In defense of press freedom and in rejection of the abuse of presidential power, it must be said clearly: the BBC did not falsify reality when it did not include one of Donald Trump’s sentences (which ostensibly called for peaceful protest) in its program about the January 6 riots. It would have falsified reality if it had included it.
In our view, the BBC’s leadership made a grave mistake by resigning. They yielded to Trump’s threats and lies, causing significant harm to press freedom and giving the far-right an opportunity to question the credibility of the mainstream media, including the BBC and other news organizations. And they did all this without any justification.
Trump sues and intimidates the free press with the most ridiculous lies. With the exception of The New York Times, almost everyone backs down, admits guilt, and pays millions of dollars in settlements, even in cases for which Trump has been found liable in court. Trump seeks to intimidate and destroy independent media by filing lawsuits worth billions of dollars.
The New York Times resisted, defended press freedom, and the court called Trump’s rambling legal filing absurd. Had the New York Times also yielded, no one would ever dare resist again, and Trump would brand even the most credible media outlets as liars, when, in fact, they published the truth. The BBC acted irresponsibly by admitting to wrongdoing instead of defending its journalistic integrity.
For context: in a documentary program (not a standard news broadcast), the BBC presented excerpts from Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech, delivered before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the lawful result of the presidential election.
Trump complained that the BBC aired only the parts of his speech that inflamed his supporters, urged them to fight, and told them to march to the Capitol. The BBC did not include the line in which Trump told his supporters to act “peacefully and patriotically.”
According to Trump and the White House, this omission “falsified” his speech. But the BBC was not providing a verbatim transcript—it sought to show what role Trump’s words played in triggering the attack. The editor correctly judged that Trump’s reference to peaceful protest was formal, cynical, and ambiguous.
Therefore the BBC did not falsify reality when it included only those excerpts that encouraged his supporters and likely contributed to one of the darkest days in American history: a violent attack on the constitutional order, several deaths, and the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
Editorial freedom includes the judgment of which parts of a speech are relevant to the event being documented. The BBC chose to highlight Trump’s incitement (“and we fight like hell”) to illustrate his responsibility. The editor rightly assessed—and events proved—that Trump’s reference to peaceful protest was not sincere, and his supporters did not interpret it as a call for restraint. They likely laughed at it.
The far-right mob attacking the Capitol received not only encouragement but also permission from Trump to storm the building. This is supported by subsequent facts and U.S. legal proceedings. The BBC would have falsified reality by creating the false impression that Trump genuinely called for peace.
The events must be understood in a broader context: since then, it has become clear that Trump sought to overturn the election by any means. He was prepared to deploy the military and sought to prevent his departure from the White House through force. When the military refused, he attempted to outsource the task to extremist mobs.
Trump knew his supporters were armed and prepared to storm the Capitol. His speech did not seek to stop them—it sought to inflame them. The congressional January 6 Committee concluded that Trump deliberately stoked anger with the false narrative of a stolen election.
After violence erupted, Trump did not send help to defend the Capitol, nor did he send a message urging the mob to stop. In the criminal cases launched in 2023 and 2024—particularly the “election interference” case—the indictment stated clearly: Trump’s speech was part of a broader plan to obstruct the certification of the election.
“TRUMP’S SPEECH ON JANUARY 6 WAS PART OF A BROADER SCHEME TO OBSTRUCT THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION.”
— United States v. Trump, 2023, District of Columbia Indictment
Thus, both legally and politically, Trump’s responsibility has been acknowledged. His “peaceful” phrase convinced no one and exonerated him in no investigation. The failures of the justice system allowed him to avoid trial for four years and enabled him to become president again after the most serious attack on the constitutional order in modern history.
But the BBC cannot be blamed for that. The editor did omit a sentence—but correctly assessed its significance. This did not alter the essence of the speech or misrepresent reality. It highlighted the truth and fulfilled the core mission of journalism: identifying the essence. Trump does not edit BBC programs. Journalists do.
The audience certainly did not interpret his words as a call for peaceful protest, but for a fight. And that is exactly what happened. The real impact and the intent to incite were unmistakable. Words must be evaluated not in isolation but in context. The BBC’s editing was not a distortion—it was clarity.
This is what BBC leadership should have defended—even in court if necessary. Instead, they unintentionally validated a lie, undermined their own journalists, and interfered in a profound U.S. political issue, creating the false impression that Trump had not incited the mob.
This is the opposite of what journalism should do. The BBC fled from the fight, sold itself to Trump, and abandoned its principles and editorial independence. The Panorama program (where the edit occurred) was not attempting to document a speech verbatim—it examined the social and political impact of Trump’s rhetoric and the rise of the “Stop the Steal” movement.
The program documented reality. Then the BBC leadership retreated—allowing the subject of the report to rewrite the narrative. That is what undermines the BBC’s credibility.
Trump was not satisfied with the BBC’s false admission and resignations. He now seeks to sue the BBC for one billion dollars, placing the organization in a difficult position. They broadcast the truth, yet now—after capitulating—they may be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in a pretrial settlement. This is the price of cowardice and surrendering the truth.
Trump incited criminals already convicted by the courts to attack the U.S. Capitol and overthrow the election—and now he may walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars because the BBC broadcast the truth but failed to defend it.
If the press bows to those in power, and refuses to expose the lies of criminals, it surrenders the world to the very people who attacked the Capitol.
