Christian Science Monitor

A friend asked me recently what I thought of the objectivity or fair-mindedness of The Christian Science Monitor, and I didn't know what to say other than that I had a vague notion they were somewhat conservative but didn't remember why I thought that and therefore couldn't assert it with confidence. This morning, I decided to look into it, so I read some current articles, from saving the axolotl to Obama and health care to the Prop 8 trial to the devastation in Haiti. I perused the site, read the titles of many more articles (looking for clues of bias in headings, which I did think were conservative-slanted to a small degree, but it's always hard to know if preconceived notions color that perception), and read some movie reviews. The movie reviews are what reminded me I thought it was conservative. Many of them focus on any relation to biblical values or Christian principles, but this time around, I found the reviews to be pretty normal.

I did some online searching and found forums and organizations discussing the bias of news organizations, and The Christian Science Monitor was often touted as being moderate and was often accused of being either left- or right-wing biased, which is often a sign they are either both or neither, both scenarios speaking to their balance. However, my own personal opinion, judging from the wording of their headlines and the sources with whom they speak, is that they're slightly conservatively biased but fair-minded.

Where a bias did stand out to me was in yesterday's article about the Prop 8 trial, in which the author came across as defensive of the pro-Prop 8 defense and only cited conversations with defenders, one of the two being a "Protect Marriage" leader, a staunch proponent of the amendment. The author spoke of the case against Prop 8 but seemed to side with the defense, which is no crime, but he gave the opposition no direct voice, which doesn't seem balanced.

So I thought, "Hm, maybe they're relatively politically neutral but tend to show their bias in anything touching on religion or social values?" So I read more, and I found a couple of other religion-oriented articles that didn't show much bias as far as I could tell, so I wondered if I'd simply allowed my own views to inject perceived bias into the Prop 8 article.

I wanted to find out more about Christian Science, so I went to their web site and poked around. After some digging, I found a F.A.Q. page about their beliefs and discovered something interesting: they apparently have few. That is, they claim to have very little in the way of religious creed or doctrine, only a few key principles in adherence to the Bible, such as the virgin birth, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (though they reject the notion that he was deity). As far as I could tell, they have some core beliefs and principles, but no exhaustive framework of doctrine and prescribed law. Suddenly, their relative "objectivity" in news reporting made more sense to me, as did something else. Their language in response to being asked about hot-button social topics, such as abortion and homosexuality, was very diplomatic but indicated an undertone of "we think it's not god's will or part of his goodness but is part of the 'unreality' along with illness and suffering (if I understand correctly, they seem to believe a kind and just god would not and did not create illness, frailty, suffering, and death, but that they are all, in some way I don't think I understand, false perceptions, or unreal constructs, deceptions grown out of not being in harmony with god and his infinite goodness and healing) and that since we all experience these things, they do not impose judgement but also do not embrace the concepts, though they embrace the people and hope and pray for their happiness and healing. This sounds good and well as they present it, but I'm skeptical of the subtexts and implications, and it also would explain the occasional bias that comes out, assuming their reporters are all also members of The Church of Christ, Scientist.

In short, I think they're mostly fair-minded and moderate in their approach, and that their bias is revealed when it touches on the few beliefs they more concretely espouse. But the process of reaching that tentative assessment was more interesting, to me, than the assessment itself, which is why I've journaled it and posted it. ...and I'm curious to hear what y'all think of The Christian Science Monitor and its objectivity.