TO TELL THE TRUTH IS NOT LACKING INTEGRITY

I find that I have to take exception to Jonathan Freedland’s piece in the Guardian dated 14 November 2025. The section that I find disturbing is as follows:

“…To hold him to account for this dishonesty is to cast yourself as an arbiter of truth, which creates the instant and obvious expectation that you yourself must be truthful. Here, then, is the asymmetry: he can lie, but his critics cannot.
So he can continue to tell the big lie, claiming against all evidence that he won the 2020 election, and myriad smaller lies – he told 60 Minutes that grocery prices “are down” when they are up and that Joe Biden gave Ukraine $350bn in aid when the real figure is well under half that – and, save for a few tireless factcheckers, no one cares. The response is a collective shrug, because it’s Donald Trump. No one expects any better.
The opposite is true of his scrutineers. They have to be fastidious, their evidence impeccable. So when the BBC’s Panorama programme examined Trump’s record ahead of the 2024 election, it had to be right on every detail. As we now know, and for which the BBC has apologised, it was not: it stitched together two statements, made 54 minutes apart, from Trump’s speech ahead of the Capitol Hill riot of 6 January 2021 to create a single, seamless call for violence.
There’s no defence to be made of that. No journalist would argue for the right to be as dishonest as Trump is allowed to be, even though misquoting and manipulating the words of others is a Trump specialism. That path is closed to those who want to criticise Trump for his untruthfulness.
Nor will it do to make the move some have attempted in defence of Panorama, arguing that the programme’s broad thrust was right, even if that specific edit was not. It’s quite true that plenty of 6 January rioters testified that they believed they were doing Trump’s bidding. It’s also true that Trump was impeached, even if eventually acquitted, for his role in inciting those events. But those facts cannot justify a deceptive edit. To say otherwise is to engage in what the US comedian Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness”, substituting what feels to be true, or what we might want to be true, for what is actually true.
What’s at stake here is not only intellectual and journalistic integrity. It’s also that any slip is a gift to Trump and a setback to what, portentously, we might call the cause of truth – not in some high-blown, abstract sense, but very practically. Note the White House press secretary’s denunciation of the BBC as “100% fake news” and a “propaganda machine”. Mark those words, because they will be used again. Next time the BBC accurately exposes a Trump misdeed, or even asks a tough question, he and his allies will recall the Panorama edit and insist that whatever the BBC says can be safely ignored…”

What I find disturbing is the slightly holier than thou aspect of the view he refers to as ‘truthiness’. I have highlighted the paragraph in question. I disagree entirely in that there is nothing deceptive about the truth.  The truth is that Mr Trump incited a riot and continues to lie about it.  It is he who manipulates reality on a daily basis. The idea that there is ‘no defence to be made of the edit’ is absurd sophistry. What possible deception can there be in telling the truth?  There was no misquoting. The clip shows Mr Trump using provocative words to incite his followers. Whether they came immediately after, before or later than a previous comment, in this case, matters not one jot with what amounts to a criminal offence. Although Mr Trump may have been ‘acquitted’ by the Senate, it was entirely along political party lines. Even those Republicans who knew him to be guilty, and who said so at the time, immediately after the riot and before the impeachment, voted against the impeachment.

It doesn’t work like that in a court of law. It is no defence to say ‘I said I didn’t intend to commit the crime before I did it, so I should be let off”.  In every court of law, where Mr Trump has actually appeared, he has been found guilty by juries of his peers. Ordinary citizens have not believed his protestations of innocence. Only his supporters, acolytes and sycophants have backed him up, even whilst knowing full well the extent of his deceptions. To hold journalist and critics to account on the basis of what I would call manufactured fantasy integrity  is not helpful. I would, in fact, call is self-deception.  Truth is truth. there is no question of arbitration.  In this instance there was no question of wishing something to be true, or substituting what was felt to be true. There was no deception of any kind but merely stating fact. The facts were examined by, and reported in, the Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection. Mr Tumps intentions were clear. to cause disruption by any means necessary and 'fight like hell'.  The BBC should not have apologised nor should anyone shy away from truth on the basis of some imagined high moral tone. It does not sit well. I suggest Mr Freedland, who I very much admire, rethink his notions of journalistic and intellectual integrity, They should be high but not beyond truth.

