In The Spectator, Matthew Parris asks of the BBC's Trump edit:

[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was-the-bbcs-trump-edit-outrageously-wrong]

Was the BBC’s Trump edit outrageously wrong?

Note first the use of the qualifier 'outrageously'.

This qualifier implies there are different levels of 'wrong', which of course is nonsense - there is only 'wrong' or 'right'.

Then Parris blathers on about a made-up word: Truthiness.

Truthiness implies...well it's not actually true but isn't here some truth in it?

Another way of putting it is 'fakiness' - it might be fake but maybe there's some truth in it?

Which makes the BBC's editing team 'fakirs'.

But then this is far from the first time, the fakirs have been in action.

Parris references UK national treasure Sir David Attenborough - someone who is well-acquanted with 'fakiness':

[https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/frozen-planet-scandal-sir-david-96593]

Frozen Planet scandal: Sir David Attenborough defends fake polar bear footage

So maybe the editing 'error' wasn't that 'outrageous' because it actually reflected some truthiness.

Well maybe it did but that's hardly the point.

The point is what was this deliberate edit intended to do? What was the intent?

What was the viewer supposed to think?

That Trump said this stuff in that order or not?

And what was the impression the editor wanted the viewer to be left with from this 'error'.

I think we all know the answer to that - 'truthiness' or not.

And that's why Trump is suing.