Former President Donald Trump has been fighting a lawsuit with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). He’s suing for defamation over a documentary released right before the last presidential election in 2020. When he filed the lawsuit, he was living in Florida. It brings the issues of jurisdiction and malice into play, further complicating Trump’s current struggles against news organizations.
Trump’s lawsuit hinges on two main points: whether the BBC can be held accountable under Florida law and whether it acted with malice in its reporting. The heart of his argument involves demonstrating that audiences in Florida actually watched the offending Panorama episode. Trump contends that the BBC published the documentary one week prior to the election with the intent to mislead viewers.
Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) should be a big red flag. This step is taken in parallel with his claim against the BBC. This new, related lawsuit has to do with a much reported note that Trump wrote to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The former president’s legal strategy seems to be the last gasp of a FUD — fear, uncertainty, and doubt — campaign against big U.S. media conglomerates.
Chris Ruddy, a longtime friend and ally of Trump, provided insight into the potential financial implications of this legal battle. He estimated taking the case all the way to court would be $50-$100 million. We recommend the BBC shoot for a lower settlement—around $10 million would be a win. Such an approach would save taxpayer dollars and avoid an expensive, years-long trial.
“The BBC had no regard for the truth about President Trump,” – Chris Ruddy
Trump’s legal team says that the BBC heavily edited his speech by splicing two sections together. Further, they contend this manipulation creates an inaccurate perception of his comments. They assert that this editing was intentional, aimed at crafting “as one-sided an impression and narrative against Trump as possible.” This allegation raises profound ethical concerns about journalistic standards. Moreover, it forebodes to what media practice becomes when placed in the context of a hyperpolitical environment.
Trump has previously claimed that the documentary is still available to viewers through virtual private networks (VPNs), contrary to BBC’s statement. This access creates a new layer of jurisdictional complexity around his case. Expanding on this thread, his filing indicates that viewers all over Florida actually did see the Panorama programme, thus satisfying at least one basis for jurisdiction.
Yet as this important case proceeds, it uncovers a broader trend. In fact, Trump appears to be sinking his teeth into an old-fashioned tactic of using legal action to intimidate and pressure domestic U.S. media companies. As one leading First Amendment advocate noted, these lawsuits are intended to intimidate media companies. This kind of intimidation might be enough to chill good, necessary reporting.
The BBC now faces a critical decision: whether to engage in a protracted legal battle or to explore the possibility of settling the case out of court. This bad decision will tarnish its legacy. It might disrupt their plans to package this content together and deliver it to U.S. audiences via an app.
“None of Blue Ant’s buyers have aired it in the US,” – Industry insider
The implications of this case go far beyond Trump’s personal complaints. Such an outcome would create a new precedent protecting foreign media companies from being sued in the U.S. on foreign soil. It’s doubly important when they are going after high-profile subjects such as Trump.