Trump, the BBC, and the $1bn threat

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30Shaun Kent:Whole Foods Market. Make your summer sizzle. How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos? On Good Bad Billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune. He's buried himself in a coffin for days. Counted to 100 ,000 on camera. And even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man$10 ,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

1:10Shaun Kent:Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadawati. Now, I want to say first, I'm going to timestamp this. We're recording this on Wednesday, the 12th of November. It's a pretty fast moving story, so I'm not sure what's going to happen in the next couple of days. But right now, I am joined by our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, all the way from South Carolina. Sean, this week we're renaming the programme to BBC Under Fire. And just a warning, this episode may contain strong language. Sean, you kind of know this. We've spoken about it a little bit. But Sean, last Sunday, the BBC's big boss, Director General Tim Davey and Head of News Deborah Turness, they up and quit on a Sunday evening.

1:46Shaun Kent:On top of that, the BBC has been accused of having institutional bias. And then to top it off, President Donald Trump is threatening to sue for$1 billion. dollars that's b with a billion sean just out of like interest in south carolina if i say director general do you know who that is like what that means for the bbc not no but hell no zero clue who that is so the dg the dg is the chief executive and editor-in-chief of the bbc now he said it was completely his choice to go so he wasn't forced out and cited personal and professional pressures of the job. I've got a little clip here. I think we've got to fight for our journalism.

2:26Shaun Kent:I'm really proud of our work and the amazing work locally, globally that we're doing is utterly precious. We have made some mistakes that have cost us, but we need to fight for that and I'm fiercely proud of that. Now, I think it's really important to make clear and I'm not sure if you know this either, but this isn't the first issue that there has been and it's not just the BBC's journalism that has been under fire in recent years. An emotional farewell as Gary Lineker presents his final match of the day. He leaves the BBC earlier than planned following controversial social media posts. The documentary was pulled from the iPlayer in February because it emerged that the 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official.

3:08Shaun Kent:Former Masterchef presenter Greg Wallace is launching legal action against the BBC over a data protection claim. High court documents show the case has been filed, but no further details have yet been made public. Wallace was sacked in July after a report upheld more than 40 allegations about his conduct on Mastershire. His representatives have been approached for comment. So you heard there a bit of a montage of some of the issues. Now, the media termed this the summer of scandal, but last time I checked, we're in November and we have another issue. the sitting president of the United States of America, your commander in chief, has sent a letter indicating that he might sue the BBC over a defamation claim.

3:49Shaun Kent:And he's explained why to Fox News. They actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech. And they made it sound radical and they actually changed it. What they did was rather incredible. They're showing me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up. but it was very dishonest and the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit. We're actually going to play it. But tonight you are saying to our viewers that you will go forward and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC. Well, I think I have an obligation to do it because you can't get people, you can't allow people to do that.

4:23Shaun Kent:I mean, we hear in that clip he says the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit. We've had two people resign. That's the Director General Tim Davy and the head of news Deborah Tarnes. This institution, the BBC, has been going for a really long time. And this is seismic. That's the way they've referred to it. But Sean, you're in South Carolina. How much of why Trump is pissed off has made its way organically over to you, not through conversations with me? It's out there. People are talking about it, but not to the level that you would think it would be more akin of Donald Trump is suing somebody again, as opposed to, oh, my God, can you believe that Donald Trump is suing the BBC?

5:01because, you know, whether you like him, don't like him, voted for him, not voted for him, everybody universally agrees he probably is the most litigious president that we have ever had. And so at a point in time, once you have sued just about everybody, it kind of loses its fervor. So people are talking about it, but not to the level that you guys would be talking about it over there.

5:23Shaun Kent:So perhaps the details of what actually happened are a bit lost. Let's just walk through them, OK? So we have a panorama documentary, Trump, A Second Chance, which was broadcast in the UK on the 28th of October, 2024, just days before the US presidential election. Now, the programme edited a Trump speech together and he appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol Hill riots of January 2021. In Trump's speech on the 6th of January, he said, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. In the Panorama programme, he was shown saying, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you and we fight.

