Trump v The BBC: who will the British public back?

Stay cozy, stay home, and save big online during Lowe's December deal drops. Because honestly, why go anywhere when the deals come to you? Check this out. Lowe's is going to give you two free select tools from DeWalt, Craftsman, or Cobalt when you buy a select battery or combo kit. Yep, two tools free. It's basically a holiday miracle.

Plus, rewards members get free standard shipping all month long. Yet another reason not to leave your couch. Kick back, click around, let the savings roll in. Shop new December deal drops on Lowe's.com every week this month.

Fresh deals, cozy vibes, zero effort. This is a Global Player original podcast. In a little while you'll be seeing I'm suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally to put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out. I guess they used AI or something. So we'll be bringing that lawsuit. A lot of people are asking, when are you bringing that lawsuit? Even the media can't believe that one. They actually put...

Terrible words in my mouth. Well, there was no AI. Those were the words spoken by Donald Trump. But Panorama had edited... two bits of the speech and put them together for which the BBC has apologised and the Director General and Director of News have now resigned. Today we hear that Trump is suing the BBC for 10... billion. And the question is this, are we watching a political battle or a legal battle? Will the British public back Trump or the BBC? Welcome to the News Urgence.

The News Agents. It's John. It's Emily. And over the weekend, I contacted a BBC executive and said it all seems to have calmed down. And then yesterday, Trump announced the lawsuit. And the person I wrote to said, yeah, if you could keep quiet next time, thanks ever so. It hasn't quietened down. And the worst nightmare that the BBC have sort of been planning for has come to pass a month on from when Donald Trump.

threatened it he has gone ahead with this lawsuit filed in florida as you say emily a defamation case for 10 billion dollars that he says has cost him so much financial damage and there has been malice and the BBC lied and misrepresented what he said, etc, etc. And so I guess our job today is to dig a little bit into what this means legally, whether there is a real case.

and then widen out the discussion to work out culturally, politically, where we stand as a country, whether we broadly are prepared. to back the national broadcaster over the US president. So Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit for defamation and for violation of Florida's... unfair trade practices act he's claiming five billion in each case in other words if you read through the whole lawsuit and i've gone through the full 46 pages what you find is they're trying to make

two cases one is that this very much was available in florida before the election of 2024 in other words americans in the state of florida you know nominally a swing state could have been subjected to influence, you know, the BBC's political influence if they'd watched something that... was derogatory to Trump and they had seen it and would that have influenced the direction of travel of the election the BBC's pushed back very hard on this and said

Obviously not, because he went on to win the election in 2024 anyway. And there is no particular platform on which you can, as an American in Florida, watch Panorama. Now... The lawsuit has sort of debated this and it said that not only are there sort of franchises, one is called Blue Ant distribution platforms where you can see panorama, but the other is in the very language that the BBC uses.

They cite Tim Davey talking about the global corporation, the global reach. In other words, their intention, the BBC's intention was to be global. And they put it in front of people across America so that people could watch the BBC. Park that as one thought. The second question is about defamation. He's already had this apology from the BBC over the editing. And his claim is that it was maliciously done. Panorama have said, yeah.

It was a mistake. We took one bit from the beginning of the speech. We spooled forward nearly. What an hour, more than 50 minutes and took another bit from the end of the speech. And we smashed those together as if it was one continuous sentence. And perhaps just to remind you at this point, this is what Trump said originally. We'll play you the original.

and then we'll play you the panorama edit so you can hear the difference. We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell. We're going to walk down. to the Capitol. And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

So you get the full context of what he was saying there and you get the panorama edit. Now, this was broadcast a week before the 2024 election. And in Trump's words, it was a brazen attempt to interfere with and influence the elections. basically calling the BBC an election influencer. And the statute of limitations on defamation in the UK is one year, which obviously has already elapsed November the 5th of this year. But in Florida...

