I wrote my final undergraduate thesis on the role of journalism in shaping our understanding of history — focusing specifically during the Spanish Civil War — using contemporary newspaper reports as my primary reference material, so I'm well aware of the pitfalls of using them as historiographical sources. But I also think newspapers (and journalistic writing generally) are completely valid and incredibly precious parts of the historical narrative — as long as you use them in the right way.

There's an old adage about journalism being "the first rough draft of history" — though exactly who coined that phrase seems to be the subject of some debate — which I think is a nice epigrammatic summary of why journalism is important to history.

In the last two centuries or so, journalists have generally been the first people to chronicle and analyse events and, most importantly, to write that analysis down. They are history's first responders; they create a paper trail that provides a foundational basis for understanding events as they were understood at the time — because the importance of the news media in framing popular understanding in the modern era cannot be overstated.

As contemporary eyewitness accounts, newspapers are often the most prolific, articulate and readily available sources. They're certainly not the only contemporary sources, or even in most cases the best, but they are a starting point for further enquiry.

What I mean by 'use them in the right way' is really 'understand and interrogate biases'. The first lesson in my very first historical method class was that pure, philosophical objectivity in the writing of history is a myth. It doesn't exist. Historians are shaped by their own social, cultural and political context, and all come with their own biases and subjective interpretations. The study of history is an exercise in interpreting evidence to validate or counter a thesis — and the use of evidence is invariably selective. So then it's about damage limitation, and what kind of selectivity it is: are you excluding evidence because it's irrelevant to the thesis, or because it explicitly goes against your argument?

When we talk about 'objective' history qua 'good' history, we're not arguing that something can be proven or disproven absolutely — in fact, that idea should go out the window on day 1, along with the idea of true objectivity. What we're really talking about is understanding and accounting for the context, interpretive frameworks (and yes, biases) that affect both primary source material and historiography.

All that being said: interpreting and analysing journalistic reportage is exactly the same process as assessing formal historiography. You look at social context and political orientation and geography and culture, and compare to other sources, and develop an assessment of that source. Rinse and repeat.

So — and I'm going to use my own personal examples here — when I'm writing about how the bombing of Guernica was reported in the Anglo-American press, I know that in the late 1930s the Times of London's editorial page was ardently pro-German; how could that affect their editors' willingness to directly accuse the Germans of carrying out the bombing? When I'm talking about attacks on the Spanish clergy, I know that the New York Times' editorial bullpen at that time was dominated by Catholics — how does that affect their framing of anticlerical violence?

Essentially, credibility is a subjective judgement like any other, and no source is 'credible' in a vacuum; rather, its credibility is derived from others' perspectives on its use of evidence and the sophistication of its argument. We can cross-reference a contemporary newspaper account against the accepted historical version of events (where one exists) and find factual errors or outright untruths. But that doesn't change the view that newspaper provides into how events were framed at the time, and from there extrapolate valuable insights into the contemporary zeitgeist.

If you can, find a copy of Phillip Knightley's The First Casualty for a fascinating read about how journalists and propagandists (and some people who were both at once) have shaped public perceptions in times of war; alternatively, going back to the Guernica example, H.R. Southworth's Guernica! Guernica! They should give you some more practical examples of what I've tried to explain here.

Edit: thank you for the gold, stranger.

Just a modnote as this question got a report - questions about the historical method (including analyzing and working with primary sources) are very much encouraged in here.

Newspaper articles are accepted as sources in much the same way that anything else is accepted as a source. Historians generally strive towards objectivity, but we also understand that there is no source that is totally objective. I teach university undergraduates, and whenever they have a primary source analysis or something along those lines, I always tell them that I do not want to see the statement, "This source is biased." The reason for that is that every source is biased. In everything -- newspaper articles, government edicts, telegrams, diary entries, interviews, memoirs, histories written after the fact -- there are inbuilt "prejudices", so to speak: cultural assumptions, socioeconomic circumstances, political leanings, and so on. These must all be taken into account when evaluating a source. A newspaper article is no different in this regard. No conscientious historian will take an article at face value, but will evaluate it within the wider context of other bodies of work.

Let me give you an example. You pick up a 1935 copy of the Völkischer Beobachter, which was the official Nazi Party newspaper, and you find an article in it about the nature of Jewish involvement in German society. Naturally, we can say that this is a "biased" source; it is the mouthpiece of a virulently and violently antisemitic political movement. If you want to know about the nature of Jewish involvement in German society (which, after all, is what the article is about), this is not really going to tell you all that much about it. However, it will tell you an awful lot about what the NS regime wanted citizens to think about Jews in Germany. You can also, perhaps, infer a fair bit about the harsh realities of being a Jew living in NS Germany in 1935, since the article would undoubtedly be a harsh attack on Jews, and it appears in a nationally-circulated newspaper with a high readership.

So, in answer to your question, newspaper articles are accepted as much (or as little) as any other source. You can't just accept what one says out of hand, and you must interrogate the source closely. But even the most opinionated or "biased" source has value. It depends what questions you are asking of your source.

Newspaper articles are fantastic sources mainly because they provide such blatant bias. Especially when dealing with historic newspapers the political slant is often obvious and not even hidden.

When encountering any source as a historian we always assume bias. Infact one of the key facets by which historians engage their craft is by analyzing and discussing the facts surrounding a particular source. By aggregating sources that provide a broad swath of historical experience and opinion it is much easier to convey the subtle details of a particular issue or event.

Generally as a historian you don't want to use primary sources that deal in dry facts that proclaim objectivity. If we want to learn more about the facts and minutiae of an even we would either look for other historical works, or even better cross reference historical documents that discuss the event in question.

For the average history student you want to bulk up the context of your piece with Secondary sources that discuss your topic in context. A textbook or Journal Article would provide the backbone of your paper. But the meat of any historical article always comes from the ugly, dirty, messy opinions you find in primary source documents.

Whats most important is that you look at history with a skeptical eye, and always presume the most cynical of motives when you read any source. From there you can start to approach the truth, and perhaps write yourself a decent paper.

I minored in journalism in college and will always remember what my journalism ethics professor told us - There is a misconception that journalism is supposed to be unbiased. That is not true, it is supposed to be objective. As long as facts are reported accurately and both sides are given a chance to speak, the journalist has met the ethical obligation to be objective.

Apply this to academic research. When you write a paper, you are presenting an argument and evidence to support your argument. You will naturally present the information in a way that favors your argument (this is human nature). You should address any evidence that contradicts your argument and acknowledge dissenting opinions but you then usually try to either discredit that dissenting evidence/opinion or explain how ti does not apply to the argument you are advancing. In this way you have been objective.

Journalistic writing, when done properly, is not much different than academic writing in terms of being objecting and fair even while being biased.

Now there are some journalistic sources that are not objective. There is also academic and peer-reviewed writing that is not objective. This is why you are supposed to evaluate the evidence being considered, why you conduct a literature review, etc. Also sources should be evaluated.

I have an undergrad degree in journalism and basically, the short answer is that not all newspaper articles are created equal and that the careful researcher must accordingly evaluate them on the basis of a number of criteria. Some important considerations are questions such as when was the article written? In what country? For which publication? Is it a wire-service story or did it come directly from a staff reporter? What about sources? Are they first-hand? What section of the newspaper was the article published in? These factors, and many more, all play a role in credibility.