The BBC - the British Broadcasting Corporation, for those outside the UK - is often seen as a jewel in the nation’s crown.
But right now it finds itself, by its own admission, on the losing side of an argument with Donald Trump.
It’s a testing time for the broadcaster. Beyond this dispute - as well as others - the BBC faces a crucial renegotiation of its funding and regulatory framework with the UK Government before the current agreement expires at the end of 2027. The last thing it needs right now is a protracted controversy involving the US President.
For those unfamiliar with the story, a leaked internal BBC memo alleges that the programme Panorama misled viewers by splicing together two separate sections of Trump’s 6th January 2021 speech, making it appear as though he was urging supporters to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.
Following the leak and the resulting backlash, several senior BBC figures have resigned – including Tim Davie (the Director General) and Deborah Turness (CEO of BBC News).
And the situation continues to escalate as Trump’s legal team has issued a list of demands to the BBC. In summary:
- A full retraction of the Panorama episode
- A formal apology for the “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements”
- Compensation for the harm caused (amount unspecified)
If these demands aren’t met by Friday this week, Trump intends to seek no less than $1 billion in damages - the Sanction.
Sometimes, you’ll find yourself in a similar position to the BBC - you’re in the wrong, and you’re going to lose the argument (that’s not to say Trump is right, but we are where we are.)
One approach is to dig in - to keep arguing, believing you hold more power than you actually do. You might hope that sheer persistence or persuasion will turn things around. It rarely works long-term. At best, you win a momentary reprieve; at worst, you sow distrust that damages future relationships.
A better approach is to move out of the argument by making a proposal.
For the BBC, that means considering strategically how to manage and respond to Trump’s list of demands, including evaluating the costs and value of negotiating a resolution versus a standoff with the US President.
Removing the episode: the assumption is this concession is high value to Trump, since it’s the first item on his list, but low cost to the BBC.
Issuing an apology: Given the BBC has admitted fault and apologised already, this costs nothing but pride; it could hold significant value for Trump, who is known to appreciate flattery.
Compensation: If the BBC were to agree to the first two demands, would that be enough to remove the claim for compensation? If not, and paying compensation becomes unavoidable, the BBC could control it by specifying the amount and making it conditional. For example:
- Compensation is fixed and final.
- The $1 billion claim and all related complaints are dropped.
- Trump and his team agree to a specific number of future exclusive interviews with the BBC to be broadcast locally and internationally - offering mutual value as this may help increase international advertising revenue.
This way, the BBC doesn’t simply give in to demands - it takes back control of the negotiation.
When you find yourself in an argument you can’t win, stop arguing and start proposing.
A well-constructed proposal reframes the conversation from confrontation to collaboration - and that’s where lasting resolutions are found.
