#2
Ah, the old "leave out one teensy fact that totally destroys the story you are selling" move. Is there an official name for this technique in the propaganda business?
People are starting to catch on to various media tricks and manipulations.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Mikhail Kolovangin
[REGNUM] The British press has traditionally positioned itself as a model of impartiality, a guardian of democracy, and an opponent of manipulation. The editorial guidelines of the public broadcaster BBC serve as a symbol of this civic virtue. Of course, the duplicity of these standards has long been no secret to Russian audiences, but in November 2025, Americans were surprised to discover this.
The scandal erupted after revelations emerged that Donald Trump's speech in the documentary "Trump: A Second Chance?" had been edited. The film was released in October 2024, just a week before the presidential election—a time of peak political tension.
UNPRECEDENTED MANIPULATION
The BBC film used a fake montage of the American leader's speech at a rally on January 6, 2021. Trump delivered a lengthy speech to his supporters in Washington, and filmmakers used two separate sections of the speech, separated by more than 50 minutes, to create the appearance that Trump was urging his supporters to storm the Capitol.
The original version of the president's speech: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, congressmen, and women." In other words, Trump was suggesting a demonstration, but he didn't mention storming or violence.
The directors took the first part of the line—"We're going to walk down to the Capitol"—and spliced it with a completely different part of the speech, delivered 50 minutes later, in which Trump said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. "
The resulting montage read: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol… and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
The result was that Trump appeared to be explicitly calling on his supporters to commit violent acts.
The phrase "fight like hell" was taken out of context; Trump's words were about fighting corruption. Throughout the speech, Trump used the word "fight" or "fighting" approximately 20 times, but always in the context of political struggle, not physical violence.
This is important because the lack of an overt call to violence is the only reason the future president was not charged with a federal felony: incitement of insurrection.
The BBC's editing also manipulated the chronology: the film showed people marching on the Capitol, but this footage was filmed before Trump delivered his speech. This manipulation created the false impression that the crowd was responding to a direct appeal, when in reality, events unfolded quite differently.
THE BBC'S REACTION
The scandal was uncovered thanks to a leaked internal memo written by Michael Prescott, a former independent adviser to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee. Prescott served in this position until June 2025 and compiled a 19-page report critical of the company's management regarding systemic impartiality issues.
Prescott wrote in his memo: "This was a completely misleading edit—the way it aired. The fact that he [Trump] did not explicitly order supporters to go and fight for the Capitol was one of the reasons there were no federal criminal charges for inciting the riot."
The report was published in The Telegraph this November, more than a year after the release of the controversial documentary. It demonstrates just how long BBC management tried to cover up the problem.
The most interesting part of this story is how BBC management responded to internal warnings. When Michael Prescott raised the issue of manipulative editing with the Editorial Standards Committee, management simply refused to acknowledge the problem.
According to Prescott's report, when his concerns were brought to the attention of managers, they "categorically refused to acknowledge the breach of standards." One senior BBC News manager, Jonathan Mann, even defended the editing practice, claiming it was "standard procedure" for converting lengthy broadcasts into digestible clips.
But this explanation made no sense - editing for the purpose of shortening is appropriate, but combining two fragments separated by 50 minutes to change the meaning of a statement is already a falsification.
The committee reviewed the issue twice – in January and May 2025. But BBC management decided that, since the film had generated few complaints from viewers and was shown before the election, there was no need to edit or remove the material.
INTERESTS AND POLITICAL CONTEXT
To understand the broadcaster's motives, it is enough to remember that representatives of the ruling Labour Party in Great Britain quite clearly supported the US Democratic Party and its candidate Kamala Harris during the American elections.
According to Trump campaign officials, Labor sent party members to critical swing states to campaign for Harris in an attempt to influence the election results. Donald Trump's team even filed a complaint with the Election Commission regarding interference in the presidential election.
However, there was no punishment because the Labor Party members allegedly worked on a voluntary basis and covered their own expenses, which does not violate US laws on foreign participation in elections.
