Donald Trump said the BBC made him make comments he never made, a situation attributed to possible interference by artificial intelligence and conventional editing in the Panorama program. This allegation arose after Samir Shah, president of the British group, admitted in November that the disseminated material could indicate that Trump had incited violence during the events of January 6, 2021. After publicly admitting to the issue, the former US president filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Miami in which he is demanding total compensation of $10,000 million (the equivalent of about 8,500 million euros). The legal team claims that the edited publication significantly distorted the meaning of Trump’s words and directly damaged his reputation and his current presidential campaign.
As the New York Times reports, the lawsuit is based on the alleged violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and argues that the BBC changed key fragments of Trump’s speech before the attack on the Capitol. The former president’s legal representatives submitted a 46-page court brief denouncing that the release of the documentary, broadcast during a strategic phase of the presidential campaign, significantly changed public perception of the former president. In this context, the lawsuit seeks two amounts of $5 billion each: the first for the damage to Trump’s image and the second for the alleged negative impact on his candidacy for the 2024 elections.
The contents of the Panorama documentary, detailed by the New York Times, are pointed out by those close to Trump that phrases and messages were attributed to him that he had never uttered, a mechanism that, according to the lawyers, exacerbated the negative exposure of the former president in the midst of the election situation. Trump stated: “They literally put words in my mouth. They made me say things that I’ve never said publicly, I guess they used artificial intelligence or something,” a statement that supports the plaintiffs’ position on the seriousness of the events. The court text states that the show’s depiction of Trump was “false, defamatory, misleading, derogatory and malicious” and influenced the development of the campaign and its positioning in American public opinion.
The New York Times also said the lawsuit highlights the possible use of artificial intelligence in editing the content, which lawyers say would have increased the level of manipulation within the report. Following this line of reasoning, the BBC’s editorial strategy, in the words of those close to Trump, violates information integrity by questioning the objectivity and trust in the public enterprise.
In response to the controversy, the BBC issued a public apology after Samir Shah admitted the impression created by editing the material. However, the British company rejected the request for financial compensation and stated that it would not pay any compensation in connection with the edited content. As the New York Times noted, since the lawsuit was filed, the BBC has refrained from making any additional statements related to the litigation or clarifying the possible intervention of artificial intelligence during the editorial process of the Panorama program.
In court documents, Trump’s lawyers emphasize that the changes introduced by the BBC influenced public perception, which had direct consequences for his political and electoral figure. In addition, they point out that the controversy puts the British group at risk of loss of credibility, not only in terms of its coverage of election campaigns, but also in terms of standards of impartiality and journalistic accuracy.
As the lawsuit continues in federal court in Miami, the New York Times emphasizes that the case remains open to new statements and appearances from both the BBC and Trump himself and his legal team. The British company has not yet provided any further information on the technical details of the issue in question or the integration of artificial intelligence into the report. The outcome of the trial will depend on future decisions by the court and new official responses from the BBC to the allegations surrounding the manipulation and alleged defamation of the former US president’s figure as the presidential race continues in the United States.
About The Author
