Used across the political spectrum

The SNP First Minister John Swinney says Gibb is a clearly party political figure on the BBC board, saying this position is "untenable"
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home...

Gibb was appointed for a three year term from May 2021 - May 2024. He was then reappointed for a four year extension by the Sunak government in March 2024, shortly before the General Election

LibDem leader Ed Davey wants Gibb removed from the BBC board now + "an end to political appointments" on the Johnson/Gibb model

www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

The Johnson government's approach - if adopted by others - would lead to a much more partisan tit-for-tat political approach to public broadcasting.

Two contrasting narratives here: the right's attack on liberal/left bias + the challenge to conservative partisan + political appointments

The Johnson government of 2019-22 appears to be much the most partisan post-war government in its approach to BBC governance and the BBC executive, alongside Thatcher's appointment of Marmaduke Hussey as chair to fire Alasdair Milne in 1986-87 (though that was 7 years into her term)

It now looks a v difficult somewhat poisoned chalice for anybody - but might it prove an accidental over-reach for the political appointees of the 2019-2022 governments to have now brought down the DG (historically, a co-partisan, with a BBC track record) *after* a change of the party of government?

The direct analogy would be appointing a figure like Peter Mandelson or Alastair Campbell to the BBC board - and having Mandelson intervene in staff appointments on the grounds of affecting the Labour government's "fragile trust" in the BBC. (Gibb's attempts to block this appointment failed)

Quite remarkable thing for the UK government of the day to push such politicised scrutiny inside BBC in the ostensible cause of a balancing a bias against the government.

Demonstrates a left/right assymetry that Labour government - with a landslide victory - could not dare unpick Johnson/Cummings

One could see a case for this kind of strong culturally, political conservative perspective being in the room - as 'viewpoint diversity' - if adequately checked, balanced and countered by contrasting views too. Has looked like a politically driven overcompensation for perceived liberal metropol bias

In America Trump's approval dropped v sharply after the 2021 January 6th riots - because of the combination of his election denial and the violent insurgency by his supporters.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...

It did not drop at all in Oct 2024, when UK documentary spliced an edit together

Trump approval in Britain - very negative - rises sharply if briefly shortly after the Panorama programme

This has nothing to do with the Panorama programme. It is a brief Winner's Bonus from getting re-elected, later diminished by his madness in office

The damages claim is a mad hoax

thank you Martin

no, do you have the link

Should just laugh at the idea of spending UK taxpayers money on offering money for Donald Trump's feelings about something that clearly had no impact of any magnitude on the reputation of Donald Trump - in October 2024 (!)

Anybody in Britain who gives credence to Trump's absurd bullying of a news organisation by claiming significant reputational impact (damage) from a BBC edit of Panorama in October 2024 should lose any credibility

- Demonstrate a shift in Trump's reputation at that moment!
- Attribute it to the BBC

It is utter bullshit that the mistaken splicing of two bits of his January 6th 2021 speech on Panorama in October 2024 had any significant impact whatsoever on the reputation of Donald Trump in Britain, or globally, and the claim for $1 billion damages is bullshit and bullying by the US president

Trump's January 6th speech analysed by the BBC: it is an anti-democratic speech, telling a crowd lies about a stolen election; it calls for people to "fight like hell" & calls for "peaceful and patriotic" protest (against the legitimate winner of a democratic election)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-u...