[Oboogie]

There is no evidence that the BBC used AI to alter Trump's words, nor has he ever made that claim before. There is also no accusation of the use of AI in the 30 page lawsuit document issued by Trump's legal team.
It looks to me like Trump just made that bit up off the cuff.
I suspect this is an attempt to divert attention away from his disgusting comments on the murder of Rob Reiner which has attracted a lot of criticism even from his MAGA base.

[davidjay]

I find the “argument” that some Floridian viewers may have been using VPNs to watch the Panorama programme at issue and may thereby have had their views on Donald Trump’s “good” reputation adversely influenced shall we say, unconvincing. The phrase “clutching at straws” springs to mind. But that’s just one aspect of the implausibility of Trump’s so-called case.

I’m very pleased that the BBC has decided to contest the action, and the Arkell vs. Pressdram response does indeed seem very apposite.

But Trump is simply doing what powerful, obscenely wealthy men have been doing for many decades - from
Robert Maxwell through the erstwhile Lib Dem MP John Hemming, to Jeff Bezos -using their wealth and power via the legal system to intimidate, crush, and suppress criticism. It’s disgusting tactic, befitting someone who may be the most disgusting human ever to walk the earth.

I think Pol Pot and Hitler might just edge him out but he's certainly out on his own at the moment.

[Watchman]

He's doing a fine job of torpedoing his case. Which makes me wonder, what's he up to?

1. He doesn't know, and is just making angry noises.

2. He's got a good ol' boy pet judge lined up, who will just wave it through.

3. He wants to tie the BBC up in lawfare (which only nasty Democrats use) so as to scare the rest of the media.

I'm thinking 3.

I was thinking: making the BBC vulnerable to the right wing's (here and USA), favoured media outlets

[AOB]

Splicing two comments together to put something out of context is misleading, but is it any different to front pages putting comments and opinions on the front page in quotation marks? The number of people who don't understand quotation marks on front pages and would take a headline at face value shouldn't be underestimated. Obviously the papers know that and play it to their advantage.

The Mirror even had the word "lovely" to describe Paul Doyle, via an acquaintance, in the aftermath of 26th May on its front page (as I suspect others may have done but I saw a reel with that front page on a couple of days ago so know that as factual). That "lovely" man has a history of convictions including biting off an ear, yet I still saw a tv news report last night with a former colleague describing how he didn't seem to have a nasty bone in his body. The media don't know when they are comprehensively annihilated, never mind beaten, like they have been with Doyle. They still come at it with the nice guy undertone even in the face of the all the history and evidence including the footage of his mad driving before he reached the crowds and his obnoxious yelling once he was there and ploughing through everyone. We all know the angle they would have taken had he not been white. Perhaps even if he, as a white man, had done it at some Royal event with thousands in London, I do not think this is the angle they would have taken.

Obviously happens on news websites too, BBC Newswatch featured complaints a few weeks back about their news site reporting on a Tommy Robinson court case using quotation marks and how on some devices the full headline cannot be read so it all gave the impression that what his defence team was saying was factual. I can't recall the exact details but they were legitmate concerns. (I think the issue was the words "court hears" at the end of the headline, was not viewable on some devices).

[Andy McDandy]

Yes. It's the equivalent of putting things in parentheses or quote mining. On the latter, film posters are notorious for it. Mark Kermode might say "It' amazing that someone thought this dreadful film should have been made, but this is what passes for quality these days", and the poster will say "Amazing...Quality", and attribute it to him.

The more one thinks about this, the clearer it is there's no legal argument at all.