Source A is a fairly lengthy newspaper article and is titled, ‘Paras in Bloody Sunday evidence storm’. It was wrote on Friday 17th September 1999 over 27 years after Bloody Sunday so evidence which is written in the source could have been told recently as a result peoples memories change and may have forgotten exactly what happened. The source is wrote by Paul Eastham, Deputy Political Editor which leads me to believe that he probably knows what he is talking about and can write confidently about politics. I think the audience of the article are conservative supporters and unionists. The article is in the Daily Mail which is traditionally a right wing paper therefore could be biased and in favour of the army also the paper leans more to conservatives and could be against the ‘Saville Report’ which labour Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered. The reliability of the source is fairly reliable but because of the biased paper it’s maybe in favour of the army and Unionists. The source explains that the ‘Saville Report’ is saying that there is no credible evidence that any of the 14 people killed by the army in Londonderry in January 1972 had been handling firearms. Also in the article it says how the former Paratroopers and their supporters were incensed at the release of the report where as Nationalists and their families triumphed at the news, the paratroopers believed it was part of a piecemeal. The source does everything to claim that the Saville Report is not going to reach a fair decision and puts in quotes from people who are totally against the new evidence. Another former paratrooper described the new evidence as “rubbish” and goes on to say “nobody mentions the nail bombs and acid bombs they threw at us”. In the article Tony Blair is accused of setting up the inquiry to appease Sinn Fein during talks on the Northern Ireland Peace process. I think this source is definitely interpreted as in favour of the army and that the Saville Report is a fix which is being used by Tony Blair to get peace in Ulster.
Source B is titled, “Bloody Sunday Revelation” and was published in the Guardian on Friday 17th September 1999 over 27 years after the event. Again evidence in the source may have been revised because of the length of time after Bloody Sunday and things may have been forgotten. The author is John Mullin, Ireland correspondent therefore maybe biased as he could be on the side of the people of Ulster. I think the source is aimed at the Nationalists and people in favour of the Saville report as it doesn’t object or disagree with the new evidence. The source explains that unlike the Widgery report new evidence has come forward to support that of the 14 people killed they had not been handling weapons which is why the British paratrooper’s claim they had to shoot to protect themselves, it is something civilian witnesses have always said. The article also mentions that the Widgery Report states that Barnley McGuigan was shot through the back of the head by a ‘dum-dum’ bullet. This is a bullet which explodes on impact and once hit with there is little chance of survival, these are illegal under the Geneva Convention and therefore must have been from the IRA. But new evidence in the Saville report from John Martin, a forensic scientist, who carried out the original tests now says developments show the same findings could now be explained by contamination and there could no longer be a ‘strong suspicion’ that any of the victims held or were near weapons. Overall I think this source is very much in favour of the Saville Report, the sub-heading, “This backs up what we have been saying all these years: the victims were innocent”, in my opinion proves this. The army don’t have a say in this article and nothing is said to say that the army weren’t in the wrong for example attacks from the other side.
Source C is the shortest of all and perhaps the most unreliable. The source is titled, ‘Bloody Sunday witness appears’ and is from an ITN news report broadcasted on the 28th November 2000. I think the motive of this source was to show people what witnesses are saying in the Saville Report and maybe against the army. The report is about a witness named Daniel Porter has come forward in the Saville report and claims he was told a plan by off-duty troops in a pub in England. Straight away the reliability of the report is tested because the man was in a pub which are usually noisy bustling places were you cant often hear yourself think let alone overhear a conversation. Daniel Porter says that the soldiers were talking of coming to Derry to ‘clear the bog’ by which he understood they would be clearing away the barricades. Also in the source it says the death toll was 13 but it was 14 so again I think this source isn’t reliable. This source is probably in favour of the Unionists but in my opinion is not a good interpretation because of the reliability.
Finally I looked at a BBC documentary news clip which was filmed at the time and was showed to the public which is probably why this is such a big event in history because it was seen by people everywhere and they then realised the troubles in Northern Ireland. The video said that 14 people were killed and 13 others injured. The video was a documentary so as well as things which was filmed at the time there was people’s views and opinions after the event. I think the video may have been edited to show the worst violence or on the other hand the cameraman will not have been able to get in the thick of the riot so it could have been mild violence. A witness on the video admitted Catholics were throwing stones but no guns were used. Also a local priest in the area blamed the soldiers for what happened that day. From the army’s point of view they argued they were taking orders as it’s their job and they were not going to stand and take attacks they had to defend themselves. I think this source is reliable as its got evidence and footage from the day and from the people involved. Also the source is not biased towards either side as it has arguments for both sides of the coin. The source’s motive is trying to show opinions and evidence to Bloody Sunday and in my opinion had a good interpretation as to what happened.
There are similarities in the sources which I have noticed. Firstly source A and B are both from newspapers and dated Friday 17th September. Also they about the same thing which is the new evidence that maybe the victims were not armed. Secondly source A, B and the video all stated that 14 people were killed which is the true amount.
As well as similarities there are many differences in the sources which test reliability. Firstly, source C says that 13 people were killed on Bloody Sunday but the other three sources say 14. Secondly I think source A is backing up the army where as sources B and C think that the army was to blame for Bloody Sunday.
When I look at evidence from Bloody Sunday I don’t think there is any side which can take the blame and will be something which will never be resolved. After Bloody Sunday when the Widgery Report came to the conclusion the army were not to blame there was up roar in Ulster, they believed it spoilt there chances of becoming independent which is something the Nationalists have always wanted. On the 12th October 1984 the Brighton bombing took place which was a plot to kill Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister at the time who was part of the conservative party which are mainly Unionists. A few years later Margaret has retired and the new Prime Minister was John Major whom on the 15th September 1993 met the Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds. They signed what was known as the Downing Street declaration which started the peace talks. Ian Paisley a strong Unionists wasn’t happy about what was happening and quoted, “Sold out Ulster to buy off fiendish republican scum”. Again after a few years labour came to power and Tony Blair was Prime Minister in May 1997. After peace talks on the 10th April 1998 the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ was signed. Then finally after years of waiting, Nationalists hear the news that on the 29th January 1998 Tony Blair orders another inquiry into Bloody Sunday. I think these events will affect the sources I have looked at because after the Brighton bombing feelings towards Nationalists may have been hatred because of the plot which was believed to be the IRA. Also things which may have happened in Northern Ireland may have been asked by the government to keep quiet as peace talks were been discussed therefore the sources may be limited. Overall I think Northern Ireland will never be peaceful there will always be one debate or another and Bloody Sunday is one which wont be forgotten. The outcome of the Saville Report may help to determine whether Northern Ireland will become independent.
