'It's their job to tell the truth!' Martin Daubney slaps down GB News guest for defending BBC's 'storytelling' in fiery doctoring row

The leaked dossier has also accused the BBC's Arabic service of "minimising Israeli suffering" in its coverage of the war in Gaza. The memo says allegations made against Israel were televised without adequate checks due to a desire always to believe the worst about Israel.

It comes as the report also revealed that the broadcaster doctored a Donald Trump speech, by making the US President appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riots on January 6.

Leaping to the defence of the BBC, MS Mahomed told GB News: "I'm quite fair when it comes to these analysis, and when it comes to broadcasting, editing is part of storytelling, and the allegations alone don't hold guilt.

"The key question is intent and impact, and did the edit material mislead viewers or did it fairly represent the border truth of Trump's usual rhetoric?"

She argued: "Let's be honest, it's not just the BBC, there are major news outlets from CNN to Fox to Channel 4, who edit and frame stories to fit a certain narrative or tone. And it doesn't automatically mean that there's a grand conspiracy, it's just how editorial storytelling, unfortunately, does that."

Martin hit back, pointing out the findings of the report: "That's the actual findings of the report? The findings of the report say this was pushing an agenda, and it didn't do the job of having due impartiality.

"You say the BBC's job is to tell stories, no, it's not. It's to tell the truth. You don't tell the truth by splicing clips together that happened hours apart and showing them in the wrong order. It clearly intimated that Donald Trump revved up the Proud Boys to go and riot, and that didn't happen in the real world."

Ms Mahomed responded: "Well, editing for brevity is standard practise and doesn't prove malicious intent. The 'fight like hell' line reflected Trump's actual rhetoric so focus was editorially defensible.

"Accountability process works when the whistleblower review shows that internal checks functioned, and the isolated error doesn't equal institutional bias across thousands of BBC journalists. Ofcom punishes systematic deception, not single edits which are later clarified, which it was."

Putting a hypothetical situation to Ms Mahomed, Martin stated that if the edit had been in regards to a "Muslim scholar", she would be "clutching her pearls and shouting blue murder".

He explained: "You're very eloquent in there defending the BBC, but let me paint a picture for you. Just say GB News decided to make a report about a Muslim scholar, and we used a clip from an hour later where it was him saying we give them hell, and then it showed a picture of a riot that happened two hours before he spoke, and we displayed it that way.

"Would you seriously be saying, 'oh, everyone's allowed to tell a story, it's just editorialisation'. Of course you wouldn't, you'd be clutching your pearls and screaming blue murder!"

Ms Mahomed responded: "It's not just also about the the issue of what's edited, it's also how people interpret what they see. We all come from the news with our own philtres, political, emotional, cultural. So even two people watching the same clip can walk away believe in completely different things.

"It's not just about the bias in broadcasting, it's about the bias within ourselves as audience as well. So again, I do feel that editors routinely shorten speeches and link them with relevant imagery to tell a story. That doesn't automatically equal bias unless intent or effect are clearly missing. And again, that needs to be investigated if it's found to be that way."

A BBC spokesman said in a statement: "While we don't comment on leaked documents, when the BBC receives feedback it takes it seriously and considers it carefully.

"Michael Prescott is a former adviser to a board committee where differing views and opinions of our coverage are routinely discussed and debates."