The British plan to steal Scotland's independence referendum by Wayne Madsen

The British plan to steal Scotland's independence referendum

WMR's informed British sources have revealed that the British government, which includes the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties, as well as the Labor opposition, have colluded with the British media to downplay in articles, news broadcasts, and published opinion polls the actual strength of the pro-independence "Yes" campaign in Scotland. On September 18, Scotland will vote in a referendum on whether or not to seek independence from the United Kingdom, thus ending its 307-year old union with England. The hyped news reports, including "news" about a looming terrorist threat and a new royal baby, as well as skewed polling numbers, according to our sources, is to prepare the country for a razor-thin loss for the pro-independence "Yes" vote in an election result for which Americans and others have become all-too-familiar.

WMR has learned that a few months ago, the British government instructed the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in a confidential document to undermine at every opportunity the Yes vote, especially when interviewing Scottish voters. There is a strong belief that other British networks and newspapers, including Rupert Murdoch's Sky News and the Times of London, received the same instruction and obediently carried it out.

Our sources report that the actual "Yes" for independence vote is leading the "No" vote by a full 11 percentage points. That means the actual number of Scots who will be voting in Scotland and are already doing so from abroad via postal vote, is in the absolute majority range of 60 percent.

This wave of support for independence, which is being led by the Scottish National Party government First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond, has sent shock waves through the City of London banking infrastructure, parliament, Number 10 Downing Street, the British intelligence agencies, and Buckingham Palace. 

In a classic "carrot and stick" strategy, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his ministers promised increased powers for the Scottish parliament, Holyrood, in return for continued union with the UK, while also using the fear factor to frighten Scotland into submission. Cameron raised the terrorist threat level to the second highest category in response to an alleged plot by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to carry out attacks in Britain as a way to convince Scottish voters they were safer inside the UK. 

There is concern on both sides of the Scottish border that the British government might stage a terrorist incident a day or two before the September 18 referendum. Whatever would be planned is said to be designed to unite the entire UK in grieving just before the referendum, thus swinging Yes votes to the No column.

The alarm bells on Scotland actually voting to become independent were not sounded until polls showed the election tightening. In 2013, every media poll showed the Yes campaign losing by a double digit margin to the unionists. The always dubious polling numbers of American polling "expert" Nate Silver, a former DailyKos groupie, showing that the independence supporters had "no chance," were used to bolster the anti-independence campaign.

The No forces are now in such a quandary over polls showing the Yes campaign being slightly ahead of the pro-unionists that they have asked for Queen Elizabeth II to intervene and speak out against Scottish independence. However, Salmond has pointed out that Elizabeth II will remain as the Queen of Scots because Scottish voters are not being asked to dissolve the 1603 "Union of Crowns" but only the 1707 "Act of Union" between the English and Scottish parliaments. 

The City of London banking community, which is implanted with Rothschild family and George Soros financial manipulators, has warned, in concert with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, that an independent Scotland will be tossed out of the pound sterling currency union and face an economy without the pound. The pre-referendum drop in value of the British pound appears to be manipulated and there is no better person in the world of currency manipulation than Mr. Soros, who became a billionaire by shorting currencies. 

The British government's friends at the European Union headquarters in Brussels have warned Scotland that it will have to reapply for EU membership, something that will take a number of years and be subject to a veto of just one member, for example, the rump United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which will remain a member. 

Britain's intelligence and NATO allies have also been called upon to weigh in with comments about the dire problems if Scotland votes to break the union. Among the leaders who have abandoned neutrality and come to London's defense are U.S. President Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Scotland has been told that it will be expelled from the FIVE EYES intelligence alliance of the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand until it "proves" itself as a trustworthy intelligence ally. Never mind the fact that Scots make up a majority of the British MI-6 Secret Intelligence Service ranks and are among the best analysts and cryptographers within Britain's NSA counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). By keeping "Releasable to GBR" within the FIVE EYES pact and refusing to consider a "Releasable to SCO" caveat, the FIVE EYES will effectively become "FOUR AND A HALF EYES."

India's External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, a Zionist version of Indira Gandhi, when asked about the prospect of Scotland's independence, responded, "God forbid!"

Knowledgeable British sources say that massive election manipulation, including tampering with the absentee postal votes, is what is in store for Scotland on referendum day. There will be an attempt by London to manipulate the vote to show a razor-thin loss for the Yes vote in what could be a 50.1 percent vote for "No" to independence to a 49.9 percent vote to "Yes." Current polls that include the undecided voters show 51%-49% in favor of Yes to independence. The vote will be immediately declared by the media and British government to be "conclusive" as the "will of the Scottish people." Of course, any suggestion that the vote was rigged will be immediately be discounted as an unfounded "conspiracy theory."

Canada's Harper seemed to be peeling away at what the FIVE EYES have in store for Scotland when he said he expected the Scots to reject independence in the same manner as Quebecois rejected independence in a 1995 referendum by a very close and likely rigged 50.6 percent to 49.2 percent vote. What primarily killed Quebec independence was the influence of Montreal's influential anglophone Jewish community, coupled with the anti-independence media empire of Zionist media tycoon Izzy Asper, all of which actively campaigned against independence and were well-armed with their media ownership and money. Scotland has seen the same influences gathering steam from the City of London banks to the Murdoch-owned newspapers and networks and the Guy Zitter-ownedDaily Mail.

In 1974, this editor received a handwritten letter from a young and little-known Scottish independence student activist on Scottish National Party stationery bearing a blue combined Scottish saltire and thistle logo. The letter, which was an answer to an inquiry from this political science undergraduate about the chances of Scottish independence, spelled out why a free Scotland was not such a far-out idea at a time when most people would have scoffed at the notion. That letter was signed, "your friend, Alex Salmond." The author of that letter now stands to become the first Prime Minister of Scotland, but only in a free and fair referendum, which is now looking increasingly doubtful.


Breaking English colonial chains is an uphill battle even for a movement that has majority support in Scotland.

Scotland needs a miracle to save it from the continued clutches of a devious colonial infrastructure in London. Even in a Celtic land of enchantment like Scotland, that sort of miracle may be a long shot.

London turns up propaganda effort ahead of Scottish independence referendum by Wayne Madsen

London turns up propaganda effort ahead of Scottish independence referendum

With just six weeks before Scottish voters head to the polls to vote on their country restoring its once cherished independence from the United Kingdom, British government authorities are turning up the heat on the pro-independence forces led by Scotland's ruling Scottish National Party and First Minister Alexander Salmond.

Not only has London ensured the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) toe an anti-independence editorial line but the American media dutifully got behind President Barack Obama's anti-independence statement while he was in Europe meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Obama said the United Kingdom should remain "united," clearly a tip of Obama's hat to London's "Better Together" campaign against a September 18 yes vote on Scottish independence. The British and American media are working together to paint Scottish independence as a fanciful pipe dream that is unrealistic on a number of fronts. However, an independent Scotland would be a left-leaning nation that would support true social democracy and justice for Palestine, all points enunciated by Salmond, and that prospect has the London bankers and the Zionist-owned and controlled media worried.

Rallying to the Scotland remaining in the UK cause have been Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright, both longtime maidens for the House of Rothschild and its multi-billionaire avatar in "progressive" politics, George Soros.

On August 5 there was a televised debate between Salmond and the chief of the "No" vote campaign, Scottish Labor Party member Alistair Dowling, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Scotland who has the backing of the Tory Party of Cameron, the Labor Party of Ed Miliband, and the Liberal Democrats under deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. Just before the independence debate was broadcast, STV (the Scottish branch of the BBC) saw its website crash. After the debate, Britain's establishment and corporate media, which includes the BBC, panned Salmond's performance as poor against the erstwhile lackluster Dowling.

On June 5, Obama, who was in France marking the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, was asked by a BBC reporter about the Scottish independence vote. Former British diplomat Craig Murray wrote that the question was prepared in advance by Number 10 Downing Street and the BBC reporter was carrying out government instructions by asking the question -- a question for which Obama had been pre-briefed by Cameron.

The London government has enlisted the support of J.K Rowling, the author the Harry Potter series, to its anti-independence cause. She joins Eddie Izzard, a has-been transvestite comedian and actor, to lead the cause against Scottish independence. As reports of English organized pedophilia reach closer to Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street, having a transvestite as the leading spokesman against Scottish independence has not seen any bounce for the "No" vote in Scotland. To the contrary, support for independence, while still not a majority, has increased into the 40 percentile range from the mid-30s.



Ironically, according to our British intelligence sources, the greatest support for Scotland remaining a part of the United Kingdom comes from the Scottish elite class, which, through the years, has been rewarded with senior positions in Britain's civil service, including science, education, electrical power, medicine, medicine, the royal family, and, most importantly, intelligence. These Scots, who have become comfortable in their subservience to the UK state, fear the loss of special privileges if Scotland votes to break free of its English chains. Therefore, these anglophile Scots are doing everything possible to ensure that the "Yes" vote in the referendum fails.

Salmond has accused London of waging a "fear campaign" against Scottish independence. This campaign is enabled by the half of the members of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI-6, and the MI-5 Security Service, MI-5, who are Scottish. These Scottish members of Britain's intelligence and defense nomenklatura class will stop at nothing to ensure that a "No" vote on independence wins out next month. Our sources report that the outcome of the vote will be skewed against independence even if the yes vote appears to be heading for a majority. The method used by MI-6 and MI-5 against a yes vote will be similar to the hacking by the federal and state governments of voting machines and tabulating computers in the United States to ensure pre-determined outcomes.

BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias - by Stephen Lendman

BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias - by Stephen Lendman

In its near 86 year history, BBC has a long, unbroken and dubious distinction. Today it's little different from its corporate-run counterparts in America, Britain and throughout the world. In fact, on its tailored for a US BBC America audience, what passes for news matches stride for stride what people here see every day - mind-numbing commercialism, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, celebrity and sports features, and other diverting and distracting non-news that should embarrass correspondents and presenters delivering it. It offends viewers and treats them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about the most important world and national issues affecting their lives and welfare.

That's the idea, of course, and has been since BBC's inception. John Reith was its founder and first general manager. Reassuring the powerful, he set the standard adhered to thereafter: "(You) know (you) can trust us not to be really impartial." BBC never was and never is.

Impartiality has no place on BBC nor does its claim about "honesty, integrity, (and being) free from political influence and commercial pressure." How can it? Its Director-General, Executive Board Chairman, BBC Trust Chairman and senior managers are government-appointed and charged with a singular task - to function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." On all vital issues - war and peace, state and corporate corruption, human rights, social justice, or coverage of the Middle East's longest and most intractable conflict, Westminster and the establishment rest easy. They know BBC is "reliable" - pro-government, pro-business and dismissive of the public trust it disdains. Now more than ever.

This article covers one example among many - BBC's distorted, one-sided support for Israel and its antipathy toward Palestinians. In this respect, it's fully in step with its American and European counterparts - Israeli interests matter; Palestinian ones don't; as long as that holds, conflict resolution is impossible. Therein lies the problem. With its reputation, world reach, and influence, BBC's coverage exacerbates it.

Key BBC Terms In Its Israeli - Palestinian Coverage

In October 2006, Electronic Intifada.net listed BBC's "key terms" in its conflict coverage - to "find a balance" that, in fact, tilts strongly toward Israel. For example:

-- pre-meditated assassinations are called "killings" or occasionally "targeted killings" if Israeli sources say it;

-- the separation or apartheid wall is called a "barrier, separation barrier, West Bank barrier, (or simply) this wall;" sometimes "fence" is used as well; no hint of its real purpose or that the World Court ruled it illegal; no mention either that it's unrelated to security and simply a land-grab scheme and effort to heighten Palestinian isolation;

-- East Jerusalem - BBC recognizes West Jerusalem as part of Israel; East Jerusalem is considered occupied with its status "still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties....We recognize no sovereignty over the city;" The phrase "Arab East Jerusalem" is avoided; so is any mention that Israeli settlements encroach on it and aim to annex it entirely; Palestinians want the city for their capital; it belongs to them; Israel won't allow it; BBC won't explain it;

-- Gaza - Israel nominally disengaged in summer 2005; in fact, it never did; it merely redeployed its forces, and maintains rigid control over the Territory's land, coast and airspace; it invades and attacks at will and maintains a brutish mediaeval siege; all movement in and out of Gaza is restricted; so are Gazans' access to food, water, health care, fuel, electricity and other life essentials; the result is a deep humanitarian crisis; BBC ignores it; instead it merely refers to an "end to Israel's permanent military presence," not an end to its occupation, repression, continued incursions, mass killings, targeted assassinations, and systemic use of torture;

The Green Line - it separates Israel from the West Bank, but BBC reporting blurs it; it doesn't call it a border because that implies internationally recognized status; instead it fudges by calling it "the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank;"

-- Intifada - more fudging when referring to causes; value judgments are avoided; so is truth; don't say Ariel Sharon's September 29, 2000 Haram al-Sharif provocation incited a popular uprising; package his visit with Palestinian frustration over a failed peace process and say it "sparked the (second) intifada (rather than it) led (to it or) started (it);"

-- Jewish - distinguish between "Israeli" or "Jewish" to avoid religious or racial connotations; stress political ones instead; ignore how Israelis stress Jewishness by relating to "the promised land," one "without people for a people without a land," a Jewish homeland, Israel's biblical connection, and raising the issue of anti-semitism against harsh Israeli critics; when they're Jewish call them self-hating;

-- Occupied Territories or Occupation - BBC refers to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, not the Golan Heights; after Israel "disengaged," Gaza is in political limbo; BBC distinguishes between the "occupied territories" and Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories; calling Gaza and the West Bank "disputed territories" is preferred; in fact, there's no dispute; they're both Israeli occupied Palestinian land;

-- settlements and outposts - BBC distinguishes between them when, in fact, they vary only in size; BBC avoids calling them illegal; they're all illegal but adjectives aren't used unless they're vital to a story; in all reports, BBC is one-sided; it stresses that Israel disputes international law; anti-Israeli value judgments aren't made; the rule of law is dismissed; Palestinian rights are ignored; the growing number of Israeli settlers is fudged, downplayed and generally not mentioned;

-- Palestine - BBC acknowledges that no independent state exists but the "peace process" aims to create one; unmentioned is that negotiations are fake and their reports try to hide it; so do deceptive words to appease pro-Israel critics; BBC obliges them;

-- "relative calm" or "quiet" periods - it refers to quiescent Palestinian resistance, no Israeli deaths, but not ongoing Israeli attacks and killings;

-- right of return - BBC ignores international law and UN Resolution 194; it promotes the Israeli position instead; and

-- "terrorists" - a loaded term applying only to Palestinians; never Israelis; most often other words are used like "bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent (or) militant;" Palestinian self-defense is never called resistance, and Israeli incursions aren't ever called aggression.

Media "Rules of Engagement" in Covering the Middle East

In June 2002, Robin Miller listed "The Media's Middle East Rules of Engagement." BBC's Israeli-Palestinian coverage adheres to them rigidly:

Rule 1 - "View the Middle East (ME) through Israeli eyes;" Palestinians are terrorists and aggressors; Israelis are victims who retaliate; self-defense is their motive; so is avoiding the truth;

Rule 2 - "Treat American and Israeli governmental statements as (truthful) hard news;" avoid any information that contradicts them;

Rule 3 - "Ignore the historical context;" avoid mentioning six decades of dispossession, occupation, and hundreds of preceding years during which Palestine was the Palestinian homeland; also suppress the idea that a Jewish homeland first originated with Zionism's late 19th century's founding and didn't exist prior to that;

Rule 4 - "Avoid the fundamental legal and moral issues posed by the Israeli occupation;" say nothing about Geneva, UN Resolution 194, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and all other recognized international human rights laws;

-- Rule 5 - "Suppress or minimize news unfavorable to the Israelis;" this rule is ironclad and unforgiving; open debate isn't tolerated; facts are suppressed; aggressors are called victims; self-defense is called terrorism; news is carefully "filtered," minds manipulated, and truth conspicuously absent; BBC excels at it and lets Israel get away with murder;

-- Rule 6 - "Muddy the waters when necessary;" major US media do it; so do human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; they tread lightly on Israeli-Palestinian issues and slant their views accordingly; so does BBC;

-- Rule 7 - "Credit all Israeli claims (as fact), even if wholly unfounded;" if Israelis say it, it's true; BBC approves;

-- Rule 8 - "Doubt all Palestinian assertions, no matter how self-evident;" if Palestinians say it, it's false or at best an unsubstantiated claim; most often ignore, downplay or fudge it;

-- Rule 9 - "Condemn only Palestinian violence;" treat it as a crime against innocent Israeli victims; ignore any reference to self-defense against Israeli aggression and rule of law violations; and

Rule 10 - "Disparage the international consensus supporting Palestinian rights;" better still - ignore it or condemn it as biased or anti-semitic.

Add one more rule for good measure. Repeat any lie often enough and most people will believe it. It's foolproof and works every time.

Independent Analysis of BBC's Israel - Palestine Coverage

In 2005, the BBC commissioned a study to review the impartiality of its Israeli - Palestinian coverage. It consisted of an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British - Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. Their published April 2006 findings weren't what the broadcaster wished. Highlights from them showed BBC coverage:

-- rarely covered daily Palestinian hardships and repression under occupation;

-- was incomplete, misleading, and failed to consistently provide a full and fair account of the conflict;

-- overlooked important themes; in the study period it most notably ignored Israeli annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;

-- omitted a substantial amount of important news vital to Palestinian concerns;

-- failed to convey the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience; specifically that one side is dominant and the other under occupation and forced to endure dependence indignities and hard line repression;

-- seldom used the term occupation; mentioned military occupation only once during the study period;

-- reported nothing about nearly four decades of occupation and repression;

-- misportrayed Israel's Gaza disengagement as a positive step; failed to clarify it as a ruse and that Gaza remains occupied, invaded and attacked at will;

-- failed to report Israeli assertions that relocating Gaza settlers would strengthen Israel's control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem;

-- never clarified that Gaza settlements were illegal; that Gazans face ongoing hardships and stressed instead the "controversy" of withdrawing among Israelis;

-- misused or misportrayed the term "terrorism" and only applied it to Palestinians;

-- omitted any reference to historical background and failed to put stories in proper context;

-- provided inadequate analysis and interpretation of key events and issues;

-- failed to explain the meaning of Zionism;

-- failed to provide background of the 1967 and 1973 wars;

-- consistently misportrayed Hamas; described it as formally committed to Israel's destruction; ignored Hamas' acceptance of the Arab peace proposal and its willingness to recognize Israel in return for an end to the occupation;

-- mischaracterized the Oslo Accords as positive; ignored its deficiencies and betrayal;

-- mentioned the Intifada with no explanation of cause or justification;

-- failed to cite international law and UN resolutions; their call for an end to Israel's occupation; and the fact that Israel ignores international rulings contrary to its interests;

-- ignored Palestinians' legal right to return or restitution if they choose not to;

-- ignored humanitarian and human rights laws;

-- failed to explain extrajudicial executions are illegal;

-- mischaracterized the Separation Wall that the World Court ruled illegal;

-- misrepresented the status of Jerusalem;

-- gave unequal access to Israeli officials and spokespersons; stations none of its correspondents in Occupied Palestine; has them all inside Israel; results in a huge disparity in reports favoring Israel while disparaging Palestinians;

-- misportrayed Israelis as peace-seeking and Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as aggressors;

-- stressed Israeli victimhood, the importance of Israeli deaths and injuries, and relative unimportance of a disproportionate number of Palestinian ones;

-- responded to criticism defensively; continued to repeat past errors cited; showed deference to Israeli issues and the pro-Israeli Lobby;

-- ignored its own established editorial standards, including on terminology; as a result, consistently showed bias, a lack of clarity and precision and did little to improve comprehension and understanding;

-- overall - BBC falls far short of fair and impartial reporting and has done little to redress pointed out deficiencies; one positive note - the analysis found no evidence linking anti-Semitic behavior to BBC reports; it also found none dispelling it.

Glasgow University Media Group Study of Middle East News Coverage - It's "Bad News from Israel" and BBC

Researchers Greg Philo and Mike Berry conducted the study between 2000 and 2002, and their above quoted 2004 book title discusses it. Little has changed from then to now, BBC's reporting highlights it, and it's "bad news" for kept-in-the-dark viewers of major UK news and current affairs coverage.

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn agrees and explained in his unsparing comments about his former employer. He called it "dishonest - in concept, approach and execution....(it) favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa." It depicts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "as a battle of two (equal) forces (with equally) right and wrong responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence." As the UK and world's leading broadcaster, BBC is justifiably blamed.

"Bad News from Israel" explains how - by consistently showing pro-Israel bias in virtually all its reporting and at times in the extreme. Beyond the book's timeline, correspondent Chris Morris' January 2004 "Lost hope in Mid-East conflict" report is a case in point. It's about an expectant Palestinian woman confronted at a checkpoint. Prevented from passing, she gives birth and miscarries.

Morris is sympathetic but sides with the soldiers. "You can't blame (them, he says) for being jumpy at checkpoints....because there are Israeli victims too, children among them, killed by snipers and suicide bombers from the West Bank. What would you have done? Would you have taken the risk? Or would you have played it safe, fearful of a trap? And so it goes on - another week in the Middle East."

Even worse, the greater issue is ignored - an instance reflecting daily life in Occupied Palestine plus regular killings and abuse. Morris turns a blind eye. He highlights suicide bombings instead - "A Palestinian mother in her early 20s blows herself to bits and takes the lives of four young Israelis, after tricking them into believing she was ill." He continues - "A Jewish settler is killed on the West Bank, leaving five children without a father, including triplets just three months old." Reports like his are commonplace on BBC. Israeli lives matter. Palestinian ones don't. Philo and Berry document the evidence.

Their study covers what media should report, a content analysis of their coverage, and how focus group interviews show how viewers are ill-served and left uninformed. Below are some results that apply to today:

-- little or no historical context was provided; origins of the conflict were omitted; in the 2000 timeframe covered, BBC (and ITN) devoted 3500 lines of text to the Intifada, but a scant 17 to context or history;

-- reporting consistently was pro-Israel and justified the most extreme actions and lawlessness; at the same time, Palestinian resistance was highlighted and condemned as terrorism;

-- in the authors' words: "There (was) no evidence from our analysis to suggest that Palestinian views were given preferential treatment on the BBC. The opposite (was) in reality the case;"

-- BBC justified Israeli violence as "response" or "retaliation;" in contrast, Palestinian resistance was called "horrific," an "atrocity," "terrorism," or even "mass murder;"

-- some BBC reports were rife with errors whether intentionally or from ignorance;

-- reports focused on Israeli security and right to exist; comparable Palestinian rights got little mention; nor did their impoverishment, deplorable daily existence, or a brutish four-decade military occupation;

-- Israeli deaths were highlighted; Palestinian ones played down or ignored; regular Israeli incursions got little mention or weren't reported;

-- as a result, only 4% of focus group respondents knew Palestinians were driven from their homeland; only 10% that Israel occupied Palestine; some believed Palestinians were the occupiers; some viewed the conflict as a border dispute; 80% didn't know the origin of Palestinian refugees or that they were dispossessed; two-thirds didn't know Palestinian casualties exceeded Israeli ones; more knowledgeable respondents had access to books and other material that dispel BBC bias and inaccuracies;

-- senior BBC journalists interviewed told researchers that they were instructed not to give explanations; to dumb-down the news for easy listening and do it in "20-second attention span" segments; researchers believe BBC has it backwards; this type reporting alienates viewers; accuracy and more context enhances viewership; under heavy Israeli Lobby pressure, BBC and other major media report propaganda; truth is the first casualty, and viewers remain uninformed; today it's worse than ever.

BBC's Coverage of Gaza Under Siege

BBC reports little about Gaza under siege and the humanitarian crisis it caused. Instead, accounts like its January 2008 one are common. It's headlined "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel" and highlights homemade Qassams "fired by Hamas and other Palestinian militants at Israeli population centres near the Gaza Strip." They've "killed 13 people inside Israel, including three children. In some months, more than 100 launches have been recorded by the Israelis."

No mention is made of Israeli incursions, their frequency, the use of F-16 air-to-surface missiles, their accuracy and destructive power, high-tech battle tanks in civilian neighborhoods, and other sophisticated weapons freely used, including illegal ones. Nor is there mention of hundreds of Palestinian deaths, injuries, inflicted Israeli destruction, and use of Palestinians as human shields. Instead, the Israeli town of Sderot is highlighted because it's "the only large Israeli population centre within the original Qassam's range." BBC describes them in detail to over-hype their destructive potential. In fact, they're crude, inaccurate and limited in range. They hardly compare to Israel's high-tech weapons that when unleashed against a civilian population are devastating.

Later in BBC's report, it admits "Qassams are very primitive missiles and their main effect on Israelis in the area is psychological torment (and that) Israeli casualties have been relatively light." In contrast, Israeli attacks on Palestinians kill and injure many hundreds and inflict immense psychological terror against a civilian population. It's gone on for six decades, shows no signs of ebbing, but BBC won't explain it.

Nor does it report on Gaza under siege, the collective punishment of its people, the humanitarian crisis it caused, and Israel's lawless act that BBC should expose and denounce. Instead it features reports like a May 10 one about a "Gaza mortar attack kill(ing an) Israeli." Israeli air strikes followed, five Hamas members were killed and four others injured. BBC featured an Israeli government spokesperson saying "We hold (Hamas) accountable for today's attack and the murder of civilians." No Palestinian response was aired, and BBC merely ended saying that "The Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas since last June when they ousted their rivals from the Fatah movement." No context, no background, no fair and impartial reporting, no truth, and no possible way for viewers to understand.

BBC suggests that Palestinians are responsible for their own condition, that a humanitarian catastrophe is their fault, and that Israel has every right to terrorize and starve them to submission for its own security and self-interest. By BBC's standards, Israel may rightfully lock down 1.5 million people, collectively punish them, continue a repressive occupation, and refuse to negotiate in good faith, or at all. BBC is dismissive. Palestinian suffering is inconsequential, yet consider its outrage from a single Israeli death. It's also contemptuous of Hamas, ignored its months-long unilateral ceasefire, and refuses to report its willingness to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders.

BBC views the conflict from an Israeli perspective. It features government officials to explain it, and reports whatever they say as fact. This turns reality on its head, makes lawless actions justifiable, results in double standard journalism, and lets Palestinians suffer the consequences. Why not and who cares. They're just Arab Muslims in the land of Israel where Jews alone matter and not a hint of even-handed reporting exists. Now more than ever in the conflict's seventh decade, and BBC's reporting exacerbates it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate for the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9302