Opinion

Jack Shafer

What’s more rare — a unicorn or an Al Jazeera America viewer?

By Jack Shafer
July 9, 2014

 A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York,

Al Jazeera America draws such a teensy audience — 15,000 on average during prime time, according to Nielsen — that if you dropped all of the fledgling cable news channel’s viewers into a modern NBA arena you’d leave a couple of thousand vacant seats. To place Al Jazeera America’s audience in perspective, it’s less than half of that once attracted by Al Gore’s Current TV, the channel it replaced last August. Ratings leader Fox News Channel pulls in an evening average of about 1.6 million.

Such miserable ratings would be understandable if Al Jazeera America produced its shows on a shoestring, as did Current TV, or if it marginalized itself by broadcasting bonkers propaganda like RT (formerly Russia Today), or if most cable households couldn’t receive it.

But none of those excuses apply. Al Jazeera America’s executives have claimed that the company was spending “hundreds of millions” to establish 12 U.S. bureaus, not to mention the $500 million it gave Current TV’s owners to go away. Unlike the bombastic RT, Al Jazeera America has to date avoided peddling any country’s political line, even though it’s owned by the wealthy Kingdom of Qatar, a hereditary monarchy. (If prizes are a measure of journalistic worth, Al Jazeera has already established its legitimacy by winning two Peabody Awards.) And while not available everywhere, Al Jazeera America can be viewed in about 55 million of the country’s 100 million pay-TV households.

America hasn’t exactly snubbed Al Jazeera America. The rebuke has been more akin to a shrug. Go ahead and spend your millions, the nation seems to be saying to the channel. Hire all the network retreads you want, people like John Seigenthaler, David Shuster, Antonio Mora, Ray Suarez and Joie Chen, so that if by a long shot viewers stumble upon your channel, they’ll recognize some familiar faces. The country will still shrug.

Stock your newsroom with all the experienced journalists your billions can buy, flood the zone with your reporters, and build modern broadcast studios. Still more shrugs. Madison Avenue is shrugging, too. Commercials for “major brands are still a rarity on the network,Advertising Age reported.

Why the antipathy? In some ways, Al Jazeera America has out-CNN’ed the old CNN with its plodding, responsible, in-depth and conventional approach to news. “There’s no real estate for partisan bickering” at Al Jazeera America, wrote USA Today‘s Rem Rieder earlier this year. “Its diet of top national and international stories is a throwback to the story lineup on the network newscasts of decades ago.” The channel’s anchors serve no candy, and no whiskey, either. Al Jazeera America isn’t just the anti-Vice, it’s the anti-Fox, and its sobriety makes PBS’s NewsHour seem like a TV riot in comparison. Is sobriety really the direction Al Jazeera America wants to go? As David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun has written, NewsHour lost 48 percent of its audience between 2005 and 2013, indicating that Al Jazeera America is pursuing a class of viewers that’s headed for extinction.

Journalists applaud in the newsroom as Al Jazeera America begins broadcasting in New YorkBut it’s not just the formula. The Al Thani family that rules Qatar hasn’t financed a U.S. news channel just to keep us informed about drug-related deaths in Vermont, the horrors of the Rust Belt or the shame of the Indian reservation system, to pick a few top, recent stories on Al Jazeera America. We already know about those stories from other outlets! The Qataris believe that Western media doesn’t treat Arabs and Muslims fairly when covering the Middle East, and they want Al Jazeera America to change that. The best marker of the Qataris’ influence isn’t what Al Jazeera America covers or even how it covers stories, but what it regards as the top story on the evening news. On Monday night, the channel led with a reasonable account of the Hamas and Israeli skirmish in Gaza. Last week, the Sun‘s Zurawik singled out Al Jazeera America’s coverage of the killing of three Israeli teens for extreme praise.

Has the domestic audience given Al Jazeera America the big shrug because it’s owned by monarchs who forbid political parties at home and don’t have an independent legislature? I doubt that one regular TV viewer in 1,000 has investigated the channel in that detail, but if they did, they might find the analysis at the lefty Nation rewarding. The magazine recently entertained the notion that Al Jazeera classic tilted toward the Muslim Brotherhood in its Egypt coverage, and acknowledged that the Arabic channel ignored the anti-government protests in Bahrain, a neighbor and ally of Qatar. If it’s not uncommon for Qatar-sponsored media overseas to line up with Qatar foreign policy, it’s not unreasonable to think that it might do the same thing with its American media extension.

