Timeline for Christian Science Monitor: a socially acceptable source among conservative Christians?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2023 at 7:43 | history | edited | Anne | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
1 spelling correction necessitating slight reconstruction of sentence
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 11:52 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 11:19 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| S Jan 17, 2023 at 11:05 | history | suggested | MC Emperor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Replaced all links of mobile Wiki pages to their desktop counterparts. These sites should, in turn, automatically switch to the mobile version if visited from a mobile device.
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 10:18 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 17, 2023 at 11:05 | |||||
| Jan 17, 2023 at 1:19 | comment | added | novice | @Ken Graham In your last link, the Catholic League criticises CSM for giving a platform to an anti-catholic critic. But the article conveys that CL finds this astonishing because it ordinarily has a high degree of respect for CSM. Given the often respectful attitude of organisations including CL for CSM, couldn't you tone down your assertion it "does not pass the smell test for journalism"? "Donohue... was astonished that a responsible publication like the Monitor would...While we respect [CSM] and have no reason to doubt its intentions and sincerity, we will be monitoring the newspaper..." | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 19:26 | comment | added | Ray Butterworth | "The vast majority of conservative Christians would not put any stalk*[sic] *into what the Christian Science Monitor has to say." — On matters of religion, sure (as in the last link), but what about secular topics? Is there any bias there? ¶ "It just does not pass the smell test for journalism." — Its Pulitzer prizes don't agree with that claim. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 14:42 | comment | added | Ray Butterworth | "Many Christians would not consider The Christian Science Monitor (CSM), an acceptable source for Christian information." — True. But neither would Christian Scientists themselves. It isn't a source of Christian information; it is a source of secular news that could be of interest to Christians. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 14:27 | comment | added | novice | @Ken Graham, Your answer gives me the information I need about how CSM could be viewed by sincere Christians. However to probe you further on CSM, would it be fair to say it is more recognised and respected than its sponsor? Just as The Times (British newspaper) is more respected than Rupert Murdoch, and the Russian newspaper Kommersant, whilst based in Russia and existing at the pleasure of Putin, has nevertheless many times summoned the courage to question the shrinking space for freedom of speech in Russia. I do think media should often be judged independent of their sponsors in practice. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 14:19 | comment | added | Ray Butterworth | But this explains why you consider Christian Science itself to be "wrong". The real question is about how reliable or biased are the news stories in one specific publication. A quick look at Christian Science Monitor doesn't show anything that's blatantly pushing their doctrines. Do you have any examples of how their reporting of world news is unacceptable to mainstream Christians? | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 12:10 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 169 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 12:01 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 3:42 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 162 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 3:36 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 162 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 3:28 | history | edited | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1272 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 3:22 | history | answered | Ken Graham♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |