Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Forum | The Christian Science Monitor

Patchwork Nation Forum » Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Forum

Freedom of Speech

(6 posts)

Started 6 months ago by shadowsprite
Latest reply from WetHen

shadowsprite
Member

Do you think that this newspaper should give freedom of speech rights to its bloggers and not edit the content in this project?

Using bloggers on this website is an interesting experiment. Are you enthusiastic about seeing The CS Monitor updated to fit in with a new generation of reader’s and their expectations?

How do you feel about individuals using The Christian Science Monitor as an open forum for discussion which includes blogs that are uncensored? Very few people have contributed comments to the blogs or the message boards. Why do you think that is? Do those of you that are under 30 believe that blogs are necessary on news web site if they are to stay in business?

Or are you a long-time reader of The CS Monitor that is dismayed by all the changes you see? Do you find it disturbing that the blogs within this project aren’t edited for quality and include open conversations about a lifestyle that is anathema to that of a practicing Christian Scientist? Is it time to close the Monitor down? Or maybe it is time to drop ‘Christian Science’ from the title, remove the religious article, loosen restrictions on advertising, cut all financial support from the church and let the paper flow with the times. After all, we would still be able to get the great news reports that the CS Monitor has built its reputation on for 100 years.

Despite the fact that The CS Monitor is not a religious paper and only has one religious article per day it has been subsidized by a church for most of its existence. I wonder if The CS Monitor has served its purpose and by changing its style and content to match the times that it isn’t ‘itself’ any more. Perhaps unedited content doesn’t belong in a newspaper that has ‘Christian Science' in its title? Print papers are going out of business all over the country because of loss of readership and financial woes. In your opinion should The CS Monitor accept its fate just as other great newspapers have? Is possible that it can stay alive financial by dropping its print addition and continuing production of its excellent online version?

It would be interesting to know how many individuals on the staff of CS Monitor online are actually practicing Christian Scientists that read the weekly lesson, go to Wednesday service to give testimony, call a practitioner when they need healing, don't drink caffeine or alcohol, never use medicated products and only have sex with the person that they are actually married to? (I don't meet that description but I still respect it.) Do most readers out there actually know anything about the high standards that Christian Scientists aspire to live by? They sound rather old fashion, don’t they?

I almost feel as if the online Monitor staff is giving a sex change to the Monitor so that it can compete in a fashion show. The CS Monitor has lived a good life. Shouldn’t we let it go out in a blaze of glory?

Posted 6 months ago #

0
Flag this post as inappropriate
Sturdybox
Member

Shadowsprite, I do wonder what your motives are. If you were to look into the history of Christian Science and its founder, you would not find stick-in-the-mud prissies. You would find people who believe that all are children of God, all deserve respect, all are equal in our Father/Mother's eyes.

One of my journalism teachers (an Anglican) praised the CSM as "perfect." It's not perfect, for me; it's far too liberal and much too Boston-centric, without even realizing it. A very nice lady at the switchboard once reassured me, "We're all Democrats here, dear," when I had called to object to something I thought was too kind to a Republican candidate whom I did not favor. The CSM is not perfect, but it is very, very good. It's small because of its high standards, and because most people who would embrace it's liberal leanings are put off by the word "Christian" in the title. I remember when it was a full-sheet paper. But honestly, the tabloid is easier to handle. I don't like the color photos as they run up the cost of printing, but that's how it is today. Thanks a lot USA Today. I make a regular donation to the Monitor because it's the sort of publication that should be supported. We need its relative balance and its high-mindedness.

My guess is that there is a mix of Scientists and non-Scientists on the staff, and my guess is that all the staffers, of whatever religion, do the best they can to live in a moral and God-obedient way.

No, it should not "go out in blaze of glory"--whatever that means. It should remain in business, keep up with the times, but certainly not "go with the flow." Going with the flow causes a lot of problems!

