Bloody Sunday and Historical Interpretation from Two Sources

1182 Words3 Pages

'Bloody Sunday', as it became known, has produced many different

interpretations of events. Since January 1972 people have recorded

diverse versions of events depending on where they were or which

faction of society they belonged to.

The sources used for the purpose of this essay are all from the media.

The first two are from news paper reports written 27 years after the

event following new revelations made during the partial disclosure of

evidence submitted to the inquiry lead by Lord Saville, commissioned

by Tony Blair. Source (c) is taken from an ITN news report relating to

the same inquiry some 14 months later (than the other sources) in

November 2000.

Source (a) is an extract from the 'Daily Mail', written by the deputy

Political Editor. This newspaper is by tradition a conservative

newspaper, so it portrays some more right wing ideas in its stories,

and it has been known to support controversial issues like capital

punishment. The paper is aimed the more middle class people. In this

Northern Ireland case 'The Daily Mail' is Pro-Ulster, so this means

that although being a news paper it should be neutral, that it does

support the Protestants. The IRA is viewed as a terrorist

organisation, and is not seen them as a freedom fighting organisation.

The Saville Inquiry was commissioned by a Labour government who were

initiating peace talks with the radical Irish group Sinn Fein, the

daily mail would therefore analyse these events from a conservative

view point. There are some things that make the source a bit unfair,

the news papers have their own interpretations of the events, but in

their interviews they have another interpretation of the events that

happened. So it is two d...

... middle of paper ...

.... Things

that are said like that might not always add up to make sense with an

event that happens shortly after it is said.

This source is another example of an interpretation of the events of

bloody Sunday, but again this is just one of the many interpretations.

In conclusion there was a lot of people at the event who have

experienced different things, these have then been passed on to other

people and may be been changed. From this there is not any way that

the correct truth will come out. There are only three sources of so

many, the sources I have, were not at the time of Bloody Sunday, and

they were all almost 30 years after. Different stories come out for

different reasons, for example the paras would say that they were

fired upon so they returned fire, and other people will say that the

army had planned to do this all the time.

Open Document