Importantly, there is a two-year limit, hence why this becomes a very popular, very attractive place to see your lawsuit. And there are a lot of judges. in florida who have been appointed by donald trump and one or two of them in very celebrated cases have come out very very much in favor and taking the trump legal team's view on some of these cases and that's another reason why people think he chose the Florida jurisdiction to bring this defamation case.

The BBC's argument has been, look, no one saw it in America. So how can we be guilty of libel? How can we have impaired his election chances? How can we have ruined him financially and cost him reputational damage when one, it wasn't seen?

Two, he won the election anyway. And it's kind of the legal document that they've drawn up. There've been many occasions on this podcast where we've talked about some of the kind of outrageous things and clumsily written things that Donald Trump has said. I just want to read you this paragraph from the lawsuit, which says... In addition to access through various means, including BritBox, which is the product that all the British producers have,

to sell not just BBC documentaries, but things like Downton Abbey, for example, made by ITV, is available in America. And it says, including BrickFock, it's well established that millions of Florida citizens use a VPN, a virtual private network, to view...

content such as the panorama documentary so hang on you're not saying that millions viewed the panorama you're saying that millions could have viewed it because they've got a vpn now i think it's probably negligible if anybody thought oh i must watch the panorama in florida and this is the problem that the BBC now has, that Donald Trump has widened the attack out through this suit, that it's not just about the splicing together of those two bits.

of the speech on January the 6th that Panorama showed and the BBC has apologised for. And it was stupid. It was egregious. I mean, you know, I've said all this before on the podcast. Donald Trump widens it out into much greater damage about some of the other... people that were speaking in the programme, ignoring, of course, all those who were speaking in favour of Donald Trump, and then citing people like Liz Truss as one of his main arguments.

probably worth dwelling on what he says about Liz Truss in all of this. Yeah, I mean, he quotes Liz Truss and he says, no less an authority than the United Kingdom's former Prime Minister Liz Truss. I think it's probably a long time since she's had anything that hard. about her role as PM from anyone this side of the ocean.

But he quotes Truss as saying, the BBC is a huge problem. They've lied, they've cheated, they've fiddled with footage, especially in the case of President Trump, also covering up what's happening in Britain, whether it's mass migration, whether it's our economic problems, they're always... biased towards the left. I mean, so much to unpack here, isn't there? This idea that Liz Truss is wading to the rescue of a maligned Trump over the national broadcaster after she has repeated...

She repeatedly says she feels that she was brought down by the institutions of Britain, the deep state, the dark state, which we assume includes the BBC. Look, I think... Where this lawsuit, and as we say, it is long and detailed and there is a bibliography and dates and all the rest of it, it's meticulously done. But I think for my money, where it gets weaker, where it gets confusing... is the number of incidents that Trump and his...

team of lawyers are trying to put into this whole idea of defamation if you start with a panorama edit and said we're going to make a case that that was done maliciously there's no way you could do that by accident we believe it was done maliciously

You could argue that case, you know, you could probably do it as a fight to the death. And... If you wanted to try and find out whether there was malice, yeah, you could embark on a really dirty sort of hunt, trawling through emails, trawling through conversations, trawling through WhatsApps from various producers, trying to...

find out who did the edit, why, and what was behind it. But then he expands it into the whole shape of the panorama documentary. And what he cites is any commentator who is critical of him. He cites... Robert Reich, who is, you know, a well-known Democrat, former Labour secretary. During the Clinton era. During the Clinton years. He cites Heather Cox Richardson, who is a very well-known, hugely admired historian. He cites a Democratic congressman.

He cites Rick Wilson, who is, you know, a sort of author on Trump, a sort of self-professed Trump hater. These are commentators who have offered opinions to Panorama on Trump.

As you say, in the whole hour, they sit alongside Trump fans, Trump supporters, Trump voters, because that's what the BBC does. It gives you one of those and one of those, one of those and one of those. So this idea... that by naming these individual contributors, they are defaming him, I think would send chills down anyone who's... ever put together a piece or a package or a report that said this guy hates him this guy loves him

Yeah, so in my view, the BBC has a real problem over the editing and the splicing of those two clips together. But there, of course, is fair comment. You know, people can say rude things about Emily Maitlis. They say rude things about John Sopel. That doesn't make it a libel. I know, shock, horror. But if it's something is untrue and demonstrably untrue, in the British case...