6:01Shaun Kent:We fight like hell. The two sections that were stitched together were originally more than 50 minutes apart. Now, although the documentary aired last year, the criticisms of it were exposed in a leaked memo published in the Telegraph newspaper last week. The memo was written by ex-journalist Michael Prescott, who was an advisor to the BBC on how it could uphold its impartiality and editorial rules. He said this and other failings revealed institutional bias. For example, he said the BBC often publish stories celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. He said there was anti-Israel bias in BBC Arabic coverage.

6:39Shaun Kent:Now, the BBC chair, Samir Shah, accepted a, quote, error of judgment had been made on the Trump documentary. I know you have feelings about that, Sean. We're going to get into your feelings. But he added it was simply not true. The corporation had done nothing to tackle problems. Now, this is big. This is big. This is a big thing because the BBC's output has to be both impartial and accurate. When we are talking about the impartiality, do you think that's broadly understood what's meant there? I mean, I know you're a lawyer, so you understand what I'm saying, but do you get like how it applies to all of the news?

7:15Well, I get how it's supposed to, but let's not forget the news that we see in America is slanted. Anybody will tell you that. We have Fox News. We have CNN News. And everybody knows in America there are certain news stations you watch if you support a Republican agenda, and there are certain news stations you watch if you support a Democratic agenda. So it is supposed to be fair. It is supposed to be impartial. It's not. That's one of the things that we sometimes have trouble with journalism in America is that we have the slant. That's one of the reasons you and I've been talking about is forever that I enjoyed some of the BBC broadcasts because I would say that it is supposed to be.

7:52And you uphold the tenets that I believe in journalism, that it is Joe Friday, just the facts, ma 'am, just the facts. And so when things like this happen, you're just like, ah, crap, here we go again.

8:03Shaun Kent:Yeah. So impartiality, it means not taking sides, reflecting all relevant strands of public debate and challenging them with consistent rigor. And I think let's walk through this with Diddy. Let's think about how we did it on that because we did it all the time. We did it every episode. After the federal government released the indictment where they accused him of sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution and racketeering with conspiracy, some super, super serious charges there that could lead up to life in prison, a lot of the reaction, and I think one of the first things we spoke to you about was, well, doesn't it mean that he's definitely guilty?

8:35Shaun Kent:Because that's a federal indictment from the United States of America. It's got that heft, that weight behind it. Now, if I got on the podcast and said basically that, this is from the feds, you know, the prosecutors in the SDNY, the Southern District of New York, they have a really, really high conviction rate. So he's obviously guilty and they're probably going to get him. That view would be partial rather than impartial as it would favor one side over the other. Having you on the program was a decision as a criminal defense attorney explaining how a federal indictment is just a list of allegations that the prosecution absolutely have to litigate in court and prove.

9:09Shaun Kent:and that Diddy at the same time was still innocent until proven guilty, having that pushback from you repeatedly, that was impartiality in that matter. That's how it plays out in like real terms. And I think it's good to go through it like that. I mean, it always helped me to go through things like that. But obviously, Sean, let's get into the legals of this. We've got Donald Trump, President Donald Trump's threatening to sue the BBC. You know that he sent a letter to the chair of the board. Is that a demand letter? That is what you hit. I get so excited. One hundred percent. That is just a demand letter.

9:43That is just you can call it a threat. You can call it what it want. But it is basically a letter to you saying do blank so that we don't go into a lawsuit. Demand levers are prevalent. That's what happened. This is a proper demand letter. Demand letters.

9:58Shaun Kent:That's like typical practice. In some situations, they're almost required. Some states, they're sort of like, send a demand first, because what we don't want is we don't want our court systems burdened with cases that just can be worked out. And so a lot of times we try to work these things out via demand letters so both sides know where they are so they're not surprised by a lawsuit. So part of the function of a demand letter is potential mediation. I love these phrases. Absolutely. Absolutely. Because, again, our court systems are, when I say backed up, Anushka, there are cases still going on pre-COVID that were filed and brought pre-COVID.

10:34And so what the court doesn't want is Mr. Trump files a lawsuit today. This ain't going to be heard for three and four years. The problem with waiting for three and four years to hear cases is, as you now know, people get fired. People quit. People don't participate. People die. Evidence disappears. So we want cases to go quickly. And that just can't happen. So that's why we have demand letters. That's why we have mediation, so we can make the system move faster.

