Why are the British likely to be biased on the Cyprus issue?

Several years back I believe the British press, as part of the wider Anglo-Saxon axis, convinced you that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The reporting ofcourse was "objective" in the sense that it took on good faith the information coming out of British and American "intelligence" services. The word in quotes so as not to insult ours. Now, let me offer you a word on the objectivity of the British press of the 1960s which is often referred to by T-Cypriots and Turks to highlight the events of the period.

Let us now consider Cyprus' 50s and 60s. We must acknowledge that British and Turkish positions against the G-Cypriots were in perfect alignment at the time.

Given that Britain had just been forced to capitulate, in a sense, to a handful of G-Cypriots during their struggle for union with Greece it is only natural to assume that the British press would not have been either friendly or objective towards the G-Cypriots. It was natural for the British to portray the T-Cypriot side favorably, given that during the 5-year self-determination struggle of the G-Cypriot majority they had used T-Cypriots as their first line of defense, placing Cypriot against Cypriot for the first time over the less than 400 years T-Cypriot presence on the island. 

In retrospect, British press was most definitely selective in their reporting of the clashes, as well as blatantly biased against G-Cypriots. British sentiment back home demanded it, which can only be considered logical given the defeat of the Empire by the G-Cypriots.

uuu

In this video (Getting it Wrong - Martin Packard introduces his book), recorded in April 2009 following publication of his book "Getting it Wrong - Fragments from a Cyprus Diary 1964", Martin Packard introduces himself and provides a general account of what happened in Cyprus back in 1963,4 and explains how that is still relevant in 2009.

Relevant article on antifon.blogspot.com