reply to post by rich23
I believe this article to be misleading. It may be accurate but I also believe it has been deliberately designed to be ambiguous for reasons as yet
unknown to the general public.
To quote the article: "Irish former minister Proinsias de Rossa was knocked to the ground after a public meeting in Dublin on Monday night, according
to the Labour Party."
This opening paragraph gives the impression that the former minister was actually knocked to the ground. It is only later we discover this is only a
claim, one by his own Labour Party.
The article goes on to report that Eamon Gilmore claims "a group of men [who] screamed abuse at him before knocking him over and pinning him
Again, this suggests that this is an accurate reporting of events as it actually happened.
The article states that police "confirmed the attack" but "made no arrests" after taking statements from witnesses. It was these apparently
conflicting statements that initially rang alarm bells and sparked my interest in the affair, prompting me to investigate further. I would have
thought this should have also set the Editor's alarm bells ringing but it appears to have escaped their scrutiny or their moral compass.
I was under the (perhaps fanciful) illusion that the BBC prides itself on unbiased, impartial reporting.Having viewed this footage of the incident
I believe there is clear evidence that this report should be retracted or altered to reflect a more accurate turn of events.
If you view this video you will see:
i) A small group calmly questioning Proinsias de Rossa, not screaming abuse at him.
ii) Mr. Proinsias de Rossa instigating the "attack" by lunging toward one of the group and then tripping over. To re-iterate, he was not knocked to
the ground. He tripped and fell.
iii) This same video footage claims that group questioning Mr. de Rossa were those responsible for contacting the Garda (Irish police) and reporting
Why does a reputed bastion of truth and fair reporting feels it necessary to conduct such blatantly misleading reporting?
To refer to We Are Change Ireland as an "Anti-EU gang" is clear evidence of intentionally starving a group of publicity (reasons for which I wish
the BBC to illuminate) and also, more worryingly, a blatant attempt at demonisation. This action I expect from less reputable agencies, not from the
Why has this article been written in a way that suggests the incident happened as reported?
Why is ambiguity required by a professional news agency?
Why is the report so clearly one-sided and no mention made of conflicting evidence?
Why is We Are Change Ireland referred to as "Anti-EU gang"?
Why has no attempt been made to update the story following professional investigating?
Why does the BBC refrain from publicising We Are Change Ireland yet names the Labour party during a referendum campaign?
(During general elections there are certain laws regulating reporting. Although this referendum took place in Eire not U.K. the vote was on an issue
that directly affected U.K. Surely the BBC could have observed the spirit of this law?)
I hope this helps.