10:57Shaun Kent:Well, there you say he's sent a typical demand letter. He's laid down an ultimatum with three key demands for the BBC. Immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and all and any other false defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published. immediately issue an apology for the false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements about President Trump, appropriately compensate President Trump for the harmed caused. Now, it reads, if the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14th, 2025 at 5 p.m.

11:30Shaun Kent:EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than one billion dollars in damages. The BBC is on notice. Firstly, the expressly reserved and not waived. What does that actually mean? All he is just saying is all things are on board. I can sue you for anything I want. You either do what I want or don't take this letter to mean this is the only thing that I can sue you for. All this letter is putting you on notice is that I can file suit. And there might be stuff that's not even contemplated in this letter that I'm not telling you about.

12:07So don't just go later and say, but you only said this in the letter. All the letter is saying is I got a bunch of stuff I possibly could sue you for.

12:14Shaun Kent:Now, in terms of the BBC's response, BBC Chair Samir Shah said the BBC was considering how to respond to the legal threat. A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster would, quote, respond directly in due course. We spoke about the demand letter being kind of a typical thing that happens. Is it common for it to be so public? No, absolutely not. That's ridiculous. The point of that demand letter is you called it. It is a threat. It is a very carefully crafted political public stunt utilizing to basically flex the authority and power of President Trump. Because usually when we send demand letters, and you and I have talked about a lot of them, if you look at the Jay-Z situation, the Diddy situation, a lot of these lawsuits, these demands are sent privately and said, look, let's settle this quietly.

13:04Nobody will know about it. Give me the money and we won't have to worry about your reputation. When you send something out so publicly, you're saying, I want the world to know that I'm coming after you. And that's a different reason why you send demand letters. So, no, normally we don't send them to the papers, anything of that nature. We send it privately to the other party. We let them know what they're looking at so they can settle it privately. Because, Anishka, one of the great things about demand letters, the strength of a demand letter is it helps your bargaining strength. Because you're saying, you don't want this to get out here.

13:37So since you don't want that to get out, pay me so nobody in the world knows about it. And this letter does the opposite.

13:42Shaun Kent:We're talking about defamation again. I feel like we talk about defamation a lot. I'm going to call you as my expert on defamation. You've talked about it more than anybody. I would say you have to pay me a lot, but you don't. I just enjoy this. I'll give you$1 billion.

14:00Shaun Kent:Defamation, what do we talk about? We've spoken about this so many times. Let's think about the Macron's episode that we did. When you are alleging defamation of a public figure in the United States of America, I feel like we're doing revision here, the bar is higher. Come on, you got it. Give it to me. You have to prove actual malice. You have to prove that you said something knowing it was false or recklessly disregarded the fact that it could be false and stated it as the truth anyway. Do you think that he has a legal leg to stand on in terms of claiming defamation? It is going to be so hard to make a claim that it was not done with actual malice.

14:37When you put together one, who he is to the stuff that he has said, three, the edit, the problem that he has had with the January 6th riots. And the most important part, the damn apology that you guys sent out, I think he 100 percent has a leg to stand on as far as actual malice and defamation. Now, that doesn't take us to the rest of the stuff that you need for a lawsuit. But I think he does have a leg. I didn't say he's going to win. He has a leg to stand on.

15:10Shaun Kent:The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients. At Whole Foods Market, no antibiotics ever, burgers and kebabs are prepped and ready to throw on the grill. Fire up a juicy ribeye, grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department and round it all out with 365 brand condiments, chips and dips at everyday low prices. Whole Foods Market, make your summer sizzle. How did a boy called Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos? On Good Bad Billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr Beast, made his fortune. He's buried himself in a coffin for days.

