The Christian Science Monitor succeeds online

The CSM model as regards the 1st amendment would be the death knell for any segment of those who are members of the fourth estate.
The CSM failed miserably when it came to upholding informing the public of news that at the time was on the front page of every other newspaper in the country. I speak of course of the decision of the State Supreme Court on May 17th, 2004, with respect to the constitutionality of same sex marriage. It was not about marriage, though that was the impetus for the decision, but rather it was about the "equal treatment clause," as defined by our state constitution. I accuse the CSM of allowing the Home Forum page to influence the lack of coverage to an event that affected countless americans. Never any follow-up after May 17th. I cancelled my subscription after many years, and never looked back. Ken B.

Hi Kenneth, ALL,

ST: Two parts to The CSM model (News Delivery ; Values)

I understand your point, and have seen in the past that CSM restricts coverage of certain type topics. I believe they think by shunning certain topics they can ignore the world/USA culture wars.

Yet the OnLine issue and a Weekly Magazine is one newprint alternative and is separate of what they will write about in any issue. The Globe as you know wants to push homosexuality to pre teens which I find really anti-kids yet that is kind of separate of how they will publish as they decline.

Now Values, which ones and which audience, might be the reason for the surge in CSM's circulation as hedonism in all things might be on the downslide.

CSM is a damn fine publication. It should succeed.

See what happens when journalists put, umm, fact-based journalism AHEAD of D.C. Georgetown New York Boston Cocktail Club sophistry.

Emily, Ralph & Co.:

Thanks for turning "Beat the Press's" attention to the Monitor last week. I appreciate the time you took in coming over to our offices and letting us tell our story.

Several points were raised during the panel discussion that I thought might be worth clarifying:

- Yes, the Monitor enjoys support from Christian Scientists who are readers. I wish we had more of these, but only 20 percent of our subscribers are Christian Scientists.

- Yes, the Christian Science church has generously subsidized the Monitor for a number of years. Non-sensational international news doesn't come cheap. Our aim in shifting from a daily print emphasis to a Web-first approach (which includes a print weekly, an email-delivered Daily News Briefing, and upcoming applications for the Kindle and the Barnes & Noble Nook) is to decrease that church subsidy over a five-year period. We need to move toward self-sufficiency. We are only six months into this strategy. So far, so good.

-Emily wondered how we could be growing while other media outlets are struggling. I can't speak for others, but our growth comes largely from having unharnessed the newsroom from daily print and turned attention to the Web. This has energized our website, CSMonitor.com. I'm not advocating this for other news organizations because they have to protect their existing, if decreasing, print subscription base. But because most news organizations are still supporting print first, the Web is a secondary consideration to them.

Thanks again for your interest. We aren't making great claims. We are just acknowledging progress so far in a long transition we've undertaken.

John Yemma

"Non-sensational international news doesn't come cheap."

Would Mr. Yemma please elaborate on what he means by "non-sensational"?

Thanks.

Donna,

That would be the coverage you do not see over and over again on the pages of the Globe, Times, and Washington Post or from the Spin Doctors at FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.

You know, news with actual facts and analysis rather than sophistry and incessant puberty.

Mark,

Thanks.

I'm always suspicious of philosophical connections and modifiers such as "non-sensational".