And then there is that name. We Americans have a knack for making the foreign our own. We live for burritos. We’ve given Fiat another chance in our car market, not that it deserves one. The United States is home to more foreign-born residents than any other country. We elected to the White House a man named Barack Hussein Obama. Twice. Perhaps the coolness toward Al Jazeera America has something to do with how similar its name is to al Qaeda — at least to some American ears. Maybe our subliminal perceptions link it to the unpleasantness of 9/11 and we will never accept it as a good name for a domestic news channel. A major corporation wouldn’t try to sell us an Al Jazeera line of soup, so why stick it on a news channel that professes a devotion to straight, old-school reporting?

Because, of course, Al Jazeera America’s owners would have even more explaining to do if they dared to dub the channel anything other than what it is — the American edition of their international Al Jazeera brand. In addition to Al Jazeera classic, which speaks Arabic to the Arab world, the brand also serves Turkey and the Balkans in the local lingo and caters to the international audience with the Al Jazeera English channel. Had the Qataris called the new channel “America Today” or something equally generic, we’d be pitchforking them for trying to pull a fast one.

The premise that the channel’s low ratings cause its owners to fret may be faulty. They’re not the first wealthy operators to attempt to re-engineer the news with a product whose commercial potential was limited. In 1908, Christian Science Church founder Mary Baker Eddy used church funds to launch the Christian Science Monitor as an alternative to the sensationalist journalism of Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and the muckraking of McClure’s magazine, both of which she thought had unfairly maligned her and her church. “To injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” was the credo Eddy applied to her paper, and like Al Jazeera America, she promised an outlet that would produce fair and impartial news. More recently, in 1982, another would-be messiah, convicted felon Rev. Sun Myung Moon, spent billions to establish the Washington Times, his conservative daily, to advance his political and cultural goals.

Eventually, both the Monitor and the Washington Times ran short on funds. The Monitor ceased daily printing in 2009, and today’s Washington Times is racing in that direction. Al Jazeera America will never want for anything as long as the Al Thani monarchy continues to divert Qatari oil money its way. Given Al Jazeera’s success at sculpting Middle East politics and the acclaim it received for covering the “Arab Spring” uprisings, the Al Thani family has every right to believe that with enough patience and money, they can tip American opinion at the margins with Al Jazeera America.

So will they? Assuming the Qataris haven’t brought Al Jazeera America to us as a pure journalistic gift, and like Eddy and Moon, they’re toting an agenda, we should expect a “reveal,” as they say in the movies, at some point. If and when that comes, I’ll be disappointed in them. If it never comes, I’ll be doubly disappointed.

Either way, I’ll be shrugging.

******

“Defiant Al Jazeera faces conservative backlash after Arab Spring”: A sharp Reuters piece from last week. Send reading suggestions to Shafer.Reuters@gmail.com. My Twitter feed shrugs in your direction. Sign up for email notifications of new Shafer columns (and other occasional announcements). Subscribe to this RSS feed for new Shafer columns.

PHOTOS: A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York, August 20, 2013. Al Jazeera America, a new 24-hour news channel was launched in the United States on Tuesday. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Journalists applaud in the newsroom as Al Jazeera America begins broadcasting in New York, August 20, 2013. Al Jazeera America, a new 24-hour news channel was launched in the United States on Tuesday. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

 

Comments
39 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

The article is extremely biased and fails to mention that the real reason is a boycott of major cable operators that do not wish Americans to hear anything but “manufactured news”. When Al Jazeera bought Gore’s network, major cable networks dropped the channel right away. How can people see something when it is not served in their area. I asked Comcast in my area to feature Al-Jazeera and they declined. There are other channels with more tasteless, senseless stuff and it is still available for viewing. Major news network never cover the what is wrong in USA like Al Jazeera does. It is eye opening.

Posted by American213 | Report as abusive
 

I am sure they do cover important stories, but I can’t help but feel undertones of propaganda in some of the stuff I have read on their site. While I may be a lefty and pro-Muslim (in the sense that I think that anti-Muslim traits of Fox news are despicable, not out of any love for their religion) I don’t like propaganda on _any_ side of the discussion. While I think they pale in the propaganda comparison to Fox News Infotainment, I ultimately lump them into the same bucket and avoid both networks.

