I wonder if I can add my pennyworth to this conversation. I have just looked
through The Times daily issues from 1834 to 1840. In connection with the
1834 Amendment Act. I am interested in the effect it had on the north. Very
similar to today newspapers carried bias. The Times under John Walters M.P
was very much a Tory with a small t paper, whilst the Morning Chronicle was
a Whig paper. The latter was very much for the New Poor Law, whilst The
Times was very much against. The Times certainly covered the north in the
story. I have never seen it as a London City Paper. I would say it was the
first national paper, which was printed in London. I have also looked
through local papers for the same period and the Times gave more room for a
northern story than local papers such as The Bradford Observer, The Leeds
Mercury, The Derby Mercury and the Manchester Times (another Whig paper). In
fact these type of newspapers carried Times articles to the letter.. Anybody
that writes, writes with a bias, be it journalist, textbook writers or
historians such as Eadmer and William of Malmesbury . In using sources such
as these , you have to beware of the bias of the writer. As for circulation
from 1792-1908 The Times circulation was at its highest in 1864 64,937
copies (Times circulation department). This was at the time of the American
civil war. So not only published National stories , but also international
stories. In Victorian times, Just one copy of the Times would have up to 16
people reading it during the course of its life
-----Original Message-----
From: From: Local-History list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Pilmer Tony
Sent: 17 August 2010 12:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Query re over-dependence on The Times as historical source
When I was at uni our Prof said that the quality newspapers were the first
brush of history. If you are doing political history, things like
Mandelson's biographies would be the second brush and then you wait for the
archives etc.
I must declare an interest - we do www.SloughHistoryOnline.org.uk which has
put online the Slough, Windsor & Eton Observer from 1883-1929 (indexed
1887-1910 and more indexes to follow).
I think there are a number of points I would like to put forward:
- Newspapers give you a great flavour of what life was like and the
priorities of life. The adverts, type of articles covered etc
- Some information is much better in our local newspapers than in more
traditional sources. The inquest and council meeting reports are generally
much fuller in the newspapers than in the official records.
- You have to choose how much weight to put on each
journalist/column/newspaper to believe. If you were reading the 1970s
cricket reports, surely you would give a great deal of weight to EW Swanton
and not so much to what Geoff Boy...... a player might say in their
biography. I guess this is the same with all of history.
- Newspapers are also a great recorder of the world around you and, from the
comfort of your computer chair, can give you great dates and names which you
can use more traditional sources to follow-up.
You have to be careful with using the Times. I seem to remember that the
Time Digital Archive (free online through most public library catalogues) is
based on a very old OCR package so it does not bring up everything you
search for. Even the BL's cutting edge 19th century newspaper database (also
free through lots of public libraries) old claims to bring up 70% of the
text. If you think something should be there I would always spend the time
to read the paper cover-to-cover to double-check it. If you have access to a
man-made index, use it! I never use the Times Digi's keyword searches - I
always use the text function. www.SloughHistoryOnline.org.uk has a great
team of volunteers doing our indexing, so the final product should be much,
much better than other online newspapers.
Tony
Tony Pilmer
Local Studies Librarian
Slough Borough Council
Tel 01753 787511
Fax 01753 825050
www.slough.gov.uk/libraries
Please don't print this email unless you really need to - think of the
environment.
-----Original Message-----
From: From: Local-History list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Humphrey Southall
Sent: 17 August 2010 09:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LOCAL-HISTORY] Query re over-dependence on The Times as
historical source
In the 18th century, the Times of London was very much "a synthesis of
primary sources, an account
filtered through an intermediary", at least as far as events outside London
were concerned. They selectively copied stories from other newspapers.
That is why Dobson's study of strikes that I mentioned earlier was unsound:
a strike in London was much more likely to be reported in the London Times
than a strike in the north of England.
Humphrey
>>> Gill Cookson <[log in to unmask]> 17/08/2010 09:18 >>>
OK, so if a newspaper isn't a primary source, what is it?
A secondary source is a synthesis of primary sources, an account
filtered through an intermediary, an historian. This clearly does not
describe a contemporary document such as a newpaper. Just because
something is printed, doesn't define it as a secondary source.
If you check the bibliography of any reputable published work or
thesis in history, you will find newspapers listed as printed primary
sources. (There's also such a thing as an unpublished secondary
source, but I've never in many years working in this field heard any
historian talk about tertiary sources.)
I don't think any of this is remotely controversial. It's just the way
it is, and something any first-year history undergraduate is taught.
Gill
On 16 Aug 2010, at 18:22, Nick Hudd wrote:
> I would have thought that there is really little to discuss, as
> everyone on this list would (I hope) agree that all academic
> disciplines must check the accuracy of sources and material,
> primary, secondary (tertiary etc) and be seen to evaluate that
> accuracy, if necessary reaching (and publishing) a conclusion about
> reliability. This is true as much of the measurements used in
> scientific disciplines as it is of the sources used in the
> "humanities" (for lack of a better term).
>
> All "news" sources, in all ages, are secondary (though they may
> include verbatim primary accounts of course), but none the less of
> immense value, and one would think that The Times probably has a
> demonstrably better record of objectivity than many (most?). The
> press is a pretty unobjective medium at all times and in all places,
> but very few documents used in historical research are unimpeachably
> objective anyway.
>
> All that being the case, what will the proposed research actually
> add to the historiographical corpus of knowledge? That applies
> whether it is The Times being researched, or the Much-Binding-in-the-
> Marsh Gazette. I don't think the research will tell us anything that
> is not already known, though there may be those who do not know that
> it is known!!
>
> Nick Hudd
'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by this
Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may
be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or
any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be
official policy but the personal views of the originator. If you are not
the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
received this message in error please return it to the originator and
confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.
All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the
latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been
transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions
for the detection and eradication of viruses.'
|