The BBC committed bad journalism by biasedly editing two different speeches by Donald Trump, giving the false impression that he made a direct call for violent action on the day of the invasion of the Capitol, in 2021. The story has already cost two of the broadcaster’s positions their jobs and could leave a huge bill for the British taxpayer. Agent Orange threatens to sue the BBC for US$1 billion in damages.

Journalism, as it tries to draft the story in real time, is an activity more prone to errors than occupations that deal with repetitive and more easily “protocolizable” tasks, such as surgeries or air transport. The problem is not so much making mistakes, but always erring towards the same side on politically charged issues.

The internal report that highlighted the error in Trump’s case also identified biases in the BBC’s coverage of Gaza and trans people. What to do? Part of the problem is that different professions attract different audiences. It is common to see a greater concentration of leftists in activities such as journalism and academia and of rightists in military careers or in the financial market.

It is a self-selection process based on personality traits and tastes. I don’t see much that can be done to counter this. To make matters worse, we live in a moralistic era, which socially rewards engagement and militancy.

The path that seems feasible to me is to create a culture that clearly distinguishes the personal sphere, in which militancy is legitimate, from the professional one, which needs to be guided by technical rigor and distancing from preconceived positions.

The concern of reporters and editors when preparing texts for publication should be to inform their readers and not transform the world. They also need to develop a kind of professional paranoia, constantly asking themselves if they haven’t let themselves be carried away by their preferences and ended up crossing some red line.

Professional journalism, to fulfill its mission, needs to be different from social media.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.

United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said this Friday (14) that President Donald Trump is ready to fulfill promises to grant tariff exemptions to some foods and other products that are not produced in the USA.

Greer told CNBC in a live interview that there are some “micro areas” of trade in non-U.S.-produced products, such as coffee, cocoa and bananas, where the U.S. doesn’t need tariffs.

He said the time is ripe for this, after approaching trade agreements with four Latin American countries on Thursday (13).

“And so the president has decided that now that we have this in place, we have these agreements in hand, it’s time to remove some of these tariffs on products. Products that we don’t make here.”

The White House announced on Thursday (13) that the country had reached preliminary understandings for trade agreements with Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala.

According to the government, the agreements should be concluded in the next two weeks and open markets for US agricultural and industrial production. The four countries have committed not to impose taxes on digital services from big techs.

The White House indicated that the general tariffs of 10% imposed on products from Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala, and 15% on those originating in Ecuador, will remain unchanged, but that there will be a reduction in a certain number of goods.

According to the White House, the American government has maintained good conversations with other countries in the region. Brazil, the target of 50% surcharges, was not mentioned in the agreements.

The United States Senate approved this Monday (10) an agreement that ends the longest government shutdown in the country’s history, ending a weeks-long impasse that interrupted food benefits for millions of people, left hundreds of thousands of employees without pay and caused delays in air traffic.

The proposal, which had 60 votes in favor and 40 against, received support from almost all Republicans in the House and eight Democrats, who tried, unsuccessfully, to link government funding to the renewal of health subsidies that expire at the end of the year.

The agreement provides for a vote in December on these benefits, which serve 24 million Americans, but does not guarantee their extension.

The text restores resources for federal agencies whose budget expired on October 1st and suspends President Donald Trump’s campaign to reduce civil service, preventing layoffs until January 30th.

The bill now heads to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The President of the House, Mike Johnson, stated that he intends to approve it by Wednesday (12) and send it to Trump for sanction. The president classified the agreement to reopen the government as “very good”.

The agreement extends federal funding until January 30, keeping the government on track to add about $1.8 trillion a year to the public debt, which already totals $38 trillion.

The decision comes a week after Democrats won significant victories in state elections in New Jersey and Virginia and elected a democratic socialist as the new mayor of New York.

The outcome provoked irritation among Democratic parliamentarians, who point out the lack of guarantees that the Senate and the House, both under Republican control, agree to extend health subsidies.

“We wish we could do more,” said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, second in the Democratic leadership. “The government shutdown seemed like an opportunity to move forward with better policies. It didn’t work.”

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in late October showed that 50% of Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown, while 43% blamed Democrats.

American stock markets rose this Monday, driven by news of progress in the agreement to reopen the government.

Trump had already unilaterally canceled billions of dollars in spending and reduced the federal payroll by hundreds of thousands of employees, interfering with Congress’s constitutional authority over the budget.

These measures violated previously passed budget laws, and some Democrats questioned why they should support new spending deals under these conditions.

The approved text does not include specific mechanisms to prevent Trump from promoting new budget cuts.

On the other hand, the agreement guarantees financing for the Snap food subsidy program until September 30 of next year, avoiding possible interruptions if Congress once again paralyzes the government during the period.