Sunday, Bloody Sunday...
September 4, 2002 1:26 PM Subscribe
Sunday, Bloody Sunday... On the night of 30 January 1972, Murray Sayle was sent by the Sunday Times to
Londonderry to report on the fatal shooting of 14 unarmed civil rights marchers
by British Army Paratroopers. The article he wrote diverged from the official
line; it was never printed. Twenty-six years later, his lost copy was unearthed
by the new Inquiry. In what follows, he returns to Derry to give evidence. His
original article is reproduced in
full, along with a map marking the
locations of the dead and wounded, and a memo Sayle wrote to the editor of the
Sunday Times when the article failed to appear.
Ummm, shouldn't you use quote marks if you're going to just copy the opening paragraph of the original story?
posted by redshoes3 at 1:48 PM on September 4, 2002
posted by redshoes3 at 1:48 PM on September 4, 2002
Great link, De. Wow -- Thanks. Of course, comments are all currently going here, so don't expect too much.
If I remember right, there was some incredibly hateful graffiti after the event:
"Paras 14
Bogside Nil"
Jaysus...
posted by Shane at 1:54 PM on September 4, 2002
If I remember right, there was some incredibly hateful graffiti after the event:
"Paras 14
Bogside Nil"
Jaysus...
posted by Shane at 1:54 PM on September 4, 2002
I got to attend a talk last winter right around the 30th anniversary of the massacre, with Martin McGuinness speaking, among others (he was there on the day and it inspired his activity in the IRA). Hearing the firsthand accounts was at once terrible and breathtaking.
This book is a really good in-depth account of the day as well; I recommend it. Not the best book, but pretty good.
posted by The Michael The at 2:00 PM on September 4, 2002
This book is a really good in-depth account of the day as well; I recommend it. Not the best book, but pretty good.
posted by The Michael The at 2:00 PM on September 4, 2002
Ummm, shouldn't you use quote marks if you're going to just copy the opening paragraph of the original story?
Probably, but it didn't occur to me. Also, I added links that were not in the original text...the links to the Times, the inquiry and the Derry fund. Since the paragraph was the opening paragraph, it's hardly as though I were deliberately trying to hide plagiaristic intent. Forgive me for not having my Strunk and White open...must have been the Brittany porno links and the 3rd iteration of the Harry Potter vibrator story that distracted me from grammatical correctness.
posted by dejah420 at 2:09 PM on September 4, 2002
Probably, but it didn't occur to me. Also, I added links that were not in the original text...the links to the Times, the inquiry and the Derry fund. Since the paragraph was the opening paragraph, it's hardly as though I were deliberately trying to hide plagiaristic intent. Forgive me for not having my Strunk and White open...must have been the Brittany porno links and the 3rd iteration of the Harry Potter vibrator story that distracted me from grammatical correctness.
posted by dejah420 at 2:09 PM on September 4, 2002
This book is a really good in-depth account of the day as well; I recommend it. Not the best book, but pretty good. posted by The Michael The
Cool! Thanks. :)
posted by dejah420 at 2:11 PM on September 4, 2002
Cool! Thanks. :)
posted by dejah420 at 2:11 PM on September 4, 2002
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply at all there was any plagiaristic intent. It just seemed odd to click on the link and see the same paragraph.
posted by redshoes3 at 2:15 PM on September 4, 2002
posted by redshoes3 at 2:15 PM on September 4, 2002
Yeah, sorry if I seemed snarky in response...caustic's comment got me all riled up. ;) No offense taken...none intended. :)
posted by dejah420 at 2:20 PM on September 4, 2002
posted by dejah420 at 2:20 PM on September 4, 2002
It's a credible and compelling story, but I suspect that the reason it wasn't published had little to do with the "official line." As I was reading it, I was struck by the narrator's very un-newspaper-like omnicient voice, and that he didn't always back up his assertions in a way a journalist should. (e.g. "The quasi-intellectual, diluted Marxist approach of the Official IRA had little appeal for the Bogside people...") A historian would back up this sort of analysis with a footnote; a journalist would back it up with copious quotations if he were to make a statement like that at all, which he probably wouldn't.