That constitutes a libel. If you can prove something to be untrue, Emily Maitlis goes to the park with her dog and kills other dogs. Well, no, you don't. And unless they can prove that, then you have got a libel action that's absolutely won against the person who says that. But if they said I was a complete airhead...

What am I going to do about that? Am I going to sue somebody for calling me a complete airhead? I'm not. So one of the people in the documentary calls Trump a cult leader. Is that demonstrably... True? Yes, but there is something different about American law and British law, which I think our listeners need to be aware of, that it is that in America, you've got much, much, much more latitude to say what you like. And just because something isn't true...

doesn't mean you've committed a libel. You have to have malice, malice of forethought. There has to be malicious intent. You knew something to be untrue. deliberately went ahead and published it even though you knew it to be untrue because you had malice in your heart. And that is why it's a really problematic case for Trump to bring and a really problematic issue now.

is what does the BBC do next? Twist or bust? Because on the one hand, it says we're going to fight it. They've said that today. They've said that today. They've said we are going to fight this case. But I understand from pretty senior BBC people... that are still serving there, that they say, well, we've got insurance and we could probably settle out of court. It may cost us 10 million if that's the worst case scenario. But you're still then in the situation.

Where one, you've got the reputational damage that you're settling and not fighting. And two, even if you've got an insurance policy, that insurance policy is paid for with licensed payers money. Or... Do you go down the other route and fight the case, in which case it will probably cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to stand up in court in America and do that? And there's just one other bit of this that I think, again, will.

be focusing the minds of the BBC's legal team and political team is that in America there is the whole process of discovery where the Trump legal team say, right, I want to see all the WhatsApp messages. I want to see all the emails between the production staff, between the editorial staff at the top table of the BBC. And you can get an absolute treasure trove. And you're not telling me there won't be emails in there that say disobliging things.

about donald trump that will have vomit emojis or whatever it happens to be which donald trump will be able to use and say you see you're still biased there was one case in america that was settled recently against abc television where abc paid donald trump up front because they didn't want to go to the disclosure process of you know oh my god look at what we look i think this is so important and you can't actually say it enough that

I mean, this is getting a lot of airtime. This is a high profile story, clearly. But it's not the first time. that the BBC has found itself sued by somebody, sued by a corporation. There are these payments that go out when they get a story wrong, when they malign a company, when something, when they, you know, make a bad judgment. Money does change hands, you know.

It happened during the time we were there. We've known the stories where, you know, there was misreporting and money was paid out. But crucially, this is not the first time that Trump has tried to chill the media. by slapping them with a lawsuit. And we have seen a pattern of behaviour. It seems to me really important that you do not forget this is a pattern of behaviour in Trump's America in his second term. And you can name...

as you have done ABC, you can name CBS. Both had payouts of around £12 million, £15 million. What Trump has done... almost systematically, is go through many of the major media players, whether it's ABC, whether it's CBS, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, except for the places where they have very openly... laid down the red carpet, Bessos at the Washington Post and all the rest of it, he has made a point, it feels like, he has made a point of finding things that have given him cause to sue.

And it's never gone to court. I don't think the Wall Street Journal thinks it's in any danger of losing. a suit to trump but it is time consuming and it is reputation consuming and it is energy sapping and people will lose their jobs along the way so i think i think to sort of assume that this is trump deeply upset by one edit at the BBC is to slightly miss the point, which is across the board, he is trying to silence the media. Of course, he's trying to intimidate and he's been very effective.

in a lot of cases where people have, rather than fight him in court, have rolled over. Some are not settling. I mean, the Wall Street Journal hasn't settled. The New York Times hasn't settled.

