Again, it’s research paper time for me.
I found a usable article that was published a couple of years ago in the Christian Science Monitor.
I went to the magazine’s homepage, and they seem to be a plain old news magazine. But their name throws up red flags all over the place. I want to be sure exactly who I’m citing when I write this sucker.
The CSM was for a very long time a highly respected national newspaper. It’s more like a newspaper than a magazine.
The paper used to break big stories and have influential columnists. The religious part of the paper is usually all put on one page.
Historically, the top editors have been Christian Scientists, but very little to none of that is reflected in the editorial content.
In recent years, the paper has cut way back on its size and prints far fewer pages than it used to.
The CSM is found in your finer public and college libraries.
I have gotten the same impression as BobT: highly respected, very factual, etc.
Just to toss in another pair of cents, I also consider CSM to be a very reputable source, and have myself used it as a reference in a number of non-Christian related research papers… your professor (or whomever) would probably not even think twice about seeing it in your list of sources, any more than the New York Times.
For that matter, I’ve seen plenty of other academic papers reference the CSM… now, if someone were using The Watchtower as a source, THAT might raise a red flag 
Incidentally, this is the first time I’ve posted since the board went down… I just LOVE this interface!
When I was in high school, eons ago, the CSM was rated the Number One newspaper in the country by whoever did those ratings (journalists, editors, I guess). One main reason for this is that it is impartial. Most newspapers are slanted but not the CSM. It is a newspaper, not a magazine.
Cool, thanks.
CSM is especially well-known for international reporting. They do routine coverage of many countries and stories that never make it into other newspapers.
Anecdotally speaking, I have heard many researchers say that the CSM articles are well-researched, attributed, and complete and unbiased.
But I have in a folder somewhere a CSM article on D&D (from back when D&D was still a dirty word) which was the most one-sided piece of filth I ever read about the game, featuring the concluding sentence: “Who could possibly oppose such a game but a bunch of Christians?”
So I’m biased against it. Most likely, unfairly.
I happened to be reading the Monitor just before checking this site.
[Homer]
Now who’s being naive?
[/Homer]
All newspapers are slanted, what differs is in what directions and to what degree. I have found it to be slightly to the left, which is what you’d expect from most media in this country. But not as far as other major news sources, such as NY Times, Washington Post, network news, CNN, or NPR. I think they do an admirable job reporting and staying as impartial as possible, but it is to be expected that both in content and in selection of stories, that biases would play a part, from their Boston headquarters as well as from the journalistic community as a whole.
I notice nobody has posted a link yet. I check this page every day, which has a complete list of their articles for that day. Avoids the annoyance of rereading some of their article headings twice, since they keep some features around for more than a day on the home page.