Posted by pyradius | Report as abusive
 

It is far too early to dismiss a network BUILDING news capability while so many are starving their news divisions of resources and substituting opinion instead.

Consumer tastes in the US shift all the time, and Al Jazeera America is building a quality operation that can take advantage – or even shape – future tastes for news as a product. Many in the US sample the BBC and other foreign networks – and audiences which tire of unreliable blogs online and bombastic opinion on cable just might give Al Jazeera America a try and stay for the long haul.

Posted by DonD1977 | Report as abusive
 

It’s such a sad state of affairs when Americans reject quality news. The traditional and cable networks are now a joke and you can’t even get quality international coverage in the NY Times.

Al Jazeera has proven itself to be the best channel, by far, for NEWS

Posted by IntlCitizen | Report as abusive
 

Their TV station is only part of their operation, right? I read their online news regularly. How large and important (to them) is their “broadcast” element? Perhaps, they’re not trying to win over the Fox plebes.

Posted by Poalima | Report as abusive
 

So basically this guy is complaining that Al Jazeera America doesn’t have enough flash and pizzazz to keep him satiated, not enough hack “journalism” to gin up the ratings? That the news is sometimes (*gasp*) BORING???

News flash: news is not SUPPOSED to be entertaining! Intelligent people don’t want partisan bickering and sensationalized garbage in the news! Dumbing down the news programming in order to grab higher viewer ratings is the REASON why CNN is an even bigger national embarrassment than that right wing propaganda machine Faux News.

If you want to know the opinions of pundits A, B and C about the latest political gamesmanship from the left and right, turn on MSNBC or Fox. If you want to know what celebrities X, Y and Z are saying on Twitter, turn on CNN.

But if you want real, ACTUAL news, turn on Al Jazeera America.

Posted by USofRationality | Report as abusive
 

I often wonder how audiences are measured and whether the number mean anything. My family and I are regular viewers of Al Jazeera and my friends watch as well. We watch NBC nightly news for the furry animal stories and Al Jezeera to find out what is happening in the world.

Posted by JJRH | Report as abusive
 

Basically the author hit on the real issue, although it was mentioned very carefully and tentatively midway through the article.

Americans anti-middle east sentiment is currently strong. Al Jazeera sounds (and is) middle eastern. Unfortunately, many Americans seem to basically lump most, if not all, middle eastern countries and cultures into one large group, and associate them with negative contexts due to 9/11 and the recent conflicts in the area.

Posted by mizugori | Report as abusive
 

I watch it all the time. At least on the few occasions that I turn on the TV. I love that they have a real news format. They seem well balanced with little bias. I agree with @USofRationality, I don’t want some talking heads opinion, I want the facts.
Every chance I get I point people to it too.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

Al Jazeera, RT, NBC, or FOX, what’s the difference? All have an agenda and all under report the NEWS. They are not there to educate the democratic masses, but rather to manipulate them for the use of the owners.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive
 

I’ve followed Al Jazeera America since its inception and enjoyed Al Jazeera English for many years before that. In my opinion, there are several problems, most of which previous commenters have already mentioned: misperception among viewers that it’s not just another RT; it’s not available in all markets; it’s often buried among non-news cable channels, etc.

The fact that AJA is a foreign news source shouldn’t make much of a difference to most people—look where Reuters is based—though the name often confuses people.

But mainly, most people want opinions force fed into their brain. The average cable news viewer isn’t interested in facts. My daughter recently lamented that her friend’s dad is a climate change skeptic and wondered why people could discount what they see with their own eyes. I explained that he’s a good, well-meaning person, but he only gets his information from biased sources. If people would take the time to hear non-prejudiced information, they usually come away much more informed.

Another big flaw with AJA’s current plan is their insistence to not live-stream their news online, or make most of their video content available online. That would drastically increase their total audience, many of whom would then view the cable/satellite broadcasts. There are millions of cord-cutters out there who have no access to AJA’s broadcasts.

