After the report, which was written by Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, was leaked, BBC chairman Samir Shah apologised on behalf of the BBC over an “error of judgment” and accepted the editing of the 2024 documentary gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action”.
It gave that impression because it was a direct call for violent action, as evidenced by the violent action that immediately followed it.
How can you not splice together sentences when Trump just mid-sentence goes on weird rambling tangents? Only to eventually come back to the point 20 minutes later? I’m not saying I agree with what they did precisely, however I don’t know what anyone’s supposed to do from an editing standpoint when we are talking about a trump speech.
It gave that impression because it was a direct call for violent action, as evidenced by the violent action that immediately followed it.
If it were so clear, why did the director feel the need to splice together two sentences almost an hour apart?
How can you not splice together sentences when Trump just mid-sentence goes on weird rambling tangents? Only to eventually come back to the point 20 minutes later? I’m not saying I agree with what they did precisely, however I don’t know what anyone’s supposed to do from an editing standpoint when we are talking about a trump speech.
He splices his own rambling thoughts together incoherently. He should sue himself.