But just take the ABC example, who did settle with Trump and they gave him, you know, £10 million or whatever it is. That is purely between ABC's shareholders. Do we support this? The board? Do we support it? And Trump? And how do you prove malice? Are you saying that the VT editor who sat in the edit suite putting together the clips of Trump from the January the 6th speech had malice in his heart? I mean, I bet it was idiocy.

I mean, I bet he thought... Well, it's not the beauty editor, is it? It's the producer who makes the call on the cut. And where it gets problematic about the malice bit is the BBC had it pointed out to it months and months and months ago that you'd taken out two... non-sequential bits of trump and smash them together as you say and did nothing about it and thinking we can get away with it now is that malice

Or is that just kind of wanting to hope you can get away with something and a quiet life? I think those are the sort of issues. You know, proving malice, I think, is not easy. Yeah. And I think also you have to take it in the context of the whole piece.

One of the curious things that came out of the select committee was, you know, Michael Prescott, who's... external report sort of kicked off this whole hornet's nest in the first place was him saying actually I watched the panorama when it went out and I thought it was pretty fair you know no one seems to be saying that anymore

that there can be a terrible mistake in the middle of it or a stupid mistake in the middle of it or even a malicious mistake in the middle of it, but it doesn't materially alter the balance of the documentary as a whole. Is that relevant? I think it probably is. If he settles this case, if the BBC settles this case or fights it and spends tens of millions of dollars, it's not just about your board of directors.

It's about the British public and that everyone is a shareholder in the BBC who has a licence fee. And so that is why. What do licence fee holders feel about $10 million going into Donald Trump's bank account? from them. I mean, that is the question that the BBC now faces. So does it go for the line of least resistance, which would be to try and settle out of court? Or does it fight it and spend tens of millions of dollars more and all the ugliness that could go with that?

You want your favourite character, which is the Hugh Grant Prime Minister in Love, actually, saying, to hell with that. We're going to stand and fight for, you know, king and country and we will not be bullied by a foreign power. But frankly... If it comes to court in any shape or form and they have to start paying big buck lawyers, then you're talking probably 30, 40, 50 million on the court proceedings before you even get to a judgment. So, yeah.

I mean, if you want the path of least resistance, you just... You pay to make it go away. And Emily, you mentioned my love of Hugh Grant playing that role of the prime minister. The one thing I do not see Keir Starmer doing right now is getting up and banging his fist on the table and saying, Donald, call this off. I'm telling you right now, we won't put up.

with it because I don't think that Keir Starmer wants to expend political capital on trying to save the BBC over a dumb edit on Panorama he doesn't want the BBC to come to any harm but what leverage has the British government got I mean you can ask nicely

But the BBC has got no leverage over America to say you've got to change your mind on this. Well, that is a bigger conversation. And after the break, we're going to be talking about the political, cultural and... national dimensions of a fight between the BBC and Trump.

and the conversations that matter. With award-winning journalists at the heart of the stories from the UK and around the world. Breaking news here in Edinburgh. I'm Simon Marks. My American Week is next. Reporting from the heart of Cardiff. Discover how today's story affects... your life. Listen on our free global player app or the new LBC app. LBC leading Britain's conversation.

Stay cozy, stay home, and save big online during Lowe's December deal drops. Because honestly, why go anywhere when the deals come to you? Check this out. Lowe's is going to give you two free select tools from DeWalt, Craftsman, or Cobalt when you buy a select battery or combo kit. Yep, two tools free. It's basically a holiday miracle.

Plus, rewards members get free standard shipping all month long. Yet another reason not to leave your couch. Kick back, click around, let the savings roll in. Shop new December deal drops on Lowe's.com every week this month.

Fresh deals, cozy vibes, zero effort. The News Agents. So the question you asked a moment ago was, would Starmer put his neck... on the line for the BBC, the Hugh Grant Prime Minister. And given how much effort he's put into his relationship with Trump, you'd kind of think, no, right? Because...