WHAT THE BBC SHOULD SAY

Whilst the row about the BBC's questionable partiality and bias over Mr Trump runs on, may I draw your attention to portions of the  Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection. Its recommendations section begins: As our Report describes, Donald J. Trump, John Eastman, and others corruptly attempted to violate the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in an effort to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. Herewith is a section of its findings:

In addigtion the Committee found:

This is exactly what the Panorama program pointed out with its edit of Mr Trumps speech. These were the words spoken and it is clear from the entire enquiry what the likely outcome might be. Is it any wonder his vindictive behaviour over the final report. He cannot sue the United States Congress for libel and hence he is turning on the BBC. In addition any claim he might have about damage to reputation is nullified by his convictions on 34 criminal charges, and findings against himself for libel and sexual assault. What possible financial damage a BBC program, from some time ago, may have caused him, is less than none.

 So can we please get back to reality. In my view the BBC should take its advice from General Anthony Clement McAuliffe when replying to the German Army’s request for surrender at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, and simply send Mr Trump’s lawyers a one word letter “NUTS”

WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT TELLING THE TRUTH ?

What is wrong with the British public and its relationship to the BBC? It seems to be in a complete muddle over what was essentially an accurate telling of a story related to President Trump. What is being perceived as an editing error and therefore possibly lacking in impartiality, was, despite the perceived error, completely factual reporting. Mr Trump did use the words that were broadcast and did incite a riot at the capitol on the 6th January 2021. Of that, there is no doubt. The United States conducted its own government enquiry and found that was indeed the case. The entire history of Trump’s attempt at overthrowing a peaceful transition of power  begins from the moment of his defeat in the 2020 election in November of that year. Indeed the pressure that was being applied all over the country and particularly in the State of Georgia was called out by election official Gabriel Sterling on the 1st December 2020. As a reminder, I add here again the press conference, given by Mr Sterling at the time. You may have to click the video to watch on YouTube.

The impact of Trump’s continuing opposition to the election result continued throughout the remainder of his term, culminating in his incitement to violence on the 6th January 2021. The words were spoken in that speech that was edited together by the Panorama Program and broadcast by the BBC. The editing may have been faulty but there was no misrepresentation of the events nor of the President’s intent.  Therefore for the BBC to even apologise to this felon or even consider giving him a single penny in compensation would be a disaster, a capitulation not only to a bully, but a proven fraudster, gangster and sex offender. 

I cannot stress strongly enough that the truth does matter. Bad editing is not lying. To capitulate over this apparent lapse of alleged impartiality is a joke. The program showed the truth about Trump. What is more important than that? All the rest of this grand standing  about BBC failures and lack of judgement and impartiality is a disgrace. Yes it has its problems but this is not one of them, It told the TRUTH. Mr Trump spoke those words. It was not made up. It was part of his speech. Why does that not penetrate? 

 

Do not let the current dismay and ridiculous unwarranted  resignations distract from the reality. To give in to Trump attempting to seize another opportunity to gaslight the world into believing that he has been defamed in any way is ludicrous. For goodness sake, stand up and fight back. Get a grip and some perspective. There is no defamation in telling the truth.  It has got to stop.

TRUSTING THE NEWS

Oddly enough, in respect of my last blogs about the dissemination of news and opinion, the November 2025 edition of Harper’s Magazine arrived on the doorstep.  Clearly it could not have come at a better time. Within the magazine was a chart indicating where Americans gat their news at the present time. The chart shows the percentage of adults using the various news sources over the last twelve years. It would appear that 54% of adults in the United States now rely on Social and Video Networks. Twelve years ago it was only 27% and the least source for news and it is now the majority’s go to for current affairs. 

The magazines question of “Why don’t we trust the media?” is a good question, but I would ask “What media do we choose to trust?”. Our use of the internet, the searches we make and the algorithms that are created from them, by our own fingers, automatically feeds us information in support of what we appear to be interested in, and aligns us with news and  opinion we seem to favour.  Our views are surreptitiously reenforced and we accept as truth that which we are presumed to already believe. 

As to the article in the magazine, it is a round table discussion between four people, Jelani Cobb, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School and a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author, most recently, of Three or More Is a Riot: Notes on How We Got Here; Taylor Lorenz, an independent journalist and the founder of User Mag, a Substack publication, and she is the author of Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet; Jack Shafer,  a media critic who has written for Politico, Reuters, and Slate, and he previously edited Washington City Paper and SF Weekly; and, Max Tani a reporter at Semafor covering media, politics, and technology and he previously covered the White House for Politico. The discussion was chaired by Harper’s editor Christopher Carroll.

Carroll opened the discussion with: “Why don’t we begin with the biggest question. A Gallup poll from last year showed that the media was the least trusted civic or political institution in the United States—among other things, Americans trust Congress more than they trust the media. What accounts for this? Why don’t we trust the media?”

