This also says the new inquiry set up by Lord Saville was an ‘absolute disaster’. It tries to suggest to the reader that it is pointless in having this new Inquiry set up. It is obvious that this newspaper is printed for those who support the British Army. It tries to make the reader feel sympathy for the paratroopers and to make them believe it was the victims of Bloody Sunday who created a riot in Derry, not the army and that a suitable solution for a civil unrest like the troubles requires more than just peace talks.
Source B
Source B is another article taken from a newspaper. This time it is The Guardian, a pro-labour newspaper, so it may be more likely to favour the views of the Irish people. It was written by John Mullin, who is an Ireland correspondent. In my opinion this may suggest that his interpretation would be more accurate, as he has spent time in Ireland and may have more knowledge of what happened during the events on Bloody Sunday
This article sympathises a lot with the victims of Bloody Sunday. The writer uses language to create an impression that the people killed were vulnerable victims of British paratroopers and places a large blame on the British Army. When he mentions ‘dum-dum’ bullets he makes us aware that the army were using unauthorised or illegal ammunition for their weapons during the day. He also mentions how worthless the evidence was during the Widgery Inquiry. He claims that there is no evidence to suggest that the victims were holding or even near any weapons that day, as no firearms or ammunition were found among the dead.
Although sources A and B were written on the same day, their both have completely different perspectives, but in my opinion both are quite biased. Source A defends the paratroopers and blames the victims while source B does the complete opposite, it defends the victims and blames the paratroopers. Both views are as opposed as they were in 1972. These sources don’t really help to understand what happened on the day as they have opposing views. It is very difficult to understand them as you don’t know which one to believe. I don’t think that anyone can give an honest or any unbiased answers about what happened on the day of Bloody Sunday.
Source C
Source C is an interview with a man called Daniel Porter, who gives an account of a conversation that soldiers were having in a pub about clearing the bog in Derry. When reading this you get the impression that the soldiers weren’t planning on killing people that day and the only reason they were going to Northern Ireland was to ‘clear the bog’. Although the decision to clear the bog really happened after Bloody Sunday took place. The man seems to be just another ordinary person, so why should anybody take him more serious than the civilians and paratroopers who were there on the day of Bloody Sunday. For a start he wasn’t even there and the news report is in November 2000, almost 30 years after the event
This source may be biased, not just because it wasn’t a first-hand account and 30 years after the tragedy, but due to the fact that the location was in a bar, meaning it is more than likely that he and the soldiers were under the influence of alcohol at the time, so it it is a strong possibility that he maybe giving false accusations towards the British Army. There is also a false statement in the source, the man said they would be ‘landing’ and ‘clearing the bog’ with ‘tanks’, this is incorrect as paratroopers use planes, not tanks. Also the source gives the reader an opinion that the soldiers were not planning on causing trouble that day. This man was drinking in ‘England’ so therefore he maybe familiar with the soldiers, which makes it very misleading for the reader. All in all, this source contributes very little or useless information about Bloody Sunday leaving us with questions still unanswered. So evidence up to this point in time is very much inconclusive