There's lots of analysis and sweeping statements, and though they're probably correct, they're not appropriate for a journalist to make, especially without citing sources. And reading between the lines of the memo, it seems like his original copy was peppered with "How do we know this? What are your sources? How did you come to this conclusion?" questions... which is precisely what I would have done to his article if I were his editor.
posted by ptermit at 2:21 PM on September 4, 2002
There's lots of analysis and sweeping statements, and though they're probably correct, they're not appropriate for a journalist to make, especially without citing sources. And reading between the lines of the memo, it seems like his original copy was peppered with "How do we know this? What are your sources? How did you come to this conclusion?" questions... which is precisely what I would have done to his article if I were his editor.
posted by ptermit at 2:21 PM on September 4, 2002
he was there on the day and it inspired his activity in the IRA
No. He was involved before that.
posted by Summer at 3:15 PM on September 4, 2002
No. He was involved before that.
posted by Summer at 3:15 PM on September 4, 2002
And just to add -- I'm a supporter of the peace process and the involvement of Sinn Fein within that, but let's not lose sight of what Adams and McGuinness are - murderers.
posted by Summer at 3:33 PM on September 4, 2002
posted by Summer at 3:33 PM on September 4, 2002
...but let's not lose sight of what Adams and McGuinness are - murderers.
That's a tempting comment to bite on, but I'll control myself and I won't respond -- except to point out that the article is about the murder of 14 unarmed civilians by armed British Para's, not by the IRA.
posted by Shane at 4:38 PM on September 4, 2002
That's a tempting comment to bite on, but I'll control myself and I won't respond -- except to point out that the article is about the murder of 14 unarmed civilians by armed British Para's, not by the IRA.
posted by Shane at 4:38 PM on September 4, 2002
It's a credible and compelling story, but I suspect that the reason it wasn't published had little to do with the "official line."
As a journalist, I must disagree in the strongest terms. It is a remarkably dispassionate, thorough reconstruction of a terrible event. Produced in an extraordinarily short period of time, I might add.
Whether the English newspaper's suppression of their reporters' findings prevented bloodshed or not, I cannot say. But the story builds a compelling case that is so thoroughly documented that in the U.S., it would at the very least lead to a grand jury investigation.
As I was reading it, I was struck by the narrator's very un-newspaper-like omnicient voice, and that he didn't always back up his assertions in a way a journalist should. (e.g. "The quasi-intellectual, diluted Marxist approach of the Official IRA had little appeal for the Bogside people...")
I respectfully submit that your assessment of proper journalistic requirements is faulty. The reporters properly attributed every sentence containing factual assertions, providing the reader with a clear indication of who said what.
The quote you refer to is inconsequential to the central issue of who did what that day. It is an attempt to provide context for the actions and inactions of individuals on that day, and does not prove a thing about the central points of who killed the marchers, were the soldiers provoked, etc.
A historian would back up this sort of analysis with a footnote; a journalist would back it up with copious quotations if he were to make a statement like that at all, which he probably wouldn't.
A footnote? To what? Books that would not be written for years? These reporters talked to everyone they could who was actually there. Eyewitnesses, not a volume to be pulled off a quiet library shelf. In the truest sense, on this day these two reporters did write the "first draft of history."
posted by sacre_bleu at 4:47 PM on September 4, 2002
As a journalist, I must disagree in the strongest terms. It is a remarkably dispassionate, thorough reconstruction of a terrible event. Produced in an extraordinarily short period of time, I might add.
Whether the English newspaper's suppression of their reporters' findings prevented bloodshed or not, I cannot say. But the story builds a compelling case that is so thoroughly documented that in the U.S., it would at the very least lead to a grand jury investigation.
As I was reading it, I was struck by the narrator's very un-newspaper-like omnicient voice, and that he didn't always back up his assertions in a way a journalist should. (e.g. "The quasi-intellectual, diluted Marxist approach of the Official IRA had little appeal for the Bogside people...")
I respectfully submit that your assessment of proper journalistic requirements is faulty. The reporters properly attributed every sentence containing factual assertions, providing the reader with a clear indication of who said what.
The quote you refer to is inconsequential to the central issue of who did what that day. It is an attempt to provide context for the actions and inactions of individuals on that day, and does not prove a thing about the central points of who killed the marchers, were the soldiers provoked, etc.
A historian would back up this sort of analysis with a footnote; a journalist would back it up with copious quotations if he were to make a statement like that at all, which he probably wouldn't.
A footnote? To what? Books that would not be written for years? These reporters talked to everyone they could who was actually there. Eyewitnesses, not a volume to be pulled off a quiet library shelf. In the truest sense, on this day these two reporters did write the "first draft of history."
posted by sacre_bleu at 4:47 PM on September 4, 2002
Oh good -- and didn't mean to denigrate the article, which was stunning.
posted by redshoes3 at 4:48 PM on September 4, 2002
posted by redshoes3 at 4:48 PM on September 4, 2002
Totally mind-blowing in it's honest, blinding indictment and analysis.
For an englishman of Irish extraction - many of my family only immigrated to the UK the year before - this day has been a mournful stain on the psyche for 3 decades. Along with heartbreak and the strong desire for justice, I've long wished that somehow, some way, an investigation would show that a horrible, tragic mistake had happened and that it really was the terrorists fault.
