I think it is untenable to
argue that intact newspapers are not primary sources, but one could
argue that newspaper clippings are "mutilated" primary sources
that have lost some of their original context, which makes them less
valuable as original primary sources. In the case of
newspaper clippings intermixed with personal papers or other manuscript
collections, preserving the information contained within the clipping
may be more important than saving the original (unless the clipping contains an
image that will not transfer well, or if you plan to use in an exhibit, or if
you feel the original newspaper clippings add something to your
understanding of the collection as whole).
I think one should also consider how the
collection may be used by researchers, as what's considered
a secondary source in one historical study/argument may
be primary in another.
Heather Willever-Farr
Electronic Records Archivist American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine 190 N. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106-1572 hwillever-farr@mail.acponline.org (w) 215-351-2470 (h) 215-481-0962 |