A Strange Success
Having heard several references over the years to The Christian Science Monitor as a legitimate news source, I did some digging. The CBC regularly interviews on-the-ground CSM reporters as if they were from CNN, CBS, or what have you. I am not a Christian Scientist (I am, however, a Christian engineer), and am not seeking to promote or attack Christian Science in this post, but I find the success of this publication very odd and encouraging all at once.
First, I expect that - like me - most people would be skeptical about reading a newspaper with this title. Aside from reading out of curiosity, I can't see many people choosing The Christian Science Monitor over say, The Globe and Mail or any other mainstream paper. I'm not looking to view my news through the lens of Christian Science, and if the paper isn't slanted in that direction then why imply it in the very title?
But then again, what do titles like The Toronto Star or The New York Times tell me about their paper's history or bias? If I was trying to take over the world through subtle suggestions in a biased newspaper, I wouldn't call it The Brainwasher. Maybe the CSM's straightforward title should give me more assurance of honest reporting within.
The CSM was born out of protest to bad journalism. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, had a run-in with Joseph Pulitzer, a newspaper publisher who thought she was a quack. She launched the CSM shortly thereafter, and ironically it has since won seven Pulitzer Prizes.
From the CSM website:
I can't think of an unlikelier success story. That's the encouraging part. Unlikely success stories are always encouraging on some level. I disagree with the teachings of Christian Science, but should that stop me from trying out their newspaper? I think not.
First, I expect that - like me - most people would be skeptical about reading a newspaper with this title. Aside from reading out of curiosity, I can't see many people choosing The Christian Science Monitor over say, The Globe and Mail or any other mainstream paper. I'm not looking to view my news through the lens of Christian Science, and if the paper isn't slanted in that direction then why imply it in the very title?
But then again, what do titles like The Toronto Star or The New York Times tell me about their paper's history or bias? If I was trying to take over the world through subtle suggestions in a biased newspaper, I wouldn't call it The Brainwasher. Maybe the CSM's straightforward title should give me more assurance of honest reporting within.
The CSM was born out of protest to bad journalism. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, had a run-in with Joseph Pulitzer, a newspaper publisher who thought she was a quack. She launched the CSM shortly thereafter, and ironically it has since won seven Pulitzer Prizes.
From the CSM website:
In an age of corporate conglomerates dominating news media, the Monitor combination of church ownership, a public-service mission, and commitment to covering the world (not to mention the fact that it was founded by a woman shortly after the turn of the century, when US women didn't yet have the vote!) gives the paper a uniquely independent voice in journalism.
Unlike most US dailies, the Monitor does not rely primarily on wire services, like AP and Reuters, for its international coverage. We have writers based in 11 countries, including Russia, China, France, the UK, Kenya, Mexico, Israel and India, as well as throughout the US.
I can't think of an unlikelier success story. That's the encouraging part. Unlikely success stories are always encouraging on some level. I disagree with the teachings of Christian Science, but should that stop me from trying out their newspaper? I think not.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home