We all need to realize that NPR started out very small, with a limited market and listenership. But now look at the powerhouse NPR has become. Maybe AJA will eventually follow the same route: fact-based, non-opinionated news that isn’t beholden to large corporate interests which will eventually lead to a big following. One can only hope.

Posted by landi3337 | Report as abusive
 

More clownishness pretending to be insider baseball and wise. The fake bona fides of most pundits these days is the most remarkable thing about them.

Posted by rbscreen | Report as abusive
 

Al Jazeera is a real news station, with real journalism. Just like the major network news shows that aired in the sixties and seventies. This is what the America public should be watching to know what is going on in the world. Too bad they are so addicted to the infotainment broadcasters. Other than Fareed Z. I can’t stand CNN, it is too Fox-like now. Hours of talking head panels discussing a piece that only warrants a three minute mention, that’s crazy, how can they try to waste so much airtime ignoring all the stories that should be getting coverage.

Posted by oddmike | Report as abusive
 

Well, we are Al Jazeera America viewers. We are also Comcast cable haters, so we watch AJA via a streaming device. I suspect there are other households that do the same and, thus, are not tallied in the Nielsen network viewership head count. And for what it’s worth, I’m a 30-year veteran journalist of both print and broadcast news, with more than a few years under my belt at CNN … when it was still a bona fide new gathering organization with bona fide credentialed journalist packing its newsroom and bureaus.

We almost never watch CNN, Fox or the other lightweight, biased, yellow journalism network news shows, save for ABC News, occasionally. It’s hard to convey the sense of joy my first time tuning into Al Jazeera America. Finding many of the older, enormously thoughtful and unbiased reporters and anchors who had steadily disappeared from the crass, biased and unprofessional other U.S. broadcast and cable network news was like rediscovering the clear, concise and unvarnished quality reportage for which the public once counted on … until @1995.

Posted by timebandit | Report as abusive
 

Al Jazeera America is pathetic. Lots of profanity–LOTS. Most of their commenters exude nothing but inappropriate language. Yeah, I’m an American and that’s why I think Al Jazeera America is not worth the bother.

Posted by MonitorLizard | Report as abusive
 

I keep wondering when the dumbing down process in Fast Food Nation is going to hit bottom.

Posted by ToshiroMifune | Report as abusive
 

Americans don’t trust American news, why would they trust foreigners?

Democracy Now!

Posted by blogoleum | Report as abusive
 

Just one random article I saw on AJ’s site….

“The defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way,” said George Orwell in “Politics and the English language”, highlighting a pattern of statements that “are almost always made with intent to deceive”.

Orwell’s words could not be truer than in Iraq today where the conscious intent to deceive continues to be the US policy, 11 years after its illegal “shock and awe” invasion. Assisted by a sectarian corrupt regime, the US-led occupation “democratised” Iraq by dismantling the Iraqi state whose foundations were laid in the 1920s.

A state which had a civil service apparatus that provided services and stability for the country regardless of the successive regimes. With the aim of clearing the way for a plethora of multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts for the US and UK for decades to come, the occupation ensured the destruction of the infrastructure. With the aim of creating a compliant population, the occupation attempted to erase cultural heritage and memory, torching libraries, pillaging museums and ancient sites, targeting academics and scientists, and fomenting sectarian violence while human rights violations became a daily practise.

———

“attempted to erase cultural heritage and memory, torching libraries, pillaging museums and ancient sites,”

Yeah, no bias whatsoever… I can’t imagine why Americans don’t want to watch their new channel.

Posted by dd606 | Report as abusive
 

Shafer, it is too late! I’m already addicted to RT, which Nielsen rates as the “Most Popular Foreign News Channel in Key US Cities.” See, it is not propaganda to selectively omit that fact from this article, or dismiss people as crazy in an opinion piece. So RT’s popularity shows all US citizens are not pre-political wanting entertainment, Al Jazeera is just not believable for many people. And for me, neither are you.

Posted by JMarloshkovip | Report as abusive
 

you make me sick

Posted by Crash866 | Report as abusive
 

It’s admittedly been a while since I checked in but doesn’t AJ bang the Arab-nationalism drum pretty hard? There’s your answer right there…you won’t find any American nationalists living in Qatar, either.

Posted by CppThis | Report as abusive
 

Today AJA is probably as unbiased as any news source available. It is just that Americans are busy humming loudly with their fingers in their ears for that which they do not want to hear, still convinced there is only a single version of truth, good, and “righteousness” and that all else is evil lie.

Posted by ArghONaught | Report as abusive
 

Our biggest issue with AJA is that we get it via DirecTV and the screen geography is horrible. Much of the picture is cut off on the top and bottom. Very often the news anchor’s forehead is missing. The text at the bottom of the screen is half cut off, as well. Makes for a pretty miserable viewing experience.

Posted by explorer08 | Report as abusive
 

What turned me off what they copied the CNN fail of always putting on two pundits that argued both sides of an issue, instead of just using ONE expert in the field. As a result, it was a turn off, in more ways than one.

That said, I get my news online. In the evening, on the telly, a bit of local news, then the weather, then a switch to the local (regional) sports news channel. The TV is then shut off, unless their is a good game on.

Posted by Wgward | Report as abusive
 

Al Jazeera news is the best out there. I watch it every day. Recently I watched an episode where they showed Secretary Kerry give a speech in a foreign country. It was detailed and very well-done. American news is becoming like entertainment and it is becoming more and more superficial. Bravo to Al Jazeera for upholding strong standards. Their following may be small right now, but it is loyal. They do an excellent job. And, by the way, some of their journalists got arrested in Egypt for just reporting the news. Al Jazeera stands for thoughtful and high-quality news reporting, and I support them 100%. If you want to know what is going on in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter, then Al Jazeera is a good choice.

Posted by Cleveland2012 | Report as abusive
 

I have watched this news service as it is available in my area through TWC. I agree the person’s opinion that the style is a bit old. But I like the old style where there is a news service and then there are programs based on news. Instead of a manufactured news presented by partisan politicians turned political analysts of CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. I hope they gain popularity by being neutral and from what I saw so far, they are neutral. I also watch BBC world service these two have similar format and BBC is popular all across the world..So I believe AlJazeera America will gain popularity with time.

Posted by Looter | Report as abusive
 

Ever been out of the US? I have and watching the various channels available in Europe is quite eye-opening. One gains a different perspective about the world and our place in it. Unfortunately, I live in rural PA and we do not get AJ. We do get BBC and I am grateful for that.

It was when I had the chance to listen to Qatar TV, AJ, Iraq TV, etc. that I realized how biased our American news stations truly are. The media in America takes sides which leaves little room to objectively present both points of view. If an American never leaves the country to experience the world, he will never recognize how one-sided our news, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc. is presented. I saw stories on CNN Europe that we will never see here in the states. On purpose.

About 20% of Americans ever travel outside the North and Central American continents. Those who do get an education you cannot pay for in the US. Open you eyes and your mind. You may not always be happy about what you learn and see, but at least you have a balanced view.

Posted by alwayslearning | Report as abusive
 

Just my thoughts as a mainstream American….

Few Americans have ever heard of Al Jezeera.

Most who have heard the name probably have formed some unconscious bias against its middle-eastern name; fearful that our government is eavesdropping in on what we read and view, or hateful and accusatory for recent history.

Americans have long left any ground for an unbiased news service. They are now in full battle mode; choosing to destroy one another. They can only stomach news services that cater to their hate.

Posted by Eddynow | Report as abusive
 

I would watch Al Jazeera America if ATT Uverse provided it. Unfortunately, just as the network went live, ATT Uverse indicated conflicts about the contract with Al Jazeera and so the bottom line is that I have not been able to get it for almost a a year now. I agree with the other posts….almost all of what is out there in the US by way of news is, for me, painfully unwatchable and this goes for both news and the weather. With news being so much more of a business in the US than it was in the past, what is broadcast now by the American carriers is more entertainment than news..and what is worse, the line between these two things are never really clear (and becoming more fuzzy). The desire for entertainment and amusement seems greater than the desire/need for truth and facts. Like talk radio, television news caters to constituents who have particular kinds of slants and spins that they want to hear/see (and then, unfortunately, take this as “truth”). Yes, I agree with those how have said that it is helpful and educational to see news from other countries that cover American events. Al Jazeera would have provided some this, in part…but it is unavailable.

Posted by Cirrhus | Report as abusive
 

I think most people are intelligent enough to see that Al-gizzinyourear-a are terrorist sympathizers at best, collaborators more likely.

