Chatham House, a British think tank specializing in foreign policy and international affairs, published a study last week by Tim Summers. The study reveals some fundamental flaws in many news reports and commentaries by Western media about the illegal "Occupy Central" campaign in Hong Kong. Summers' thesis supports a commentary I wrote earlier in this paper. This argues that Western media reports and articles supporting the protesters' demands show they are just as blind to the realities of Hong Kong as those blocking the traffic in the city's streets.

Summers' study begins by stating, "Those outside Hong Kong have a legitimate right to comment on recent events. But they also have a responsibility to base those comments on accurate and historically-informed analysis of the complex and emotive issues currently disputed in Hong Kong."

Most Western press reports have focused on the dramatic side of the events unfolding in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok with an obvious political bias simply because the illegal movement's real target is the central government. But they are also showing a double-standard in their coverage of political events in Hong Kong. This is because Beijing plays the decisive role in the SAR's constitutional development.

But Summers also notes that "comments by some politicians and media commentators in recent weeks demonstrated a worrying lack of understanding of the relevant historical agreements and Hong Kong's status as a Chinese territory - albeit with significant autonomy. This is unhelpful to the rebuilding of trust that is needed if any progress is to be made in Hong Kong."

The reason why the protesters went ahead with this destructive campaign has much to do with the irresponsible and, in some cases, mischievous encouragement of the mainstream Western media and its biased commentators.

This is not to take away the credibility of analyses linking the United States to the strategy and key figures in "Occupy Central". After all, "Occupy Central" does bear the hallmarks of a "color revolution", which is why some Western media could not resist labeling it the "umbrella revolution". This is despite the insistence of the protesting students that it is not a revolution. There is plenty of evidence the US government was behind those "color/floral revolutions" and has gone out of its way to help the opposition camp in Hong Kong since it began.

I feel sorry for those who would rather pander to their Western audience then honor journalistic principles when it comes to reporting events involving China - a nation they love to hate and, above all, fear - a feeling born of ignorance.

Summers explains in his paper, "The protests were fuelled by dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong government, but the catalyst was the Aug 31 decision of mainland's national legislature - the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) - on Hong Kong's constitutional development.

"The key issue of contention is not whether Hong Kong people should have a say in the choice of their next Chief Executive (head of government) in 2017 - Beijing has already agreed to allow a popular vote. The controversy is over how candidates should be nominated."

The fact is that the NPCSC decision on the method of selecting Hong Kong's Chief Executive in 2017 is strictly based on the Basic Law. The demands raised by the "occupiers", on the other hand, represent a major departure from what the Basic Law stipulates in regard to Hong Kong's constitutional development. The protesters are now practically pressing the SAR government and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, in particular, to completely ignore the Basic Law and the NPCSC decisions by granting their wishes instead.

It is quite obvious that many foreign commentators did not bother looking up the official Chinese and/or English version of the Basic Law or the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong from July 1, 1997 onward. They just accept that what the "occupiers" and their main cheerleaders are saying is the "truth". They then used it in their own arguments against the central government as well as the Hong Kong government. This did not have the constitutional authority to satisfy their demands to begin with.

Such reluctance to learn the historical and constitutional background of Hong Kong's electoral reform has led many a Western media and commentators to accuse Beijing of failing to deliver its promise to Hong Kong residents on universal suffrage without any proof. They probably feel no guilt because their readers are just as ill-informed as they are, if not more so, and believe every word they say. Most of the protesters in Hong Kong are understandably happy with the outpouring of sympathy from around the world. This is due to a very successful misinformation campaign by those masterminding "Occupy Central".

Anyone who wants to see the "full picture" should go to Chatham House's official website and read Summers' study ("Does the UK have a responsibility to Hong Kong?") from beginning to end and also the relevant background material. This will help them understand the whole "story" objectively.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 10/13/2014 page9)