By Christopher B. Daly
As an author with a foot in both camps, I often wonder where the dividing line can be drawn between history and journalism. After all, both fields are devoted to empirical research into the past — just along different timelines.
Journalists want to know what has just happened — within, say, the previous day or so. Some journalists also want to explore what those developments might mean.
Historians want to know what has happened beginning at some time prior to the present, going as far back as the evidence can go. Most historians also want to comment on the meaning of those facts.
Because these inquiries overlap so much, it’s often hard to say who’s who. Many journalists explore historical topics. For example, my colleague in the B.U. Journalism Dept. Mitch Zuckoff, a veteran journalist, has written two best-selling books involving WWII topics and a brand-new best seller about the disaster at Benghazi in 2012. Is he a journalist or a historian? [As for me, I’ve written a history of industrialization and a history of journalism, but I do not have an academic appointment in a history department.]
Thanks to the BBC, we now have some data about how non-specialists (at least Brits) view this issue. In a recent survey, the BBC History Magazine asked folks to specify when events become part of History. Their answer: about 10 years.
Here are the results:
The BBC also rounded up some expert opinion, and here are some of those thoughts:
What’s your view? When does history start?
Leave a comment.
Prof Chris Daly's Blog 
Very interesting question. I think the BBC survey made a serious error in not giving an option between “a second ago” and “10 years”–such as 5 years. for example, I think a book about Obama;s first year in office would likely be closer to history than journalism.
LikeLike