Yea, the CSM is amazing. They are probably one of the most unbiased news outlets out there and they have some great features on their site. Its a real shame they're not more popular. I also love...
Yea, the CSM is amazing.
They are probably one of the most unbiased news outlets out there and they have some great features on their site. Its a real shame they're not more popular. I also love the little byline they put at the beginning of every article explaining their reasoning for reporting on the topic, as well as the approximate read times in the switcher. The best thing about that, even if you just read the Quick Read they do a really great job of summarising the story for you.
EDIT: Just to clarify something for those of you that have never heard of the CSM, the CSM is not a religious publication. The name can be confusing.
That should be qualified a bit. While the CSM asserts that it is not a religious paper, and it does not directly promote Christian Science, it is owned by the Christian Science church, and...
EDIT: Just to clarify something for those of you that have never heard of the CSM, the CSM is not a religious publication. The name can be confusing.
That should be qualified a bit. While the CSM asserts that it is not a religious paper, and it does not directly promote Christian Science, it is owned by the Christian Science church, and proceeds go to the church. It was founded with the direct intention of promoting certain viewpoints that were seen as advantageous in Christian Science doctrine, and continues to include religious articles by requirement of its founder and the church that owns it. It is not an independent organization. For some time in the 2000s, Wikipedia notes that the editor was a Christian Science practitioner; searching for the current editor's name does come up with material in religious publications, and his statement in the article about his appointment appears to be in the language of Christian science:
Done correctly, journalism can be an agent of healing and hope because it is not about arguing over facts and events but getting to the basic issues that matter so greatly to us all. It is about taking account of lasting values and spiritual qualities that animate everyone and make for human progress – qualities such as goodness, grace, justice, courage, humility, joy.
I'm not sure how much of this is akin to grant-writing in academia (of course this basic research might have applications in the specific things you happen to be interested in right
now), but it is unsettling. There have been issues in the past.
Christian Science itself, meanwhile, is a faith healing religion built around 19th century medical quackery that discourages people from seeking medical treatment and has pushed and often been responsible for creating religious exemptions allowing parents to give no medical treatment to their children; it has also fought against vaccinations and vaccination requirements. Children have died from easily treatable illnesses as a direct result of the church's actions.
CSM is often praised, but one should not overlook that it is owned and governed by a horrible organization.
Don't take this the wrong way, but a lot of what you just said is 100% wrong and is the basis of a lot of bias against the publication. First of all it is a non profit news organization that is an...
Don't take this the wrong way, but a lot of what you just said is 100% wrong and is the basis of a lot of bias against the publication.
First of all it is a non profit news organization that is an independent entity and always has been. The church has nothing major to do with the functions of the paper today other than having final say on who is editor. Posting an incident from 1992 hardly backs up the claims you are saying considering the publication was entirely restructured in 2008. They are very clear about their ties to the church and how it has very little effect on the publication. That information is readily available on their about page, I have never seen a reason to dispute it.
They include one religious based article per publication cycle, as is tradition for the paper and was requested by their founder. But they are not a religious publication and their work does not have a religious bias (something that is very obvious). That article is never front page news, it's always very clearly marked and is often buried and hard to find.
Christian Science has nothing to do with the Monitor, discussing the merits of a religion is irrelevant.
It's good to point out, I will always go to bat to defend the Monitor and I am a lifelong atheist. I have spent a lot of time ensuring that I get a well rounded worldview and I read news from a very long list of differing news sources. I can say with very little doubt that the Monitor has the least amount of bias out of any of them.
I know that my post could be seen as being very critical and suggest actual bias. This is not quite what I intended. I do respect the CSM's actual content. However, I will also stand by what I...
Don't take this the wrong way, but a lot of what you just said is 100% wrong and is the basis of a lot of bias against the publication.
I know that my post could be seen as being very critical and suggest actual bias. This is not quite what I intended. I do respect the CSM's actual content. However, I will also stand by what I stated, particularly because much of it came from the CSM itself.
First of all it is a non profit news organization that is an independent entity and always has been.
Perhaps we have different perceptions of what an independent entity is. The Christian Science Monitor is not an independent organization in any legal sense, and is not, I think, what most people would consider an independent entity in any way. They are open about this on the very about page you link to:
Since 1908, we have been published as a public service by The First Church of Christ, Scientist.
The Monitor is owned by a church – The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.
[on the naming] While some might argue that not having those words would give it wider appeal, to remove them would mislead people about the organization that supports the Monitor.
Per their Terms of Service, the Christian Science Monitor is a dba of The Christian Science Publishing Society, which is, per their Privacy Policy, "an activity of The First Church of Christ, Scientist." Even their contact street address is the church. Perhaps this is a pedantic point, but I don't see how the CSM could be seen as an independent entity.
The church has nothing major to do with the functions of the paper today other than having final say on who is editor.
According the the about page you linked to:
The Board of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, has oversight over Monitor editorials and editorial cartoons, but rarely edits content. The Board selects the Monitor’s editor, whose staff chooses stories they feel are most meaningful to our readers.
That seems like a significant amount of potential control of the paper. Even if they simply had complete control over the editor, that is a significant amount of of potential control.
And that, really, is what I wanted to point out, though I perhaps explained this poorly in my initial post. The CSM does have a very good reputation for avoiding bias and being reasonable and well-rounded. Arguably, its structure exists as a historical oddity derived from the church's founder being attacked by yellow journalists (and now, amusingly, wins prizes named for the very publisher whose paper attacked her) and choosing to respond by starting a newspaper, and by the her view on health meaning that she saw fear-mongering journalism as being physically harmful. Its continued good journalism is the result of the founder pushing good journalism as a religious tenant.