If you ever want an example of state terrorism, or of how close an eye we need to keep on our elected officials (who colluded in the cover-ups and whitewashes) and the gung-ho generals & majors, we Brits give some of the best examples.
Only 30 years ago, 14 dead. All unarmed. Shot in the back. God, I'm gonna have a hard job explaining this to my anglo-irish offspring.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:15 PM on September 4, 2002
For an englishman of Irish extraction - many of my family only immigrated to the UK the year before - this day has been a mournful stain on the psyche for 3 decades. Along with heartbreak and the strong desire for justice, I've long wished that somehow, some way, an investigation would show that a horrible, tragic mistake had happened and that it really was the terrorists fault.
If you ever want an example of state terrorism, or of how close an eye we need to keep on our elected officials (who colluded in the cover-ups and whitewashes) and the gung-ho generals & majors, we Brits give some of the best examples.
Only 30 years ago, 14 dead. All unarmed. Shot in the back. God, I'm gonna have a hard job explaining this to my anglo-irish offspring.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:15 PM on September 4, 2002
Thanks for the link, dejah. This incident had, I dunno, slipped under my radar or something. I had heard of it ("I won't heed the battle call"), but I had no real idea what had happened. Jaysus indeed.
This thread is not a protest thread... (so rry, couldn't resist).
posted by sennoma at 6:34 PM on September 4, 2002
This thread is not a protest thread... (so rry, couldn't resist).
posted by sennoma at 6:34 PM on September 4, 2002
The reporters properly attributed every sentence containing factual assertions, providing the reader with a clear indication of who said what.
OK... here are a few more examples that are more central to the story. "... just possibly what an Army briefer might describe as the likely appearance of an IRA man. We are confident that in fact he was certainly not." (Why are you so confident?)
"We have no doubt that the Army fired both these rounds." (Why? The caliber of the bullets? The direction that that they were fired from? The testimony of eyewitnesses?)
"Paratroopers wearing combat and not anti-riot gear jumped out and dropped into standard British Army firing positions in spots clearly selected in advance for the purpose of the operation." (Clearly?)
"This clearly was to ambush the supposed concentration of IRA men in the Harvey Street/High Street/Eden Street/Chamberlain Street area, pinning them against the Army defences in Waterloo Road. " (Clearly? Two clearlys in two adjacent sentences should raise the hackles of any good editor.)
And the chronology, which is based upon eyewitness accounts, is stated as fact... fact... fact... often without indicating whose statements the author is relying on -- and is sometimes confused (were there one or two .38 shots?)
Again, I believe the author and I think he did a spectacular job of reconstructing events. However, I think that the article needed more whipping into shape to make it appropriate for a newspaper. He should use or paraphrase the words of the eyewitnesses rather than have a 3rd person omnicient voice, back up assertions more fully, and be more transparent about how he reached his conclusions. And I think the memo supports my statement... the author was rankling about being grilled on his sources and methods.
posted by ptermit at 4:41 AM on September 5, 2002
OK... here are a few more examples that are more central to the story. "... just possibly what an Army briefer might describe as the likely appearance of an IRA man. We are confident that in fact he was certainly not." (Why are you so confident?)
"We have no doubt that the Army fired both these rounds." (Why? The caliber of the bullets? The direction that that they were fired from? The testimony of eyewitnesses?)
"Paratroopers wearing combat and not anti-riot gear jumped out and dropped into standard British Army firing positions in spots clearly selected in advance for the purpose of the operation." (Clearly?)
"This clearly was to ambush the supposed concentration of IRA men in the Harvey Street/High Street/Eden Street/Chamberlain Street area, pinning them against the Army defences in Waterloo Road. " (Clearly? Two clearlys in two adjacent sentences should raise the hackles of any good editor.)
And the chronology, which is based upon eyewitness accounts, is stated as fact... fact... fact... often without indicating whose statements the author is relying on -- and is sometimes confused (were there one or two .38 shots?)
Again, I believe the author and I think he did a spectacular job of reconstructing events. However, I think that the article needed more whipping into shape to make it appropriate for a newspaper. He should use or paraphrase the words of the eyewitnesses rather than have a 3rd person omnicient voice, back up assertions more fully, and be more transparent about how he reached his conclusions. And I think the memo supports my statement... the author was rankling about being grilled on his sources and methods.
posted by ptermit at 4:41 AM on September 5, 2002
« Older Confucius is making a comeback | Constructive Debate on World Poverty ? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
posted by caustic at 1:33 PM on September 4, 2002