You are confusing compound interest with being interested in him pounding sand.
In practice, if not literally. Oh, they technically listen; but they listen to his babble and then imagine whatever they want most to hear in it. Instead of whatever he (loosely speaking) actually said. Which lets him be all things to all people without any effort on his part.
Here’s the kicker to that, and it really shines the light on how horrible, nay, evil he and his supporters/voters are. No matter how far around the bend he is with his ramblings, he still manages to come out clearly with his antisemitism and other racist nonsese. And that makes those idiots love him more.
I was listening to BBC radio on the way home from work today and they had a media lawyer on and he said Trump has no case here (I’m sure you are all SHOCKED to read this…). The stumbling points are…
-
the statute of limitations for this kind of case in the UK (a year) passed a week or two back. But that’s probably a moot point since Trump will file the case in Florida. But there’s a snag to that…
-
the offending episode of Panorama was never broadcast there and is not available (legitimately) online. But even if somehow Teflon Don got round these inconveniences, the kicker is…
-
in said legal expert’s view, there’s no way that Trump could really argue his reputation has been stained, in the view of a ‘reasonable person’. Anyone with half a functioning braincell, who isn’t part of his cult (ok, that’s a tautology), would not come to the conclusion that Trump was defaced by the BBC. It was already widely known that he was a criminal and had many other judgments against him, so how exactly is some controversial editing of his words going to make him look any worse?!
Then why is the BBC acting like it’s the end of the world if they don’t kowtow to Trump?
Pre-emptive Obedience
Streisand effect. You want it hidden, so put a spotlight on it.
He said those words. We all remember.
WHY are news organizations caving into this lunatic?
Public TV broadcasters in Europe are often financed by a canon everybody has to pay, even when they (like me, for instance) do not own a TV. It is unpopular and they know that this privilege will end some day. The far right is jumping into this discontent and claiming the public broadcasters are all against them (so unfair!) and woke (the well known left leaning of objectivity), now trump is supporting them. And who knows, it puts him in the spotlight, which is always good for his ego, and it may pay off.
It must unfortunately be said that many of the members of the board of directors of those TV stations are elected by parliaments or by commissions or committees that are weighted by political representation in parliaments (so in Spain and Germany, I can attest, at national and regional levels, probably in the UK too). That seems to make those members stupid. It sure makes them cowards.
Want to read about other stupid people? A new far right political party in Belgium has chosen trump as its name.
It is suposed to mean “All United for the Union of Populist Movements”. United for the Union, right? Brilliant. Warned you they were stupid.
I wonder if they know Trump can mean fart in British English.
There are a lot of episodes of it available on iPlayer - and about four about Trump (which I hope they got mostly right) - yet this one seems no longer available. Sure, probably YouTube or some other means, yet they’d be breaking copyright. Still, kind of odd this controversy comes out right after the Statute of Limitations passed (I was going to say SOL, yet I guess that applies to Trump here).
Those I’ve seen remind me of FrontLine, which I assume has to be a bit more careful (assuming PBS and FrontLine still exist).
So I guess Trump doesn’t get his billion or retraction. The threat of a lawsuit is gone from BBC’s homepage so I reckon everyone knows trump is SOL.
I don’t know if this is the same lawyer, but they also feel he has no case.
I’ve learned that one should never underestimate how draconian British libel laws can be.
And “established precedent” ain’t worth Jack Shit anymore.
Because pointing it out hurted his feewings.
Could be worse! Unified Union for Unification of United Unionizing Unities!
The same thing was said about his lawsuits against CBS and ABC. And they still paid him off to hopefully get him off their backs. Suckers. So I guess we will see if BBC ends up doing the same thing. Of course, he doesn’t have the same leverage over them but he will probably threaten Great Britain with tariffs if pressure isn’t put on the BBC to settle.
Maybe the nodfather’s counting on one particular precedence to save him. I’m referring to Liberace v Daily Mirror. A writer for he Mirror hinted Liberrace was homosexual, so Liberace sued for libel and won.
He’s probably already had the executive order writen and is just waiting for the right moment to sign it.
Good news, everyone! Inflation has been defeated according to (checks notes) …Doordash?
This seems to be the modus operandi. Tariffs are now the equivalent of the mobster saying “Nice country you have here. Shame if it burned down. Give me 100 dollars in a paper bag”
No, they paid him off because they are both owned by large media conglomerates with other business interests. CBS as part of the Paramount, which wanted approval for a merger with Skydance - which they got after the payoff. And ABC is owned by Disney, which clearly has had no issues just paying him off in general. In both cases, especially Paramount, they probably did get their money’s worth. I doubt the leadership at CBS or ABC got much of a say in the matter.
While it’s possible the BBC will cave, they aren’t owned by a larger media conglomerate, especially a conglomerate looking for US government approval for any of their ventures.
As for tariff threats, as far as I can see, the trade “deal” with the UK looks like it worked in favor of the UK, so who’s to say how scared they are of such threats?