make a case and that's not very easy. The other side get to say things too and discovery would be an absolute pitch for him.
**on the rare occasions he's actually made money rather than lost it.
***Trump is not the only one and it's also a big problem in English civil litigation where sufficient wealth disparity can make someone above the law. This desperately needs fixing but that's another thread.
Trump is, of course, capable of all sorts of regulatory and legal fuckery with media companies that doesn't involve broadcast licensing per se.
Perhaps, but the claim that has been made a couple of times is that the American media outlets that have settled with Trump have licenses he could revoke, and that fear of revocation was part of their reason for settling.
Would it be enough to demonstrate that he did a pretty good job of destroying his own repution before the BBC broadcast that clip. No reputation left for anyone else to destroy.
Depending on which legal system you're talking about, the exact requirements vary but in essence Trump would need to demonstrate that Panorama caused him reputational harm.
I do not think he could possibly do that in any court room.* And discovery would be extremely difficult for Mr Trump. Much more so than the BBC. Which is why this isn't going to court anywhere.
Trump is doing what he's always done: using his money and power to subvert justice to his own advantage. His record in lawsuits is lamentable. He's lost or had dismissed the vast majority but that's not the point. The point is to intimidate his enemies. He's only ever made money** by shafting subcontractors who cannot afford to match his legal team because the costs are so high. Even defending a totally spurious suit is often ruinously expensive.***
The BBC can afford to defend this but I don't believe the current leadership have the spine for it.
AFZ
*If he did manage to get a MAGA jury, then it is at least possible but he'd still need to make a case and that's not very easy. The other side get to say things too and discovery would be an absolute pitch for him.
**on the rare occasions he's actually made money rather than lost it.
***Trump is not the only one and it's also a big problem in English civil litigation where sufficient wealth disparity can make someone above the law. This desperately needs fixing but that's another thread.
As a TV licence payer I see it this way. If they settle out of court Donald gets money from us. If the BBC lose in court Donald gets money from us. If Donald loses in court we get money from Donald. I would go for the latter but I am not the leadership of the BBC.
I suspect this will all fade away soon and nothing really come of it. Donald has much more important things to deal with at home at the moment.
Comments
The only reason BBC might bend the knee is Trump's FCC ability to limit rebroadcast through its worldwide channel.
I'm not saying the BBC should settle out of court. I would hope they'd stick to their guns and with the full support of British politicians and the viewing public.
All I'm saying is that various US media outlets have chosen to settle out of court with Trump rather than rely on the US justice system.
Whether that says anything about the US courts I don't know.
I agree that it is different in the case of the BBC as they aren't based in the US.
Trump seems to have extended the issue beyond the Panorama programme and given the BBC an ultimatum that it should 'withdraw' any allegedly defamatory remarks it's supposed to have made about him throughout it's entire broadcast output. It's meant to do this by Friday.
He's doing his usual blustering and bullying thing. What bothers me is that others will ride on the back of this to damage the BBC or bend it to their particular agenda.
Rather, I’d suspect it says more about business decisions that in the long run it would be cheaper to settle than go through drawn-out and expensive litigation, and that settling would make the attention on them, both Trump’s attention and the public’s attention, go elsewhere. In other words, better for business for there not to be a case to start with,
That's a polite way of saying they collaborated in Trump's current modus operandi, which is to sue as a legalised means of soliciting bribes and/or protection money.
The Beeb is regarded in some quarters almost like the royal family in some respects, something we can build our national reputation on worldwide.
Hence concerns about The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince.
We no longer have an Empire or a ginormous fleet but by golly we've got excellent news coverage, Sir David Attenborough and incredible footage of tree-frogs and lemurs.
It would damage our own sense of national pride and our perceived standing abroad (from our point of view that us, or at least some of us), if the BBC was damaged.
For all its faults the BBC is still up there in many people's minds with Churchill's war-time speeches, the Spitfire and 'the little ships' at Dunkirk.
Yes, a whole load of mythology around all of that and the BBC does try to maintain that kind of vibe and mystique.
These things go in waves.
I can remember all sorts of right-wing fulminating about Play for Today, Dennis Potter, the BBC's late night arts coverage and much more besides.
It could be quite bold and cutting edge at times and let's be honest, at times it's flown close to the wind in various directions. I can remember a documentary way back that came under criticism for its negative portrayal of the Army and over-turning of generally accepted heroics.