He's trying to cultivate soft power. He's done the state visit, the visit to Windsor Castle with the king. He's done the trade deal. Admittedly, you know, that sort of crumbling before our eyes, the further on it gets. But would we respect... if he didn't stand up for the national broadcast, if he didn't take on the British institution against, you know, the American bully. I mean, I do think that is a...

A question. You're saying he doesn't need to. I'm just saying he's got no leverage. Any cards. I mean, Donald Trump loves the metaphor of what cards have you got in your hand? And he does that with Zelensky repeatedly.

But what cards has Keir Starmer got left now? He's given him the state visit. Donald Trump said, thank you very much. That was very nice. Got dressed up in white tie and tails and I saw a military band marching up and down at Windsor. That was great. Loved it. But we've done that. Thank you. What do you, you know, you're not getting anything else in return.

turn now and i think that it's unlikely that keir starmer when he is beset by so many other problems which is you know maybe something else we could go into another time and i'm sure we will that he's not going to go and fight you know to the death

on behalf of the bbc and then you've got the question of where does the public stand on the bbc because i think that you know having been brought up i mean having worked my whole career at the bbc and thinking that you know i've always had it in my head that everyone hates the bbc until such times as it's under attack and it's an existential crisis and then

everybody rallies around and says oh well yeah i don't like the corporation but i love the programs and i love watching this and i love watching that and i love antiques roadshow and i love match of the day and i you know whatever else it happens to be And I'm not sure that is still true today. And that, I think, is the seismic shift that we've seen over recent years. And I don't think the BBC does command that overwhelming support. that it once did and it's part generational.

But it's also attitudes as well. I mean, I guess we have to slightly sort out when we're talking about the BBC, whether we're talking about just BBC News or whether we're talking about the BBC and all its sort of entertainment branch as well. But I...

I went to Luke Trill for More in Common, as I often do at these moments, to just ask him very bluntly, where do we stand as a country now? What does your polling show us about loyalty, frankly, that Britons have or don't have towards the BBC? And he said... Most Britons, and this is only 53%, so just over half, remain trusting of the BBC to provide accurate and impartial news.

But, as you said, that trust varies by politics, age and education. 42% of Britons think the BBC is biased, but they're split. on which way the broadcaster leans. So 27% thinks that the bias tends to be left-wing, 15% thinks it's biased to the right-wing, and only 3 in 10 Britons. So...

less than a third, believe the BBC is an impartial institution. Now, what Luke was saying was that overwhelmingly three-quarters of Brits think that what happened over the Trump speech was really bad, that the BBC did... misrepresent Trump's speech, and they don't like the fact they think it was misleading overall. The same numbers that sort of, you know, around 60% think that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness were right to resign over this. But I...

I mean, I guess the point is, this is all sort of in the ether of a poll. When you actually see Trump standing in front of you and saying, I'm going to take your licence fee money, I'm going to sue you, and let's... Be honest, if he sued for five billion, which is the sum on the table each time, 10 in all, that would be the end of the BBC. There is no more BBC. So, I mean, to go back to your original point, do people get cross with the BBC? They do. Do people...

all have their own sense individually of what the BBC is getting wrong all the time. They do. When you work at the BBC, do people tell you what that is the whole time? They do. But do they really want it brought down by a rich foreign... billionaire who doesn't need the money, who doesn't need the fame, whose reputation clearly didn't stand or fall on what happened in a panorama that might or might not have been shown in Florida. Do they really want to see...

The end of an institution in his hands? I don't think so. The numbers you just gave there, Emily, I thought they were really interesting polling data from More In Common. But the idea that only 53% of Britons... And I know it's a poll on, you know, margins of error and all the rest of it. But if only 53% of British people think the BBC is fair and impartial, that is a terrible number. I mean, I would love to know what it was 10 years ago.

