Re: [cpsig] Preserving an accurate historical record...
- From: Andrew Jeanes <yahoo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 15:51:56 -0500
On 2012-03-03, at 1:56 PM, Steve Lucas wrote:
I have learnt over the years to be careful when citing "facts". They become
"truth" if repeated often enough.
Here's a fun contradiction: anyone with a bit of specialized knowledge on a
given subject (railways, say) inevitably notices how often contemporary
newspaper reports on that subject get the facts atrociously wrong.
And yet...historians, looking for primary source material from earlier periods
often rely on newspaper accounts from the day to provide basic details about a
historical event that would be difficult or impossible to obtain otherwise.
Are newspaper reports from the past more reliable than newspaper reports from
today, or should historians who cite old newspaper articles in their writing
make sure to include a huge disclaimer about potential inaccuracies. How many
histories—popular or academic—actually do that?
What about first-person interviews? Do the memories of retired railroaders
about how things were when they were starting their careers out forty years ago
really serve as reliable historical accounts. Can you put 100% trust in your
memories about events in your own life that happened ten years ago, let alone
four times that long?
Regards,
Andrew
Other related posts:
