Christian Science Monitor Putting OSS at the Helm

Jane Walker writes to tell us that the Christian Science Monitor is becoming quite the proponent of open source. The aggressive nature of OSS was a large part of what drew CIO Curtiss Edge into the fold, it seems. From the article: "But beyond the tangibles like open source code it was the community that made a convert of Edge. Behind all the open code, it was the forums and flexibility that were the driving forces he believes breeds better developers than those that toil away with proprietary code. Open source software makes developers more aggressive and more apt to go out into the communities that exist around the software to find solutions to their problems, Edge said, rather than holding on some proprietary help desk line while tech support looks up the answer."

Comments

Re:Danger Will Robinson!

[CRCulver]

While the Christian Science Monitor was founded by the Christian Science movement (about as far from Bible-thumping Fundamentalism as you can get), for at least the past four decades it has been a general, highly respectable news source with no religious slant.

People read the title of the CSM and turn off

[Biotech9]

when i read the Christian science monitor people glance at the title and knee jerk immediately, 'what the hell are you reading that for?'

Just in case you have not had an encounter with the CSM before, it's not some religious orientated 'intelligent theory' spouting mouth piece of the far right. It's one of the most respected newspapers around, has a league of its own reporters rather than relying on wire services like most other papers, has won many awards for fantastic journalism, often reports on cutting edge science that would make the conservative far right weep, and also often reports on stories that the rest of the press skip over for not being sexy enough.

AND, they're low on cash and have been in the red for some time, how about splashing out on a subscription?

Re:People read the title of the CSM and turn off

[MourningBlade]

The Christian Science Monitor is indeed one of the best newspapers around. They're small (my dad threw away the first few he received because they didn't LOOK like a newspaper), but that's because they don't use the AP wire or Reuters to fill out their newspaper, as the parent noted.

Consistently, the CS Monitor has had definitive articles on subjects. Unfortunately their archive isn't available for free or I'd point to their excellent article on the whole Ten Commandments in the courtroom fiasco in Alabama. While every other newspaper was either talking about the Ten Commandments being removed, playing soundbytes from the judge, or talking about what other reporters were talking about[1], the CS Monitor did their research and printed their story a day later. They talked to the people rallying outside both for and against (and covered the fact that many of these people had zero clue what was going on), covered what the judge was saying and why he was saying it - and when his support for the monument started (here's a hint: election upcoming, he started the whole thing just a few months before).

Their coverage on the last election was the coverage to beat. Managed to avoid the horserace of usual election coverage[2] and talk about the campaign, the people behind the campaign, etc, etc.

In Iraq they were one of the few newspapers not afraid to go outside the green zone and interview real people. Incidentally, for their efforts at finding the truth their reporter was kidnapped and held hostage.

In my opinion the religious convictions of the founder and the church (First Church of Christ, Scientist) that owns the operation (keep in mind that church members do not make up the journalists...they hire those) help keep them well-oriented. For their newspaper "it bleeds, it leads" doesn't happen - they want to discover what is happening in the world and to tell everyone. They believe that the truth is liberating, and they want to find it - whatever it may be. Honestly, they have a lot in common with the Quakers.

The religious article they print is more of a philosophy article, is usually well-written and is treated like the opinion section of another paper. It is there at the request of the founder.

Check out their website at www.csmonitor.com, and read a few articles. The major problem with our reporting these days is that the reporters just report events and he-said she-said. The monitor uses reporters with clue who contribute actual analysis.

Cruising quickly, the article on Escalating Violence in the Gaza Strip is a good one, as is today's story of President Bush's Visit to Iraq.

People are so used to the bible beaters and the kooks. Religion can be a very powerful force for good. I'm glad to see it happen once in a while.

However, to put this all in perspective...the CS Monitor has its shortcomings. Since they don't rely on wire services, if you want to find out about breaking news you can't just read them like you can several other mega-papers. Their articles tend to come out later (it's the flip-side of doing careful research) and are longer - yes, that can be a downside if you're trying to skim. They don't have local, daily delivery in many places, so their stories come even later if you don't read the online site[3].

[1] - In the news when there's no actual content the reporters will often interview each other. It sets up a giant echo chamber. Easiest example? People in flooded New Orleans shooting at rescue helicopters. Turns out it wasn't that common - might not've even happened at all. Hundreds of stories about it, though. Hundreds.

[2] - Elections are often covered as a race. Based on opinion polls candidate A is ahead or behind candidate B. This is done because there is so very, very little news during an election campaign. The same speech

Re:People read the title of the CSM and turn off

[MourningBlade]

Given that this seems to be a common misconception, shouldn't they change the name of the publication?

Their founder requested that Christian Science remain in the paper's name. She felt it was very important that there be a reminder that the paper is dedicated to truth and the discovery of truth. The paper is not a paper of record, it is a journal of discovery of what the world is and what is going on in it. Flowery language, I know - but there is a difference between just printing news and having a mission and moral obligation to print the truth as best you can find it.

The founder thought that keeping Christian Science would serve as that reminder - in a time before women could vote, she made a fortune and had people try to take it away from her by lying about her in court. Years and years after she died the paper has gone on doing what it is. Maybe she got the culture right. Who knows, maybe even the name is important.

Oh, and I might add that the CS Monitor has managed to avoid the "I'm going to beat the truth out of you" school of investigative journalism. This has kept their quality high. Humility has a lot to do with it. Culture matters.