Donald Trump’s speech is controversial again – not because of what he said this time, but because how it was edited by the BBC. In the BBC’s Panorama documentary, viewers heard Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” What was not shown is that these were two separate statements. Earlier in the speech, Trump had said, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” It was only much later that he said, “And we fight. We fight like hell.” [1]
By placing these two moments together, it appeared as though Trump had called for violence. Trump has now threatened to sue the BBC for defamation (FYI, for at least $1bn). So how would Malaysian law view this, given that the words were originally his?
Journalists are allowed to report matters of public concern, and political speeches are clearly within that right. Broadcasters like the BBC are usually protected by what the law calls “qualified privilege”, which protects them from liability – as long as the report is fair and accurate. [2]
But editing a speech the way BBC did? You would very much be in trouble.
Defamation is not just about whether words were spoken – it is about the meaning created. In the landmark English case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [1999] 4 All ER 609, the House of Lords held that an article omitting all reference to the Plaintiff’s explanation could not be a fair and accurate report, and was therefore misleading. – This is exactly what is alleged here: by cutting out context and timing, the BBC presented Trump as issuing a violent call, which may be defamatory.
Malaysia applies the same principle. In Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Datuk Yong Teck Lee & Anor [2017] 6 MLJ 133, the 1st Defendant published only one side of the story and left out the Plaintiff’s version of the event. The Court rejected the excuse that the Plaintiff’s version was already in the public domain. Likewise, the BBC cannot rely on the fact that the full speech was available online – fairness must exist in the broadcast itself.
In deciding whether one can rely on qualified privilege, the Court may also compare how the same event was reported by others. In Loh Mui Fah v Dr Selvakumar Thirunavukarasu & Ors [2015] 8 MLJ 800, the Court inferred malice on the Defendants’ part because other media reported it accurately but the Defendants did not. It held that reckless misreporting destroys the defence of qualified privilege.
In a world of fast edits and AI tricks, the law remains clear: you can edit, but you cannot mislead.
[1] “Trump says he will take legal action against BBC over Panorama edit”, BBC News, 16 November 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891jp9j79do (accessed 1 December 2025)
[2] Note that qualified privilege is not limited to professional journalists or media companies.
About the Author
Lee Jia Vin is an Associate at XK Law, bringing a wealth of experience across a diverse spectrum of legal matters. Her expertise spans corporate disputes, industrial relations litigation, adjudication claims, and criminal cases. Jia Vin is committed to maintaining a balanced lifestyle, engaging in activities such as yoga, hiking, swimming, and playing ultimate frisbee to support her well-being.
