- Law unto themselves… - 13th November 2025
- Rearview mirror - 12th November 2025
- Biased Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - 11th November 2025
During 23 years with the BBC, and in a 42 year journalistic career (when he was trained to use clear and simple language, avoiding jargon), for our Editor, Welshman Phil Parry, legal issues have always been paramount, with stories ‘run past the lawyer’, and this is now highlighted as the deadline approaches for lodging a billion-dollar defamation claim by Donald Trump over the editing of one of his speeches by the BBC to make it appear he encouraged the Capitol Building riots.
An iron rule of journalism is to make all legal and other checks BEFORE publication.
Once the story is out, it is out, and you should not go back on it or you will be in deep trouble.
Unfortunately it appears that this rule may have been broken with a BBC Panorama in which a speech by Donald Trump was spliced together, and made it appear that he had encouraged rioters.
President Trump’s legal team have declared that the corporation made: “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” about him.
It was a significant factor in the resignations of Director General (DG) Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, his head of news.
The Eye have called for Mr Davie to go for months, after the corporation was hit by a series of appalling scandals (even before the Panorama incident).
It is reported now that the BBC may be about to say ‘sorry’ to President Trump.
The Guardian has said that given an apology for the edit has already been made by the BBC’s chair, Samir Shah (to the Culture, Media and Sport [CMS] committee), senior figures at the giant corporation see no reason why a more personal apology cannot be made to the president himself in its official response to the legal threat.
The BBC have concluded that the edit “gave the impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”.
People familiar with the discussions over how to respond also said the apology meant it could push back at any wider criticisms of its journalism of the US in relation to the coverage of President Trump.
I have heard this before.
When I presented BBC Cymru Wales Current Affairs programme Week In, Week Out (WIWO) we were often advised that a swift apology (even when you were not at fault) might lessen potential damages.
Now, though, I can revert to the rule of journalism, that all checks are made before a story is published, and once it goes out you NEVER go back on it, however strong the legal threats might be.
I receive these threats all the time, but, unlike the BBC, I am utterly confident in what is said, because all the legal checks have been made beforehand.
Several recently have been from a conspiracy theorist based in Penarth.
Here are two of them:
“I am currently preparing an evidence file, with legal input, for submission to South Wales Police (this would be a civil case anyway, NOT a criminal one!)“.
She has also proclaimed menacingly: “I am writing to formally notify you of my intention to pursue legal action against you for defamation in connection with articles published about me on The Eye website, and to raise serious concerns that your conduct may also constitute harassment under the Online Safety Act 2023
“To avoid formal legal proceedings, I require the following actions to be taken within 14days of the date of this letter:
-
- Immediate removal of all articles about me from The Eye website.
- A written undertaking that you will not republish any material concerning me”.
In an earlier notice to The Eye she said: “The tone and content of… articles are overtly malicious and have caused significant harm to my reputation, hindering my ability to secure employment and professional engagements. As a self-employed single parent, this defamation has severely impacted my livelihood and mental well-being. Despite previous requests for removal (There had been NONE!), these damaging articles remain accessible, perpetuating undue harm (The Eye’s lawyers have informed us that any harm or reputational damage comes from her OWN behaviour!)
(We have been advised that a ‘right of reply’ was not needed in these circumstances).
“Failure to comply with this request may constitute a violation of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), subjecting you to potential regulatory action and penalties.” (Our lawyers specialising in libel and data protection rules [GDPR] were consulted before publication, and all information is in the public domain).
At least these sort of empty threats put centre stage that iron rule for journalists: MAKE ALL CHECKS BEFORE PUBLICATION!
Details of Phil’s, astonishing decades-long journalistic career (when legal checks were often made on stories), as he was gripped by the rare neurological condition Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (HSP), have been released in an important book ‘A GOOD STORY’. Order it now.
Tomorrow – how during that career Phil, was always suspicious of politicians that claimed huge popular support with massive election victories, and this is underlined by recent polls where the winners said they had ‘won’ massive majorities.
