These views have probably been arisen by the reporters who told them and gave them notes on what to write
Source E
Source E was written by a British newspaper reporter who was there at the time and experienced the event and was emotionally involved with the students and against the soldiers. But also he could be bias as he is from a western country. Louise Branson would have written the account after the event when he arrived in his apartment so this would be more accurate as every thing he saw would have been easier to remember and written down.
The reporter wrote several phrases which suggest that he was biased he might of not meant it but he was their and was emotionally involved with the students. These words were used ‘peaceful pro democracy’, ‘blood bath’, ‘All out assault’ and ‘as they fired into the crowds’ all these show us the biased side he has taken. Also you can tell he added a bit of information to make the story more interesting as he wrote that because I know that the hospitals didn’t give any information out about the numbers of deaths and injuries all other official places also did not tell anyone.
This source shows a little about the events with no detail of what happened and these views have probably been arisen by the emotional involvement of the news reporter with the students.
Source F
This source was written by an American historian called John Bradley and in this source he included another statement which was spoken by a Chinese government official. The two sources have both completely different people who are both possibly bias with different views and on different sides.
The historian is meant to be writing a factual article which was a year after the event this might have helped as he would have had enough time to gather different sources from different backgrounds and balance them out and he would of not of been emotionally involved. He might have written this trying to be neutral and not supporting any side but the information he gathered would have probably mostly be from the western countries which are bias against china.
The historians language was clearly showing a sign of being biased as he used language like, ‘the soldiers charged the students, using their guns’, ‘Anyone on the street was a target for the soldiers and casualties poured into the hospital’, ‘people living in nearby houses and flats were shot by accident’ and ‘it is thought that 1000 people died in the chaos that night’. I know that the hospitals stopped any information from going out telling any one the number of deaths and casualties and the historian could not have known how many deaths and casualties there were.
The Chinese official would have been very bias and of played down the numbers so that the embarrassment would not be too much and would say that more troops died than students too say that the troops suffered more trying to break it up and that the students were very violent.
This source tells us quiet a lot about the events of the protest and how the troops cleared Tiananmen Square but the language shows very biased language. How ever it is useful for seeing how the Chinese government reacted to the media by playing down the figures of student deaths and putting up the numbers of troop deaths. These views might have been arisen by other sources which the historian found.
Source G
This book was written on the same year of the event by the people’s republic of china. As it is written by china it would be very biased towards the Chinese government and it could give false information about what happened to the people as china is very big and everyone would be curies about what happened so anything they write for them would be believed and taken in so it not very reliable.
The language used is suggesting that the students were the trouble makers who had to be asked to leave and were scared by the consequences that they could of faced, also it says that no one was killed in the whole operation, but I know from a video that I saw, that many students were killed and the soldiers gave the students only very little chance to escape.
This sources is not very useful in telling us the events of Tiananmen Square as the information is not reliable as the government would of changed the figures and the stories so that they would look good and correct in every step of the action. Also this story does tell us quiet a lot about the events of Tiananmen Square in detail but the information is not reliable which makes it useless in seeing the real event of what happened. The only thing that this source is useful is in telling us how the government changed the information and tried to play with the peoples mind.
These views might have been arisen by the government to retaliate all the information and stories which have been said about them.
