Christian Science is a branch of Christianity that I have very little respect for, due to their position on medical treatment. In fact, I put them just above Scientology on my personal list of respect for beliefs; while they’re not a greedy, slanderous science fiction cult, their teachings kill people. Not really anything laudable about that.
But they’ve got this newspaper (or they did; apparently it’s online only now), the Christian Science Monitor, founded by Mary Baker Eddy herself. As long as I can remember, it’s always been a respected news source, in the pantheon with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, particularly when it comes to international reporting. It’s won seven Pulitzers over the last hundred and five years or so. (Ok, maybe not quite in the pantheon w/ the NYT and WSJ, who are in the triple and mid-double digits, respectively.) I’ve heard them cited on NPR, and I read articles from their website fairly regularly, finding them to be refreshingly in-depth and intelligent compared to the blurbs from USA Today or the wire services. There’s never any religious slant that I can detect.
So there’s my question: How in the world did this happen? I’d expect a Watchtower, not a serious journalistic institution, from the association. And yet there it is. What’s the story?
(Not sure if this has a factual answer, which is why I didn’t put it in GQ.)
Mainly because the religion is dangerous and wrong but Mary Baker Eddy wanted to create an independent newspaper, and mostly did. It was originally created by a bequest from her, and she wanted it to be truly independent editorially and on reporting the news. The paper also received ongoing support over the years from the Church of Christ, Scientist who continued following Mary Baker Eddy’s wishes that the newspaper be an unbiased, independent source of news. Ms. Eddy was basically under the belief that the reason her religion had been slandered and denigrated so much in the news was because most of the newspapers of the day all shared the same wire reporting and were controlled by a few powerful newspaper magnates. Now, the real reason her beliefs were slandered is because they were dangerous and stupid, but she was right in that the reason only one side of certain issues was ever presented was because of the power of a few who controlled much of the media.
So while her motivations were tied up with her crazy religion, her goal was something pretty good and that she took seriously–an independent paper. For the life of the print edition it was stipulated that the one association the paper would have with Christian Science was that each issue would contain a Christian Science article, no other part of the newspaper would be involved with the religion at all.
Over the years the declining revenue and subscriber base of the print edition caused them to go online only. I believe that has allowed the editorial board to get past the requirements of Eddy’s initial will or whatever it was that established the Christian Science requirement–I don’t think the website does those articles any longer. It’s kind of sad the Monitor has been dying a slow death, they were one of a small number of papers that still sent real reporters all over the country and the world to gather news, and didn’t just reuse the wire service stuff. So you got truly original news from them. Their editorial slant has always been remarkably balanced as well.
They have a weekly Kindle edition that I get. The religious article is still in it. Vastly superior to any other US News source, less biased (they are biased in my opinion) and not as good on US reporting as the BBC website.
Interesting. If I read you right, Martin Hyde, the reason Mary Baker Eddy started such a good newspaper is that she also started such a lousy religion. I guess not all unintended consequences are bad!
Do agree that it’s a shame they’re in decline (with most of the rest of the old media, but).
They are not unbiased, they are pro-christian, and what sect doesn’t really matter. I read this paper for years growing up and was always appalled how they cherry pick the stories and opinions. They have repeatedly trashed non-Christians and non-Christian opinions.
It’s just as bad a front that any religion has. Your kid wants to see Avengers?? Here’s why your kid shouldn’t. Or how to dismay your kids from thinking Harry Potter is cool.
One of my favorites is its continued crusade against marijuana use through a passive-aggressive attack against Obama, calling him to “articulate” to families about its drawbacks being a former user. They praise the DEA as “authorities of reason” support the expensive and futile war on drugs.
They trash fellow atheists like Seth McFarlaine for hoping that Carl Sagan’s research should be available to everyone. But I’ll give them kudos the size of an ant by publishing stories on how atheists know religion better than believers. They also support Mahony (sure, why not?) saying he “took the fall”. I suppose Mahony feels the same way in prison-- oh, wait.
Bottom line: the publication is pro-believer and NOT pro-reason or pro-science. If there’s a way, we should make them change the name to Christian Monitor. Sounds more religious anyway; overseeing and ruling, just as Jebobovah would be.
One of the other factors is that the Monitor editorial staff, from what I know, consciously tried to give a less salacious spin on stuff, actively avoiding dwelling on the sensational aspects of any news stories, like lurid descriptions of violence etc, and tried to find some good news in as many stories as they could - or at least, that’s what I’ve heard.
My wife’s family is CS, and her uncle was heavily involved with both the TV station and newspaper (nowadays he’s only involved with the definitely religious magazine The CS Sentinel - *that’s *your CS watchtower, LawMonkey.).
I find that a really weird and mostly unsupportable analysis. Their reporters during the beginning of the second Iraq War wrote a lot of articles that some would say were very sympathetic to the insurgents. Their reporter that got kidnapped in Iraq for example, she was pretty anti-American and pro-insurgency before that. Now, overall I don’t think the paper was anti-American but based on my reading of it they’d be far more susceptible to claims of anti-Christian and anti-American bias than what you’re claiming here.
Anybody know how this wacky cult survives? There used to be a CS in my town-I never saw anybody enter it except for very old ladies. Where does their money come from? Truists? Thye church owns a lot of properties, but they seem to be in rapid decline.
I drove past a Christian Science church in Costa Mesa I think once when my dad made a wrong turn but other than that all contemporary mentions I’ve heard of Christian Science is with their newspaper. I haven’t seen any other CS churches since then nor do I know anybody in real-life or online who belongs to that sect.
They kind of are in rapid decline. I mean, my wife is nominally CS but she never goes to church anymore, and our kids aren’t being raised in it.
But they’re not really a “wacky cult” in the Scientology mold. They’re more a “wacky sect of Christianity” - and in some ways no wackier than the Mormons, Amish or snake-handling Pentecostals. They’re just of a particular time and place where faith healing and Spiritualism were all in vogue, and it shows.