Newspapers are having a hard time, across the board. Even in LA, which had two big papers and several smaller ones when I moved there in 1988, there's now one big newspaper. And it's no longer locally owned. Newspapers have folded all over the place, and that's a shame. As wonderful as the internet is, it's not the best place to find news. It is a great place to find lies, distortions, hoaxes, jokes, and so forth. Without the ballast of an editorial board to make sure "facts" are facts and that the stories are useful, all you have is a rumor-mill.

Now, as to whether CSM should fold its paper-based newspaper, I'd say that's a more difficult question. The answer is, maybe, but certainly not yet. Not everyone has a computer. Simple as that. Maybe you don't have $500 for a computer and another $20/month for ISP, but everyone can find a buck to buy a paper. Big bonus: you can pass the paper around! I think until there's a lot more evenly distributed access to the internet--and I mean unfettered access--we still need paper-based newspapers. I go to a coffee shop where folks buy a newspaper, read it as they eat their meals, and leave it behind for the next diner. Hard to do that with your laptop!

So, I've run on at length, but so did you.

What do we both need?

Editing, my dear.

Posted 6 months ago #

0
Flag this post as inappropriate
Sturdybox
Member

Argghh! Apostrophe gaffe! I can't believe I typed "embrace it's liberal leanings." I know better!

Posted 6 months ago #

-1
Flag this post as inappropriate
Sturdybox
Member

I didn't answer your question about blogs as you addressed it to the under 30 crowd, but the comments sections on the BBC site, CNN, Deutsche Welle, and others are filled to the gunwales with bile and barely coherent rants. I'd rather not have that sort of thing here, even if it means "censorship."

Posted 6 months ago #

-1
Flag this post as inappropriate
shadowsprite
Member

Free speech is an interesting concept, isn't it?

In this country much of what we talk about is governed by the media. What we know or don't know is told to us by the media. Isn't it great that we have this wonderful publication that has the motto “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind"? How many people notice that it's on every single paper? If you asked the readers of this paper what they know about the practices of adherents of Christian Science what do you think they would say?

Perhaps to be true to that motto and be a paper that respects the rigorous healthy lifestyle of those that study Christian Science, publishing blogs and readers comments without any editorial oversight is unwise?

You pointed this out yourself when you commented, "Without the ballast of an editorial board to make sure 'facts' are facts and that the stories are useful, all you have is a rumor-mill." It isn't only rumor mill that we have to watch out for though, it is the power of money. Often when I read a magazine article about a health concern I'll notice on the opposite page a huge ad for a drug that is suppose to ease the sufferer's pain. The media today doesn’t survive on subscription costs alone. This web site is no exception. It wouldn't survive without advertising. At what point will the money issue cause the staff of the Christian Science Monitor web site to include ads that might be in conflict with the healthy lifestyle promoted by the study of Christian Science? Will the line start to blur as Christian Science culture is swallowed up by mainstream culture? One of the best things about the CS Monitor is that it has its own reporters and doesn't predominantly borrow information from various news services. National news programs respect this and use on-the-spot reports from the CS Monitor reporters themselves. I often hear CS Monitor reporters stationed in other countries on NPR’s radio news broadcasts.

The CS Monitor has a sterling reputation because it has high standards. How can it keep those standards in an era where anyone and everyone can express their opinions and ideas via the internet no matter how false the information, or hateful the words, or poorly written the text?

I’m not criticizing all bloggers. I have read several bloggers’ comments that I thought were quite enlightening. It seems though that our culture is getting away from being selective in what they choose to read and write. Freedom and responsibility go together. If we are allowed to say anything that we want in this country are we also going to be responsible for saying what is true, or kind, or enlightening? And as readers are we going to be responsible to weigh each commentary that we read for its ‘truth’ from both a human standpoint as well as a spiritual one?

Posted 6 months ago #

0
Flag this post as inappropriate
WetHen
Member

Why this "flag this post as inappropriate" sign?

The best messages are those where TOTAL freedom of speech is allowed...anything less, is less.

Posted 4 months ago #

0
Flag this post as inappropriate