I'm sure that you are right in that it was deliberate, but this...

"You start off with footage in the order in which it was shot — in a documentary, that would be chronological order. Editing is the process whereby you can change that order."

... is only true if you assume that you are using only one camera crew. I haven't actually seen the clip, but to show someone storming in or out of a room, you are almost certainly going to be using at least two camera crews.

However, the footage should be time-stamped, so the likelihood of it being a "bona fide cock-up" is quite small, but it is possible.

DK

The time-stamping is what I was referring to. What I meant was that you don't have the legitimate problem that arises when filming fiction, of filming things in non-chronological order, which makes life trickier for editors. With a documentary, the time-stamp tells the editor all they need to know about the order in which events occurred.

> show someone storming in or out of a room ...

As I understand it, they didn't. They showed her storming down a corridor and showed her in the room; there was no footage of her entering or leaving the room — which is what allowed the false implication to be made. So it could easily have been done with one camera.

"Note the slight change here from "blunder": they're saying the public weren't supposed to see this. If no-one knew there was anything wrong with the clip, why wasn't it to be shown to the public?"

There's always the possibility, I suppose, that it was put together for internal BBC consumption only, a Christmas 'gag reel' type thing. I know that does happen....

In which case, we'd be back to RDF not trusting the BBC not to be totally incompetent.