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 (There's also such a thing as an unpublished secondary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
|