when I suspect it would have been way higher. And it's partly a factor of the growth of social media, it's partly a factor of diversity, but it's also to do with the perceived failings that if you were pro... remain we've spoken about this before the way that bbc cover brexit annoyed huge numbers of people there are mistakes that are made but i you know i just know from my time in the bbc how much effort is

gone into to try and get fairness and to try to get impartiality and they do strive really hard to do it and yet these numbers and the fury over the panorama and the way it's been handled irrespective of what happens in the court case, has done the BBC brand grievous. OK, so if you want the number, 10 years ago, 2015, the number of Britons who trusted the BBC was 58. It's now 53. So it's gone down by five, but not that much. you could argue, is one of the most sort of seismic...

periods of political history that this country's seen. The Brexit referendum and the beginning of Trump and all the rest of it. Exactly. I mean, one of the things that Luke points out, which I think is worth bearing in mind, is that financial security is a major factor in trust. In other words... If you are less well off and if the BBC as a licence fee is eating into your household, you are less likely to give it the benefit of the doubt because you're constantly saying...

There's a lot of things I'd like to be spending this money on and I'm not sure that's it. Whereas if you are well off, if it doesn't really hit you, if it doesn't really disturb you to pay the licence fee, then you're more likely to give it the benefit of the doubt because you don't feel it's taking... as much from you quite frankly so i mean just to your your whole question of sort of institutional trust i think it's not just the bbc and it's not just the uk we don't trust institutions

across the board as much as we do. We were having this conversation about the monarchy a few weeks ago. We're having this institution about individual... We're having this conversation about individual...

independent bodies the whole time? You know, after the blood scandal, do you still trust the NHS? After the post office scandal, do you still trust the post office as an institution? I think we are getting... much much more demanding of all these institutions and and feeling quite skeptical of of where our trust goes anyway yeah but you know people are voting with their feet on the license fee yeah and hundreds of thousands of fewer people are paying the license fee saying

I don't want to do it. And you know, you haven't got TV detective vans going round, checking on whether people have got a television aerial on top of their house or not. Who needs an aerial? Those were the days. Those were the days. Do you remember those adverts? They literally used to put out adverts saying, we're coming for you. Yes.

completely and of course now you've got today of all days when the bbc is launching its green paper on what the future funding model of the BBC should be. And you think, well, it's come at a pretty shit time when Donald Trump has just launched this $10 billion lawsuit. I would love to think, love to think... that people will rally around the BBC and look at the fantastic programming on it and think of all the kind of different ways in which the BBC does amazing, amazing work.

But I'm sceptical. I think that there is a growing sense that the BBC sort of has lost its way. And I think it's really sad. And I think the handling of this and, you know, coming up against Donald Trump is just absolutely. Okay, let me ask you something. Do you think it's an anachronism? I mean, whatever the outcome of this lawsuit or non-lawsuit is, do you think the idea... of an impartial broadcaster in 2025 that is paid for by us, it has just outlived its time because...

Again to this survey, only a quarter of the public expect the BBC to last more than 20 years in its current form. So 25% of British people think... It will last. 75%, in other words, think in 20 years the whole thing's over anyway. And maybe 20 years is generous. Has it outlived its... Usefulness. Well, not usefulness, but... Possibility, maybe. It's such an interesting question. But I kind of want my answer... Look, my answer to that is...

how I feel about so much of Britain. If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper, would you have a hereditary monarchy? No? Ridiculous idea, but it seems to work. And it's so somehow British. Would you have a parliamentary system, you know, with hereditary peers? Absolutely not. You'd have a completely slimmed down upper chamber. But it seems to work.

Would you have a BBC funded by a licence fee in a digital age? Well, of course you wouldn't, but it seems to work. And so I think that unless you're clear about what the alternative is. Public service broadcasting in this country means we do not have the polarisation that you have in the US where, you know, if you're a Democrat, you wouldn't...

tune in to any of the so-called Republican far-right stations. And if you're a Republican, you wouldn't tune in to any of the so-called liberal left-wing stations. I mean, maybe... We think that the BBC is a unifier, and I would argue that it is on, you know, many world events and, you know, for big sort of ceremonial events it is. But at night...

There are people who will only go back to the BBC's news and there are people who will only go back to GB News. They will never meet in the news middle, right? Yeah, that's right. And that's something that has changed in the past few years because, you know...

