 |
 |
Apologies for cross-posting. I am working on a paper challenging the dominance of The Times as a historical source, on the basis of its limited circulation (in terms of sales and geographical extent) and peculiar content (advertising, political and diplomatic news, with little news of the UK beyond the South-East, and an unusual lack of non-news editorial content). I suspect it has been better at self-promotion than other equally significant papers, and its accessibility via Palmer's Index has made it a first resort for many historians. If all this conjecture is correct, there must be examples of historiography that has come to partial or inaccurate conclusions because of an over-dependence on The Times. I'm looking for examples of particular books, articles, theories or approaches which have been weakened by such over-dependence on The Times and their neglect of other newspaper sources, such as other metropolitan papers, or the provincial press. Thanks in advance Andrew Hobbs University of Central Lancashire UK