So, the BBC has boobed and Donald Trump has seized an opportunity to damage Auntie!
I use an affectionate old nickname for the BBC that I don't seem to hear much nowadays. It comes from days past, when the BBC was perceived as a fussy elderly aunt who of course knew best what the nation ought to be watching and listening to. Yet a benevolent aunt, with an important remit; a corporation governed by Charter no less, and able to extract a licence fee from most of us. Whose programmes were from the beginning quality creations, made to the highest standard, with the original objectives to educate as well as entertain absolutely front and foremost.
From the 1920s to the 1950s, the BBC had a virtual monopoly of broadcasting in this country - initially radio, then television. Then in the 1950s Independent Television came along, and with it competition. But the BBC adjusted, and met the challenge with some landmark documentaries and drama to lure people away from ITV's glamourous offerings.
In any case, the BBC was always regarded as the National Broadcaster, the main source for serious listening and watching. Even so, ITV companies - and, for a while, pirate radio - blossomed, and by the mid-1960s the Beeb was looking a little old-fashioned. But it had comeback plans. First, a second TV channel was launched: BBC2. It became a colour channel, and I well remember watching in 1969 Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation on the new family colour TV. Meanwhile the stuffy old radio services - the Home Service, the Light Programme, and the Third Programme - were in 1967 relaunched as Radios 4, 2 and 3 respectively. And a brand new service, Radio 1, replaced all those pirate radio stations out in the Thames Estuary, their seasick DJs now warm and comfortable in their own Broadcasting House studios, and (let's be frank) on nice secure salaries.
Now it was the BBC's turn to blossom. But the old high standards were adhered to all the same. In truth ITV - and its new addition, Channel Four - did very well too. I suppose the 1960s and 1970s were the Golden Decades for both the BBC and Independent Television. Many of the most famous programmes, soaps and drama series were spawned in that era. There were stars that have remain big names, even though most of them are now dead. The BBC remained a powerful institution, with a reputation to preserve and enhance. Its News division was considered second to none. It was trusted like no other source, and the BBC's World Service was the gold standard for all similar broadcasters around the world. It was the voice of Britain.
The last forty-five years since 1980 have seen a gradual decline in the BBC's fortunes. It has come under political attack; it has been guilty of several journalistic missteps; there have been scandals and cover-ups; it has suffered from a shortfalls in funding, the licence fee being frozen while inflation marches on.
Above all, the rise of the Internet, and eventually radio and TV streaming by subscription, has been a dagger at the BBC's heart. It has the iPlayer, of course; it still produces some hugely popular and long-running programmes; but all the best new drama and the latest films are on the various streaming channels owned by Disney and other giant media players who can spend virtually what they like. Many people resent paying the licence fee when they only watch Amazon Prime or Netflix. How to fund the BBC is a pressing issue nowadays, and some ask whether the Beeb ought to be put on a commercial footing like the rest, to sink or swim like the rest. They should be careful what they wish for. The BBC's independence from advertisers and over-influential sponsors is priceless. I for one wouldn't trust the BBC to be impartial if it were merely a subscription service.
Well, is it impartial anyway? Even as things stand? Or has the rot already set in so badly that, to gain attention, the BBC is warping the facts to make its programmes more compelling? That's the essence of Mr Trump's complaint, plus how he feels the programme has affected his reputation.
I haven't seen the Panorama programme in question, about his role in the storming of the Capitol building in Washington nearly five years ago by supporters of his who had accepted his assertion that the 2020 Presidential Election was 'stolen' by Joe Biden. I note that news articles on this controversy have for the moment slipped down the BBC News app, and I can't find the actual programme on iPlayer in order to see it for myself. I dare say it's been withdrawn pending legal developments.
It should be noted that this isn't the only item on iPlayer that features Mr Trump. He isn't (yet) complaining about those.
Is this dangerous for the BBC? After all, the man wants not only an apology (humiliating for the BBC) but says he will claim one billion dollars in damages - an impossibly large hit for the BBC.
Mr Trump dislikes any broadcaster he doesn't control. Remember, he withdrew funding for Voice of America earlier in 2025, effectively closing it down. It was, if you like, the US World Service, and had been taking a critical line with what Mr Trump did. So he punished it.
The UK government have at once said that the BBC is independent of them, and must fight its own battle in its own way. This sounds to me as if the UK government would like the BBC to stand up to Mr Trump and call his bluff, something it can't openly do itself. Perhaps the BBC have already been assured that the UK government will underwrite whatever costs are involved. It might result in a proxy sock on the jaw to Mr Trump. Goodness knows, many Brits will say he needs it. But I have already heard a lawyer say on the radio that Mr Trump has launched many previous lawsuits against people and organisations he doesn't like, without following them through.
What if he doesn't back off? How could he proceed? Which court would have jurisdiction? The BBC is not an American organisation. It is a British corporation and subject to English law. I think Mr Trump would have to sue the BBC in the High Court here. Which means the court would control when his case could be heard. And it would be a personal case only. They might just let it join a long, long queue.
And could he win? I understand the Panorama programme meddled with a speech he made to the mob that stormed the Capitol building, altering the order of the words Mr Trump said to give the definite impression that he was inciting them to riot. But his words, in their proper sequence, conveyed something short of that. Even so, if my memory serves, he did speak to the mob, and he did give them his smiling approval - the effect of which was to unleash the riot, which caused a lot of damage and led to several consequential deaths. He certainly did nothing whatever to disperse the mob, nor to tell them that their outraged belief that he had been blatantly robbed of the Presidency was wrong. In my own view, based on what I recall, he was a prime moving force behind what happened; and that if the Panorama programme was asserting that, then it wasn't incorrect. But it shouldn't have presented anything in a way that could be misleading, and Mr Trump has some sort of case on that score.
Has it really hurt him, however?
Everyone in America and this country saw the contemporary TV footage of the riot, and his speech to the crowd. His reputation at the time was such that what he said and did at the Capitol came as no great surprise. And it all went on record. But despite that episode, four years later he was in power again as the elected President. Proof enough, surely, that his words and actions at the Capitol had not dragged him down. His reputation was therefore unaffected by the Capitol incident. And going over it all again now shouldn't make a difference, even if doing so badly annoys him - naturally, he doesn't want the past raked up unnecessarily.
I don't see how he is damaged. Everyone knows what he is like. And after all, there are no Presidential consequences. He can't stand for office a third time. Even if he tried to, his age will be against him. Born in 1946 (like me, he is a Baby Boomer) he is eighty in June next year, and will immediately become vulnerable to the kind of jibes and back-stabbings that come the way of elderly incumbents who need to make way for younger aspirants. He can swear to good mental and physical health as much as he likes; he won't be able to deny his age. People will look askance at every stumbling, every hesitation. His authority will suffer. I predict he will be too busy fending off the encircling wolves to worry too much about the BBC.
So, cheer up, Auntie!
If you would like to give me feedback on this post, or make an enquiry, please email me from my Blog Profile.