To be frank, journalists talking about the problems of journalists is not very enlightening. It’s like lawyers griping about lawyers or actors moaning about actors, nit picking about the jobs they have to do and the environment in which they do it, and the people they do it for and who they do it with. You can find the article for yourselves on line at:
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/11/why-doesnt-anyone-trust-the-media-jelani-cobb-taylor-lorenz-jack-shafer-max-tani-establishment-journalism/

Also, in mentioning a Gallup poll from “last year”, I presume he meant during the final term of President Biden, in that apparently Americans trusted Congress more than the media. I do not believe that Americans trust the Congress under Trump to any great degree at all. I would guess trust in both spheres are pretty low on the scale, in the present climate.  I am probably wrong, but if it is in fact the case that the American people have trust in the current congress, then we are in big trouble. It is clear that this congress has abrogated all of its responsibility in government to the executive branch. There are no checks and even less balance. It is all weighted in one direction, down, negative, nil. 

It is difficult for the average punter to come to grips with trusting the ‘news’. We have seemingly straightforward factual news, such as reports of accidents, robberies, earthquakes, arrests, births and deaths, festivals and celebrations, sports results, quirky animal stories, feel good moments, the weather. This is all interspersed with analysis, which can only be described as opinion. Also included are comments made by various political representatives and ministers of state, which are from a specific point of view and which may or may not be correct or true. For example: If you have “There was a pile up on the express way” followed by “Trump is a stable genius” followed by “The Dodgers beat the Blue Jays” followed by “Minister says no new taxes”,  it could be confusing in that an insanity placed between two or more facts and political statements could seem like just a flow of facts. That is clearly not the case, and that is the problem. It is not quite the trope “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”. A comment such as “Trump is a stable genius” no matter how often repeated, will never become legend or fact. It is an insane remark and will always be such. A minister’s comment about taxation is forever problematic. 

I accept there is an attempt to organise newscasts in the form of international new, national news and local news. The opening of most broadcast begins with what the editor considers to be the days headline, which could be from any one of the preceding criteria. Some act of very disturbing violence will usually top the show, and on occasion some outrageous political comment or activity. Nonetheless it is all presented as a flow of facts.  Although there are moments when there are clear and upfront political party adverts and propaganda pieces, persistent interviews with ‘newsworthy’ politicians are effectively free propaganda under the guise of presenting the news. 

The White House ‘press briefing’ is an instance in point. The White House press corps, allegedly a variety of independent examining journalists, ask penetrating and searching questions in order to inform the public and hold the executive to account. All they get is a flow of nonsense, propaganda, exaggerations and untruths. Any push back is extremely rare or indeed non-existent, and any question that even vaguely hints of criticism is batted away as stupid or despicable slander. Yet it is presented as if it presents facts and reality. The only fact is that it takes place. Its contents are fantasy.  

Given this array of babble emanating from just about every source of ‘media’ technology, is it any wonder that there is a growing mistrust of the content. Printed media are full of opinion and analysis, as are now most television broadcasts. Readers and listeners will now tune into dramatic series of thrillers and romantic comedies along with talent, quiz and reality shows just to avoid the ‘news’. They can get that anytime on their phones and PC’s which are mainly used for texting and gaming. 

It would appear that so called news is just part of another show presented by a network with a specific agenda which has a corps audience. Fox News, a cable network in the United States is just such a broadcast company. This is very disturbing as it has an audience of over 2.4 million Americans who swallow their misinformation and tedious support of the Trump regime. On a daily basis. In a country of 360 million people that doesn’t seem a lot, but that corps audience, in subscriptions alone, provides Fox with a minimum income of at least £400 million per annum, if not twice that. That is not insignificant. The companies recorded revenue was $16.3 billion for 2025 so far. That is almost 10% of the UK’s National Health budget.  It is not therefore surprising that the company was able to pay out $787.5 million to Dominion in settlement of their defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that Fox and some of its pundits spread conspiracy theories about Dominion, and allowed guests to make false statements about the company. That represents about 4% of a years revenue. I guess not a huge loss for Fox, and it hasn’t stopped them from continuing to disseminate misinformation and untruths.

Indeed, with such wealth behind the Trump regime’s acolytes in control of so much of the media, is it any wonder that most American’s, in particular the other 350 million who do not watch Fox News, are sceptical and do not trust anything to do with media. 

There used to be respected journalists who did once have a semblance of integrity and were accepted as news caster who could be trusted. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, Edward R Murrow, Gordon Parks, Dan Rather, even arch conservative William Buckley Jr. to name a few. I’m sure there are and have been many others trusted by the public, but they appear to be few and far between. I’m sure the truth is out there somewhere. One just has to keep looking.