Moreover, the documentary was released exactly one week before the presidential election and was a clear attempt to influence the American electorate at a crucial moment in the campaign. The film was intended to create the impression that Trump was the instigator of the Capitol riots, a proponent of violence, and a threat to democracy.
The BBC, of course, officially claims it was simply a documentary project, but the context speaks for itself. The British public broadcaster is part of the sphere of influence of the liberal elite, which was openly hostile to Trump. The manipulation of the footage was carried out to undermine his image in the eyes of British and other Western audiences, and to spread this opinion among American voters.
The BBC has faced a barrage of criticism since the leak of the Prescott report.
In this regard, an unprecedented event occurred on November 9 : BBC Director-General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness simultaneously announced their resignations. It was a capitulation—the management realized the reputational damage was beyond repair.
For his part, BBC Chairman Samir Shah issued an official letter to the Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on 10 November 2025, in which he acknowledged that the editing had been an error of judgement: "We acknowledge that the manner in which the speech was edited created the impression of a direct call to violent action."
Donald Trump's reaction was harsh and blunt. After news of the editing broke, Trump sent the network a letter threatening a $1 billion lawsuit and wrote on his social media page:
"These people are incredibly dishonest; they're trying to manipulate the balance of power in the presidential election campaign. Moreover, they're from a foreign country that many consider our main ally. This is a terrible situation for democracy!"
The White House issued an official statement calling the BBC a "propaganda machine" and suggesting it was an attempt to influence the outcome of the US election.
***
The story of this scandal isn't just an example of poor editing or a mistake. It's emblematic of what's happened to Western journalism as a whole. Instead of informing the public and seeking the truth, it has become a weapon of political propaganda, used by the elite to manipulate public opinion.
Western media serve the interests of the ruling elite—this is no longer a secret or a supposition, but an established fact that is confirmed again and again. And each new scandal only further destroys the last vestiges of their reputation.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics.
[ColonelCassad] Trump - President of the Defense Industry. I recently came across an interesting column in Bloomberg. It emphasizes that Trump has changed the "investment culture" in the defense industry.
The gist of these changes is this: supposedly, investors used to be reluctant to buy shares in companies producing weapons or otherwise related to the military. But now, not only are arms manufacturers' stock prices soaring, but owning a stake in many of them comes with an additional premium. According to the author, Trump has proven more profitable for the defense industry than even George W. Bush (pictures 1-2).
The aerospace industry is doing particularly well. Two main reasons are cited. The first is Trump's policy of encouraging allies to increase defense spending, as well as domestic military spending in the United States itself. The second reason is cultural. The fight against "warism" has made the military-industrial complex a less toxic area for investors. Gunmakers are one of the most influential interest groups in the US. They give money to both parties.
But recently, less so to the Democrats. Some of them simply cannot take money from the military-industrial complex, as it would anger part of their electorate. This is especially true for Democrats who are elected to the House of Representatives. And yet, the difference between the parties is not very significant.
You can compare this with the activity of American gas and oil producers. They clearly favor—due to objective reasons—almost exclusively the Republican Party. This is the financial lobbying aspect of the "peace through strength" approach.
(c) Roman Romanov
Trump campaign sponsors are simply cashing their bills.
[Mises] Pat Buchanan celebrated his 87th birthday on November 2, and this makes it a fitting occasion to assess this remarkable figure in American politics. Pat is a hero because he spoke truth to power, politically challenged the corrupt US Uniparty system when he ran for president three times, defended the sovereignty of America, and warned us about the collapse of Western Civilization.
As Kevin Roberts and Riley Moore say, "In 1963, when President John F. Kennedy gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom its name, he said that ’in a period when the national government must call upon an increasing portion of the talents and energies of its citizens, it is clearly appropriate to provide ways to recognize and reward the work of persons, within and without the government, who contribute significantly to the quality of American life.’
"Today, our country is in even greater need of such virtuous citizens—of heroic men and women who can serve as examples of what it means to defend the republic, renew our culture, and reclaim America’s destiny. That’s why we are calling on President Donald Trump to grant the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor, to one of the most prophetic voices of conservatism: Patrick J. Buchanan....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
