The BBC integrity has found itself at the centre of a major controversy this week following a Panorama documentary that included an edited version of a Donald Trump speech from the day of the 6 January riots at the Capitol.
The edit stitched together two separate sections of the speech, almost an hour apart, and in doing so removed key context. The result was an apocryphal version of events that appeared to show Trump directly inciting violence at the Capitol.
A leaked internal memo from an independent adviser to the BBC’s board later said the edit “materially misled viewers” – and the fallout has been immense.
The US president is now threatening to sue the BBC for $1.5 billion, and two of its top executives, Director-General Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness, have resigned. The BBC has apologised, insisting the intention was to condense the speech, not to mislead. But the reputational damage has already taken hold.
Why selective editing matters
This wasn’t merely an unhelpful omission; it was misleading. And moments like this fuel an already growing scepticism about the media’s impartiality and accuracy. When journalists cherry-pick fragments of a statement, it can distort the entire meaning.
This sort of selective journalism is not an anomaly. It happens weekly across the media landscape in Australia, and it’s why ABC’s Media Watch never runs short of material.
Just yesterday, an outlet published a story based on a single quote from a detailed written response that an organisation had provided. The rest of the context was ignored, and when you actually read the full response, it became clear that the story was not only inaccurate but deliberately sensational. The reasonable answers voided the entire premise of the media coverage, but ignoring them served the goal of manufacturing outrage.
We’ve also seen the reverse: when the coverage of someone’s passing, such as John Laws, becomes entirely rose-tinted by some reporters, devoid of balance. Or when a journalist knows the truth yet chooses to amplify a misleading quote, burying the facts in a token line further down.
A PR perspective on media accuracy
This selective editing happens far too often. And while it’s tempting to be indignant about it, we’re not.
As PR professionals, we care deeply about the truth and about protecting the reputations of those who act with integrity. It’s frustrating, even painful, to see an organisation or individual unfairly damaged by selective or inaccurate reporting, especially when it’s done knowingly from a position of influence.
But here’s why we’re not up in arms: the good work done by journalists far outweighs the bad.
Every day, we work with journalists who are committed, thoughtful and circumspect in their pursuit of the truth. They shine light on complex issues, make them accessible to the public and bring balance to divisive conversations. Many go to extraordinary lengths, sometimes at great personal risk, to tell important stories and to tell them well.
The good in journalism far outweighs the lapses. The vast majority of journalists are diligent, fair and genuinely motivated to inform rather than inflame.
The bigger picture
So whilst the BBC faces a reckoning over this documentary, let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture. Journalism at its best is one of the most vital forces for understanding, accountability and truth. It holds immense power, but only when it handles facts with care, context and conscience.