Posted by UKantHndleTruth | Report as abusive
 

I watch ITN, PBS News hour, BBC news all the time on cable here in the USA, it’s mainly the same boring drivel: A bunch of socialist European nations singing their woes on social problems they created by colonizing AFrica, then bending over daily for immigrants and criminals, and how the poor loser nations ride the EU and Euro coattails. Oh, and don’t forget, the clown antics of Obummer and Boner, and how the US is evil.

Posted by UKantHndleTruth | Report as abusive
 

If i want to watch comedy, I turn on the Daily show or Foxnews… If I want background noise and drivel, I turn on MSNBC or CNN… If i want real news, I tune to the BBC or Al Jazeera.

as opposed to what the ‘journalist’ here affirms, many of the US domestic issues covered are not well known and of little interest, they are serious topics that reflect some of the biggest challenges of our nation. Hey, but why cover real news when the fake stuff is ok

Posted by GA_Chris | Report as abusive
 

Saying Al Jazeera sounds similar to Al Quaeda is really like saying The Washing Post sounds similar to The Holocaust. The real reason Americans don’t watch it is probably because they have a general dislike for anything of Arab origin (crude oil being the one exception).

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive
 

Thanks for sharing your views on this topic. The article says the Christian Science Monitor ceased daily printing, but doesn’t mention the CS Monitor shifted its focus to delivering news digitally via its website (csmonitor.com) as well as a weekly news magazine, an app, and other channels. Also, Mary Baker Eddy certainly didn’t see herself as a “would-be messiah”, nor do the members of her church see her that way. Her agenda for the newspaper when she founded it in 1908 was, as you mention, “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind”, and that continues to be its mission today.

Posted by SharonMcElroy | Report as abusive
 

I used to love watching Al Jazeera until some pin-head in corporate decided to shut-off streaming for US Market. Since then, I haven’t watched one minute of Al Jazeera. They want us to watch it via cable now….which I NEVER do…can’t stand cable. And when I wrote them, their answer was essentially Go Pound Salt. The chickens have come home to roost. I wonder what kind of bonuses the upper management is getting for this stupidity.

Posted by ronjamin | Report as abusive
 

Of course Al Jazeera is also anti-Israel. That is their prime agenda. Look at the emphasis of their stories. Even when the situation pertaining to Isreal is quiet, Al Jazeera is there to whip up anti-Israel sentiment. Plus remember that Al Jazeera is also known for being openly anti-semitic. They were refused broadcast rights in Canada until they contractually committed to the minute-by-minute monitoring and censoring of all anti-semitic content. They were already caught breaking the rule.

Posted by goknow | Report as abusive
 

Here in Burlington, Vermont, our municipally-owned telecom system (BT) helped launch Al Jazeera English way back in its first year. Some locals tried to convince the City to drop it; however, a series of public hearings brought out dozens of people wanting to keep it and outraged that our Burlington Telecom’s managers would even consider taking it off.

I think another strike against AJA that I don’t see mentioned in this article is the look of its logo. The first time I saw it I thought that it had a look and feel similar to Christian Broadcasting Network’s (gold, “flame of light”), and our state has many folks who rebel against organized religion of any sort. BT also carries CBN, but I’d wager that here in Burlington CBN’s viewership is well below that of Al Jazeera’s.

I’d be interested in knowing the distribution of AJA and how that matches up with the more conservative and fundamentally religious areas of the country.

Posted by GregVT | Report as abusive
 

Aljazeera is a left leaning, politically correct, watered down version of the real Aljazeera. Left leaning, politically correct is done much better by MSNBC. It’s also a premium channel on Comcast. They should have done what RT has done and just rent a leased line for their cable broadcasts, and then broadcast real Aljazeera news.

Posted by JakeyX | Report as abusive
 

Thanks for sharing your views on this topic. The article says the Christian Science Monitor ceased daily printing, but doesn’t mention the Monitor shifted its focus to delivering news digitally via its website (csmonitor.com) as well as other channels. Also, Mary Baker Eddy certainly didn’t see herself as a “messiah”, nor do the members of her church see her that way. Her agenda for the newspaper when she founded it in 1908 was, as you mention, “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind”, and that continues to be its mission today.

Posted by SharonMcElroy | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •