well what can I say: why do you think the media is meant to be straight in the first place or fair handed - word of mouth is a better approach. Even indymedia said that you two protested on the 50th anniversary when they I suppose meant the 60th - that is about to be so yesterday - the 61 anniversary of the Nakba is about to come up tomorrow.

How about then we start to talk to those who authorise warring face to face, and ask who is approving this, what audacity they have?

let the deluge omit protest which is futile, now is the time for nonviolent calm interventions.

LHM

BBC have reported the protest-

Meanwhile, in the protest at BBC Wales, a man and woman glued themselves to barriers, temporarily closing access via the main reception area.

They said they were unhappy with coverage of the conflict and asked the BBC to refer to Hamas as a government which has been democratically elected.

A BBC spokesman said: "We're satisfied that the BBC's coverage of the events in Israel and the Palestinian Authority has been balanced, fair, accurate and up to the usual BBC standards of impartiality.

"In our reports, we have tried to explain how the current situation started and has since developed, and given air-time to representatives from across the political spectrum."

See
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7805046.stm

400 people being killed by Ugandan rebels constitutes a massacre

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7804470.stm


360 Palestinians killed by the IDF constitutes a raid

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7803569.stm

"All journalists were ejected from the BBC building"

Was there any stated reason why this was done? It's quite fitting that an organisation that pretends to pride itself on sending journalists into harm's way supposedly in search of truth, evacuates them from its own buildings as soon as they become the location of politically uncomfortable events.

Perhaps they were spooked that one of their less debased journos would run a story on the protest, and used security as a pretext for censorship... what a beautifully clear demonstration of the cynicism of the spectacle. Scum.

is Israel trying to steal the land from which it withdrew all its positions and settlers from and ceded control of the Egyptian border of to Egypt?

It was soon after Israel did that that the cross-border rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel intensified. Will you call for that context to the current fighting to be mentioned? Was it a 'proportionate response' from the Palestinians?

Would you also argue that the Nazis weren't a militant group, after all they had a democratic mandate at one time, and that WWII air raids should have been reported as "an attack on the democratic government of Germany and innocent civilians"?

Everyone knows Israel have taken land. This does not mean the the bbc "need" to write that fact in every article they write. Its common knowledge and doesn't need to be re-iterated.

The lady seems to be smiling cheerfully in both photos. Obviously not thinking about the issue their protesting about. I assume they probably think the damage to the barriers is a trivial, irrelevant matter. And of course the police costs, the medical costs etc. All trivial in face of the protest, until someone says they should pay for it, then suddenly its 'no we shouldn't because we're special'
Instead, licence payers have to pay for the damage because miss smiley and mr big eyebrows want everything spelt out in ABC language.

"is Israel trying to steal the land from which it withdrew all its positions and settlers from and ceded control of the Egyptian border of to Egypt?"

Erm, I think you might need to think about how Israel came into possession of Ashkelon and Sderot.

Mr. Fisk can point you in the right direction:

 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-bombing-ashkelon-is-the-most-tragic-irony-1216228.html

Regards the comment about 'The lady seems to be smiling cheerfully in both photos. Obviously not thinking about the issue their protesting about.'

What on earth are you on about? If we were all deadly serious with sombre faces- who would want to get involved in social change? Perhaps she is smiling because she is actually doing something rather than just shouting at the TV or making daft comments on indymedia!

Not a crime, but a little bit insensivitive.
Near 400 people have been killed by Israel's strikes in recent days and what do the Palestine's see in the UK? Two smiling people with flags superglued to a barrier because they don't like what is on the TV.

...everyone else sitting on their ass!

Good on the protesters!

Great protest, but why Cardiff? The only news produced by the BBC is Cardiff is regional Welsh news. How on earth do they think that decisions about the coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict are being made there?

Do the same thing again in Television Centre in London (Wood Lane, White City), or Broadcasting House (Regent Street I think). Then the people who make decisions about these things will hear you.

You can't tell someone how to write something. I hate it when i do work and someone is there telling me what i got to / can / cannot write. If their so bothered why don't they apply for the job and do it themselves. Its as bad as backseat drivers.

If these protestors think they can do it better, then do it. Then we can all have a go at their attempt.

re: Nicolie - the problem isn't the writers, they don't decide what gets shown. It's the management and directors who decide the editorial policy and what gets censored. And the BBC is a government entity, so basically we pay for it, while politicians and big business and the rest of the elite call the shots.

"Everyone knows Israel have taken land. This does not mean the the bbc "need" to write that fact in every article they write. Its common knowledge and doesn't need to be re-iterated."

Finally...common sense. However having briefly worked in the BBC's complaints department a few years ago, it pains me to say the vast majority of those who complain have none. Every time an incident in Gaza was reported we'd get the usual suspects calling up complaining of bias, irresponsible and factually inaccurate reporting from the BBC. However for every call that claimed a pro-Israeli stance was being taken, you'd have a call claiming the exact opposite...ironically if I recall the pro/anti calls usually hovered around the 50-50 mark, suggesting the BBC were probably getting it right! The only constant was that none of these callers...NONE of them, had any idea about broadcasting and they usually displayed a spectacular lack of understanding of what genuinely impartial reporting really is, each supposed claim for fairness was a veiled attempt to get the BBC to report on their one-sided views of the situation.

For example, I remember whilst I was there the BBC NEWS 24 channel once devoted 30 mins of airtime to discuss the Gaza situation with a Palestinian supporter of note, and we immediately got calls from the pro-Israeli camp, complaining of 'disgraceful' bias. However when I called the newsdesk to make enquiries I was told that the Israeli supporter couldn't make it that day, but was booked into the studio the same time the following day to give his 30 mins. When his interview was broadcast 24 hours later the pro-Israeli camp were silent, but we received a mass of pro-Palestinian supporters calling the BBC 'evil' and being completely biased in favour of Israel...simply because they'd missed the previous day's broadcast they jumped to conclusions, any attempt to explain that both sides had been given an opportunity to speak was treated as attempts to 'fob them off'.

Such complainants usually want information constantly spoon-fed to them, and fail to realise the BBC cannot report on stories the way they want them to, or why they can't do it. Take the super-glue incident, it's littered with such examples, this quote for one:

"The BBC has chosen to name Hamas as a ‘Militant Organisation’ rather its rightful term of ‘Government’"

Wrong, the BBC haven't 'chosen' to name Hamas anything - the UK officially lists Hamas as a 'militant group', whilst it lists it's military wing as a terrorist organisation. If the BBC flew in the face of this and reported them as something different, they would in effect be expressing a biased, personal opinion...which is precisely what the protesters have been crowing about.

"We are calling upon the BBC management to revise every news report before broadcast to ensure that the language used to report the attacks is responsible and fair."

They do - constantly, every report is scrutinised before being broadcast.

"We ask that wider context is given for viewers to understand the issues on a deeper level."

It is - As recently as last weekend a chronological account of the developments in Gaza was broadcast on the evening news, and was widely circulated every 60 mins all day on the 24 hour news channel.

"We do not hear that Israel has violated more United Nations resolutions than any other country, and today it is collectively punishing the ordinary people of Gaza breaking Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention"

Yes, you do - A quick search on the BBC's website turns up a number of reports by BBC journalists where this was mentioned. Just because you've missed them, and they don't mention it on every single bulletin ad verbatim doesn't mean they haven't discussed it.

However if an error or bias IS genuinely committed, the BBC has a complaints procedure in place, may I suggest these two try that next time as opposed to superglue...they'd probably find results come quicker!