Ofcom was supposedly there to make sure that you didn't have that sort of political bias in news, that one was seen as liberal, one was seen as more to the right. You know, there was meant to be this idea of impartiality and it didn't, you know, and years ago it didn't.

matter whether you watched sky or itv or bbc they were all different in their own ways you know chose different agendas went for some went for more crime stories other went for more international affairs stories but there was a duty of impartiality and i worry that you know actually were the bbc to really be brought down by this then i think you would feel you've lost something pretty profound but at the moment the bbc is

in the crosshairs of a vengeful president and it's not easy to see how this one finishes up all right so last question would you want to see the bbc show absolute back bone and rigor and say yeah not settling we'll see you in court if it's emails so be it if it's going through all the back correspondence of every producer who's worked on the programme, so be it. We think we can win this. We're not going to spend licence fee money on it. And we're not going to be cowed.

American broadcasters have been chilled by Trump's threats. We don't want to be in that situation. I think the BBC should fight it. But I think that the BBC has got to have so much backbone to do this, because I think... there'll be many times along this difficult road where the easiest option will be to settle and to decide right we are going to fight this to the last

and get it ruled on by the judge or a jury, I think is precarious, but I think is the right thing to do. What do you think? I think it will never happen. I think it won't come to court. I think any, what's that word they use? Off-ramp will be too attractive to, yeah, to go through the pain. I think I agree. We'll be back in just a moment. Stay cozy, stay home, and save big online during Lowe's December deal drops. Because honestly, why go anywhere when the deals come to you?

Check this out. Lowe's is going to give you two free select tools from DeWalt, Craftsman, or Cobalt when you buy a select battery or combo kit. Yep, two tools free. It's basically a holiday miracle. Plus, rewards members get free standard shipping all month long. Yet another reason not to leave your couch. Kick back, click around, let the savings roll in. Shop new December deal drops on Lowe's.com every week this month.

Fresh deals, cosy vibes, zero effort. OK, at the risk of sounding slightly obsessive on this one, we have just done a bit more digging. about public trust and where it started to erode. Guess what the big drop-off was? Go on. So if you go back to 2010... This is trust in the BBC. Trust in the BBC. Yeah. So at the moment, it is 53%. That's according to more in common. If you go back 10 years to 2015, pre-Brexit, pre-Trump, it is 58%.

If you go back to 2015, a YouGov poll, so not the same company, but hugely trusted, show that trust in the BBC amongst Britons was 58%. And if you go back to 2010... So five years more. Yeah. It was 72. Wow. So the end of the Brown-Blair years, Blair-Brown years, were the start of the falling off and the financial crash.

2008. I mean, you know me. I think every possible story goes back to the financial crash. It's like Genesis for me. It's the beginning of everything. And I just don't think you can... disentangle that question of trust from financial security? Actually, I think it's really, really key. The worse off you become, the less you believe in institutions, and the BBC is one of those. I completely agree with you that everything goes back to 2008.

And the remarkable thing about that is the extent to which people didn't realise it. Public policy makers did not realise it for years. They were oblivious to the fact that people's expectations of what they wanted. in terms of their livelihoods in terms of their disposable income was kind of absolutely not meeting the reality of their lives And it was only in 2016 when Trump won in America and Britain voted for Brexit and people started scratching their heads and saying,

Christ, what changed? What changed was 2008? Yeah, I mean, weirdly, obviously, the stat we've given you is 2010, when trust was still pretty high. It was still three quarters. So, I mean, maybe I'm being too simplistic. Maybe it's about plurality of media. Maybe it's about having more choices.

if you've only ever grown up with three channels one thing then you kind of trust the thing in front of you and the more you see of other things presumably the more fractured that gets but I do think the financial element is really strong in this which is When you are down, when you are really suffering, you don't really believe the institutions that have landed you where you are. Well, that's another cheery pre-Christmas episode of The News Agents. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye-bye. Bye.

This has been a Global Player original production.