15:49Shaun Kent:Counted to 100 ,000 on camera. And even recreated Squid Games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man$10 ,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

16:13Shaun Kent:okay but the BBC have said that mistakes were made the use of the word mistake doesn't that offer up a level of protection because if it was a true and honest mistake journalistic mistake aren't they then protected by New York versus Sullivan and and if so oh I love it I'm getting so excited yes I'm getting so excited I feel like I'm gonna get a gold sticker can you explain that and explain, am I right or am I wrong? You are spot on. Of course, Donald Trump, because he is a public figure, is held to a higher standard when he's accusing someone of a defamatory act because by way of being the president of the United States, everybody look at any comedian, look at any satire, people talk trash about the president all the time.

17:01It comes with the office. And so you cannot be thin-skinned to be a public official. And so in that bane, people are going to say things and mistakes are going to be made. That's why there's such that high standard. And so for him to prevail, he's going to have to say, one, it was done, which it was. Check. Two, it was done with actual malice. The person who did this did this specifically to hurt Donald Trump. That's going to be a high bar to prove, especially when we come back and say, look, this was simply a mistake. We regret what has happened. Now, mind you, that's just your defense. He's going to say something completely otherwise.

17:42And that's when depositions go back and forth. People are going to be asked questions. Why did you do this? Why would you have done that? Why would you splice this? It's going to be interesting. But yes, it is such a high bar for someone to prove actual malice. Someone did something specifically with an intent to hurt. What makes this case interesting, Anushka, is his theory in a weird way makes sense. He's almost saying, you guys were trying to hurt me. You don't want me to be president or something of that nature. And that's why you would have done it. And that's what gets us to the last part of it, that he's going to have trouble with the damages and all the other situations.

18:19Shaun Kent:Well, I was just about to say that because he goes on to become president. So in terms of proving damages, you have to prove what you say, cognizable damages. I mean, it's not going to be in this case. I don't think it will be this caused me emotional distress and I had to go to a therapist and here's my therapy bills. but it would be reputational harm and or influencing the election, which he won, which went in his direction. So doesn't that, that damages his damages? You hit it spot on. So even though I said there's a leg to stand on, you have to go to the other part. And let's make this clear.

18:48And I want to explain a couple of things. People here, and you and I've talked about this, just because a lawyer throws a number in a lawsuit or a demand letter doesn't mean that that's what the case is worth. Just because you throw this random, I give, give me$1 billion. Okay. Give me a gazillion dollars if we're just throwing random numbers. The biggest defamation case in history is the one that recently happened involving the Sandy Huck shooting and so forth. And that was for$1.4 billion. That's the biggest in history. That is an outlier for defamation cases. Usually, I mean, the highest I've ever seen is like 750 million, 740 million.

19:21And I think in London, I think it's like 1.5 million or something or pounds or whatever the hell y 'all call it. This billion number is so arbitrary. It's absolutely ridiculous. And two, how is the president going to say that I am damaged? The BBC ruined my opportunity to become president and I became president. I just don't see a billion dollars worth of damage. There might be damages. There might be reputational damages. But if we do it even more simply, by definition, more than half of the United States voted for him to be president, which means more than half of the United States don't give a damn about what the BBC said about him dealing with the January 6th situation.

20:03So it is going to be difficult for him to get in front of a jury and say, you have damaged me to the tune of$1 billion.

20:10Shaun Kent:Jurisdictionally, there's a question there as well. He couldn't raise a lawsuit in the UK because it's outside of the statute for defamation. It's a year. One year. Yep. You guys have a one year statute. But in Florida, it's, yeah, what's going on? You coming over here? You seem to calm me. Two years in Florida. Two years in Florida. So, I mean, question asked, question answered. why raise it in Florida? Because you have a longer amount of time to raise it. So what makes this tricky for him is damages. Could the fact that the letter was sent so publicly, could, if this went to court, could the BBC say this man had no intention of mediation?

20:43Shaun Kent:This is a publicity stunt. Look at what he did here. And could that weaken his case? They can argue it. It won't work. We hear that all the time. People say that stuff all the time. And the court's going to say they have a right. You as a plaintiff have the right to do it however you want to do your lawsuit. You want to send a demand and let the world know? Let the world know. I mean, you're in journalism. Think about it. How many times do we get tipped off about lawsuits or things of that nature? This happens all the time. He just happened to let the world know what he was doing. There's nothing wrong with it, especially if this is part of his strategy.