I knew someone who was friends of the director of that particular programme and he admitted that he'd deliberately set up situations to show officers and army spokespeople in a bad light.
I didn't disagree with the programme's premise but the methods used to get the footage was highly questionable to my mind.
Anyhow, I doubt very much whether some of the dramas and documentaries aired in the 1970s would even get made today.
There has been talk that Trump’s legal team sent the letter to the wrong address and have now missed the one year limit for definition.
But yes, I can see the point you are making about the reportage.
Will associating himself with ta faux pas like this enhance Farage’s image. Assuming it is true it is stupid. Something Farage doesn’t want to be associated with, despite the fact it keeps happening
No, but it's an easy out for him to avoid scrutiny. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/12/reform-uk-pulls-out-of-bbc-film-amid-trump-speech-edit-row
As @chrisstiles has said it gives Farage an excuse to avoid media scrutiny and another reason for his supporters to avoid 'legacy media' and get their news from sources that aren't subject to the same level of accountability as the BBC and other mainstream media outlets.
One of the tropes these people thrive on is the idea that mainstream or 'legacy media' is unreliable and all run by leftists and liberals.
Tommy 'Ten Names' Robinson is hailed by some of them as a 'journalist' even though he has no formal journalistic qualifications as far as I am aware.
The BBC is far from perfect but look at the alternatives and it's enough to make us starry-eyed and uncritical - which isn't the best response either.
FWIW, neither the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, both of which Trump has sued (and neither of which settled, as best I recall), have federal licenses. And it was a federal district court judge* in Florida who dismissed the case against the New York Times.
* Broadly speaking, a case based solely on state tort law can be brought in federal court if the amount in controversy exceeds $75k and if the plaintiff(s) and the defendants(s) are citizens of/domiciled in different states. Under some circumstances, this can include defendants from/domiciled in other countries. In cases such as these, the federal court applies the relevant substantive state laws and is bound by state court precedents.
They also thought it was highly suspicious that media reports often contained the same phrases and detail. I explained that this was because there's a tendency for them to lift details out of press-releases, a practice I don't particularly condone but generally not something they do with nefarious intent.
I've never been a journalist but have worked in PR so have some idea how these things work.
This same person was convinced The Guardian wasn't being transparent about its donors when a quick Google search revealed its annual report and accounts.
I'm not saying The Grauniad is perfect, far from it, but at least it is subject to more scrutiny than some of the whacko-jacko 'news' sites this Reform voter follows.
'But they are Christian journalists, so they must be reliable ...'
Yeah? Right.
But .... will the new scrutiny of that fateful speech backfire on Trump? One hopes.
Normal people - human beings - recognize an apology and look to restore a cordial or neutral relationship.
But this is not about the human being Trump. This is about the Brand and the Name and the value of that brand and name.
An apology is an admission of wrongdoing which is tantamount to a confession of culpability.
Anybody who is schooled in the art of lawfare understands the rules of engagement. Nobody who understands this would expect Trump to do anything other than press the advantage opened by the apology.
AFF
The question now is whether the BBC will fight that or settle out of court.
I don't know how the Federal courts work nor how a lawsuit would fare in Florida but from what I can gather, there is a mechanism by which a US Court could put it to a jury over there.
If that's the case then they've only got to gather a bunch of MAGA jurors then he's got every chance of winning his case.
It wouldn't be difficult to gather such a jury in Florida I wouldn't have thought.
I must admit, I winced at the time when I saw the Panorama broadcast. This isn't just hindsight but I remember thinking at the time that the edit looked pretty dodgy. That doesn't exonerate Trump of course but two wrongs don't make a right.
The Beeb was right to apologise but should have done so way back.
Now they could potentially face the prospect of an expensive payout involving public money.
Legal-eagles like @Nick Tamen will be able to assess the odds of that but I must admit I think the chances of them recruiting a jury of complete screwballs and MAGA-morons is pretty likely should that be the way it goes.
He's doing it to protect others and to stop it happening again.
He's said so from the steps of Airforce One, so it must be true.
Trump has a history of unpredictability here; sometimes he follows through on the threats, sometimes they’re bluffs.
The population of Florida is over 23 million—about half the population of England. If he files in state court, he would presumably file in Palm Beach County, which has a population of about 1.5 million. (And I wouldn’t count on all of Trump’s neighbors in Palm Beach County having a high opinion of him.) If he files in federal court, that would be in the Southern Distruct of Florida, with a population of over 7 million. “Florida Man” notwithstanding, your conjecture that a Florida jury would likely be made up of “complete screwballs and MAGA-morons strikes me as a conjecture based on stereotype. Floridian shipmates @jedijudy and @ChastMastr might have thoughts.