And yes, the Monitor can be quite secular: its coverage of vaccination issues, for example, does not seem to take a Christian Science line.
Yet at the same time, I do think it is important to recognize that Christian Science does have quite a bit do to with the Christian Science Monitor, as noted above and honestly explained by the Monitor itself. It is important to be mindful that there is the potential for bias, whether subtle or unintentional, as a result, and I would suggest that the quotes I included from the current editor are unsettling in that regard. It is also important to realize that, were the church's Board to choose to change their views toward the Monitor, there is nothing that would prevent them from immediately changing it. This has particular impact on anything surrounding the newspaper that is not the newspaper itself, where the tradition might not be as respected by the Board: the issue I linked to was related to a television venture called "World Monitor," for example.
Off-topic but dang.. that
Quick ReadtoDeep Readswitcher on the site is super neat. I wish more news sites included something like that.Yea, the CSM is amazing.
They are probably one of the most unbiased news outlets out there and they have some great features on their site. Its a real shame they're not more popular. I also love the little byline they put at the beginning of every article explaining their reasoning for reporting on the topic, as well as the approximate read times in the switcher. The best thing about that, even if you just read the
Quick Readthey do a really great job of summarising the story for you.EDIT: Just to clarify something for those of you that have never heard of the CSM, the CSM is not a religious publication. The name can be confusing.
That should be qualified a bit. While the CSM asserts that it is not a religious paper, and it does not directly promote Christian Science, it is owned by the Christian Science church, and proceeds go to the church. It was founded with the direct intention of promoting certain viewpoints that were seen as advantageous in Christian Science doctrine, and continues to include religious articles by requirement of its founder and the church that owns it. It is not an independent organization. For some time in the 2000s, Wikipedia notes that the editor was a Christian Science practitioner; searching for the current editor's name does come up with material in religious publications, and his statement in the article about his appointment appears to be in the language of Christian science:
I'm not sure how much of this is akin to grant-writing in academia (of course this basic research might have applications in the specific things you happen to be interested in right
now), but it is unsettling. There have been issues in the past.
Christian Science itself, meanwhile, is a faith healing religion built around 19th century medical quackery that discourages people from seeking medical treatment and has pushed and often been responsible for creating religious exemptions allowing parents to give no medical treatment to their children; it has also fought against vaccinations and vaccination requirements. Children have died from easily treatable illnesses as a direct result of the church's actions.
CSM is often praised, but one should not overlook that it is owned and governed by a horrible organization.
Don't take this the wrong way, but a lot of what you just said is 100% wrong and is the basis of a lot of bias against the publication.
First of all it is a non profit news organization that is an independent entity and always has been. The church has nothing major to do with the functions of the paper today other than having final say on who is editor. Posting an incident from 1992 hardly backs up the claims you are saying considering the publication was entirely restructured in 2008. They are very clear about their ties to the church and how it has very little effect on the publication. That information is readily available on their about page, I have never seen a reason to dispute it.
They include one religious based article per publication cycle, as is tradition for the paper and was requested by their founder. But they are not a religious publication and their work does not have a religious bias (something that is very obvious). That article is never front page news, it's always very clearly marked and is often buried and hard to find.
Christian Science has nothing to do with the Monitor, discussing the merits of a religion is irrelevant.
It's good to point out, I will always go to bat to defend the Monitor and I am a lifelong atheist. I have spent a lot of time ensuring that I get a well rounded worldview and I read news from a very long list of differing news sources. I can say with very little doubt that the Monitor has the least amount of bias out of any of them.
I know that my post could be seen as being very critical and suggest actual bias. This is not quite what I intended. I do respect the CSM's actual content. However, I will also stand by what I stated, particularly because much of it came from the CSM itself.
Perhaps we have different perceptions of what an independent entity is. The Christian Science Monitor is not an independent organization in any legal sense, and is not, I think, what most people would consider an independent entity in any way. They are open about this on the very about page you link to:
Per their Terms of Service, the Christian Science Monitor is a dba of The Christian Science Publishing Society, which is, per their Privacy Policy, "an activity of The First Church of Christ, Scientist." Even their contact street address is the church. Perhaps this is a pedantic point, but I don't see how the CSM could be seen as an independent entity.
According the the about page you linked to:
That seems like a significant amount of potential control of the paper. Even if they simply had complete control over the editor, that is a significant amount of of potential control.
And that, really, is what I wanted to point out, though I perhaps explained this poorly in my initial post. The CSM does have a very good reputation for avoiding bias and being reasonable and well-rounded. Arguably, its structure exists as a historical oddity derived from the church's founder being attacked by yellow journalists (and now, amusingly, wins prizes named for the very publisher whose paper attacked her) and choosing to respond by starting a newspaper, and by the her view on health meaning that she saw fear-mongering journalism as being physically harmful. Its continued good journalism is the result of the founder pushing good journalism as a religious tenant.
And yes, the Monitor can be quite secular: its coverage of vaccination issues, for example, does not seem to take a Christian Science line.
Yet at the same time, I do think it is important to recognize that Christian Science does have quite a bit do to with the Christian Science Monitor, as noted above and honestly explained by the Monitor itself. It is important to be mindful that there is the potential for bias, whether subtle or unintentional, as a result, and I would suggest that the quotes I included from the current editor are unsettling in that regard. It is also important to realize that, were the church's Board to choose to change their views toward the Monitor, there is nothing that would prevent them from immediately changing it. This has particular impact on anything surrounding the newspaper that is not the newspaper itself, where the tradition might not be as respected by the Board: the issue I linked to was related to a television venture called "World Monitor," for example.