First, I am only referring to those articles that deal with unusual animal “marvels,” the kind that might pertain to cryptozoology like giant snakes, lake monsters, out of place animals, etc. And most particularly to those from the pre-1920s’.

That when a distant news source cites an unusual animal sighting or event without any local source corraboration, then caveat emptor.

Second, the above comment shows a somewhat lack of knowledge of the pre-1920s’ newspaper system. Before the Internet, before emails, before news services, and before any type of national news gathering and sharing entities, the way newspapers captured news from around the country was via direct quotations and citations from other newspapers.

Think about it. That makes sense for the time.

That was the method of information exchange then and yet it does not mean the credibility of the stories were increased or decreased by that system. It was what it was. Just because it was from “away,” however, does not specifically translate into these stories “always” being instant “folklore,” as is suggested in corrick’s comment.

But this article is from a paper in New Hampshire about something that supposidly happened in Wisconsin. So where’s the article from an August edition of the 1867, Milwaukee Sentinel? Back since or even before the “Great Moon Hoax” in 1835, American journalism has been crammed full of stories claiming amazing things, except that they almost always happened somewhere else.

I’m not at all suggesting these type of pre-1920′s articles should be ignored. Just a ranking. Local event, local newspaper, worthy of further investigation. Local event, recorded by a distant newspaper, for students of American folklore and historical journalism.