I’ll wait until we actually see a filed complaint before making any further comment about what might happen in court.
If I've read wikipedia correctly, Palm Beach County is in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which has voted for the Democrat in every election listed since 2008. And Harris' 52% in 2024 was actually on the low end, eg. Obama got 64% in 2008.
I assume the writer was rather naive about general clerical behaviour.
This is true, although some parts of Florida - the Keys in particular - do have a culture of attracting more eccentric types (and of course eccentricity isn't the same as crime). However, this is not at all restricted to Florida.
Florida has historically been a very purple state, and includes some very liberal regions - the Orlando area has a very very high LGBTQ+ population for instance because so many are employed by Disney. The Keys aka the Conch Republic ("conch" pronounced like "conk") is LOATHED by DeSantis for its liberalism and independence. Florida is very far from perfect but there are certainly worse states in terms of liberalism. I'd rather be in Florida than Utah (pretty much an actual theocracy at this stage) or Indiana (the modern Klan's HQ).
Meanwhile, I was blocked on a certain social media site by an actual 'Florida Man' who thought my woolly liberalism was completely 'off the scale.'
I am not suggesting that everyone in Florida is a Trumpist.
Pundits I've heard quoted by the BBC, that well-known outlet for leftist propaganda, have said that the likes of ABC and Disney have settled with Trump out of court rather than take a risk with juries recruited in Florida.
So there's the BBC reinforcing stereotypes. Blame them, not me. 😉
More seriously, I'm sure that @Nick Tamen is right with the reasons he's given as to why they might have settled out of court.
FWIW the 'Florida Man' I know is completely barking when it comes to politics but no more so than some right-wing fruitcakes I've encountered over here.
Well, Disney owns ABC. So, if it was a Disney-related case, I wonder if Florida juries having a pre-existing bias against a local corporate behemoth might've been a concern as well.
The claim is being made in Florida because that is where Trump lives.
Do a google on "libel tourism".
I believe in the UK, for example, if a foreigner can show that a) the libel was read by a significant number of people in the UK, and b) they have interests in the UK, they can sue in the UK.
The licenses that would be at issue are licenses to broadcast over the air, which national networks do not do directly, and which are inapplicable to cable- and internet-based outlets. Threatening local affiliates’ licenses could be used as a bullying tactic—though we saw the reaction, even from Republicans, when the chairman of the FCC suggested possible action by the FCC in the Jimmy Kimmel situation. But the outlets that actually settled with Trump have no licenses to lose.
...having said all this, the following is what I think:
1. Trump would not win in court, whichever court he chose.
2. The BBC will probably settle out of court because the cost of that is likely to be a lot less than the cost of (successfully) fighting this pathetic suit.
I hope I am wrong about 2 but, there we are...
Depending on which legal system you're talking about, the exact requirements vary but in essence Trump would need to demonstrate that Panorama caused him reputational harm.
I do not think he could possibly do that in any court room.* And discovery would be extremely difficult for Mr Trump. Much more so than the BBC. Which is why this isn't going to court anywhere.
Trump is doing what he's always done: using his money and power to subvert justice to his own advantage. His record in lawsuits is lamentable. He's lost or had dismissed the vast majority but that's not the point. The point is to intimidate his enemies. He's only ever made money** by shafting subcontractors who cannot afford to match his legal team because the costs are so high. Even defending a totally spurious suit is often ruinously expensive.***
The BBC can afford to defend this but I don't believe the current leadership have the spine for it.
AFZ
*If he did manage to get a MAGA jury, then it is at least possible but he'd still need to make a case and that's not very easy. The other side get to say things too and discovery would be an absolute pitch for him.
**on the rare occasions he's actually made money rather than lost it.
***Trump is not the only one and it's also a big problem in English civil litigation where sufficient wealth disparity can make someone above the law. This desperately needs fixing but that's another thread.
As a TV licence payer I see it this way. If they settle out of court Donald gets money from us. If the BBC lose in court Donald gets money from us. If Donald loses in court we get money from Donald. I would go for the latter but I am not the leadership of the BBC.
I suspect this will all fade away soon and nothing really come of it. Donald has much more important things to deal with at home at the moment.