Skip to Content

A sad legacy: Directors let daily print Christian Science Monitor fold

On March 27 the worldwide journalism community observed yet another death in the daily newspaper family as the Christian Science Monitor published its last daily print edition.

Established in 1908 by religious leader Mary Baker Eddy to be a voice of reason amid a sea of rumor-mongering and sensationalistic yellow journalism, the Monitor soon developed a reputation for family-friendly features, solid news analysis and respected international coverage. Rather than being a religious rag, as its name might suggest, the Boston-based daily has lived up to its motto, "To injure no man, but to bless all mankind," and in the process garnered journalism's highest accolades, including Pulitzer Prizes.

Declining readership, dwindling advertising, increasing interest in the Internet and a deep economic recession have recently shuttered the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and are threatening the survival of daily newspapers in Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland and many other cities across the United States. While the Monitor has not been immune to this "perfect storm" washing across the bows of so many dailies, it could have ridden out this tempest and even emerged from the economic riptides stronger than ever had its owner been more fiscally responsible.

Owned by the Christian Science Church, the Monitor is in effect published by the church's board of directors. Although Eddy saw the need for her church to have and maintain a fair-minded newspaper with an unwavering commitment to high journalistic standards and ethics, a series of boards of directors have for more than 25 years overseen the slow death of her newspaper. In the past few decades the former broadsheet was reduced to a tabloid and its circulation dropped from daily numbers of more than 200,000 to about 50,000.

Many urged growing an endowment
During this time many church members and financial experts were unsuccessful in urging recent boards of directors to enthusiastically grow an endowment to safeguard the daily newspaper, reasoning that the church, which outsiders sometimes mistakenly view as a religious cult, gained credibility by having a newspaper that was the gold standard for journalistic ethics, fairness and balance.

Even though the church's membership had been steadily dwindling since the 1930s, various boards of directors decided that instead of adequately protecting the Monitor, they would spend members' contributions on other ventures, including:

• A multimillion-dollar construction project begun in the 1960s including three new buildings, an expansive reflecting pool, an underground parking garage, a monumental entrance to its Mother Church Extension and a large brick-paved public park at the church’s Boston headquarters.

• The launching in the 1980s of a short-lived television station over the objections at the time of journalists and MBAs alike.

• Recently converting the church's archives into a multimillion-dollar Mary Baker Eddy exhibit and library. 

Little to show for its investment
Today the new buildings stand empty or have been rented out, the failed TV venture has become "how not to" case-studies fodder for media-ethics and business classes, and the Mary Baker Library has few visitors. Estimates indicate such ill-conceived projects drained church coffers of close to $1 billion.

I'm hard pressed to think of any other owners of daily newspapers who invested so much so poorly during the past few decades. Thus, as the current church board of directors plans to launch a new weekly edition of the print newspaper and beef up the Monitor's online presence, it's difficult to be optimistic.

After a century of publication, the Monitor could have been a beacon — the sort of illuminating presence America's Founding Fathers envisioned in our nation's marketplace of ideas. It is sad, if not tragic, that a church allowed this journalistic light to be extinguished.

William A. Babcock is senior ethics professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He directed the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law during the 1990s, and before that was the Monitor's senior international news editor.

Comments (6)

"various boards of directors decided that instead of adequately protecting the Monitor, they would spend members' contributions on other ventures,"

How would the money have been better spent on propping up an anachronism? As you point out, their real problem is a shrinking church membership. The newspaper was always a side business and it is hardly one that looks to the future.

If the CSM is going to survive, it is by building an audience for high quality journalism. The reality is that the audience for print journalism is slowly dying off. The future is online. So they seem to be facing up to their real challenge of making the CSM an online success.

As a longtime subscriber to the Monitor, it's enlightening to read Mr. Babcock's telling of the misguided actions of the Christian Science board of directors. Nonetheless, I applaud the decision to drop the daily version of the Monitor and print weekly. There's an argument to be made for going in that direction regardless of whatever misadventures the Board got into. One such argument is that the new format will allow for more depth--something I've longed for that was not possible in a daily format, and that is increasingly rare in all media. Babcock seems to infer that the quality of journalism the Monitor is known for will certainly decline under the new format. Perhaps it will. But I'd say the jury is way, way out on that question, since the first weekly edition has not yet been published (at least, it hasn't yet reached my mailbox). As for the Mary Baker Eddy Libary: I visited it in December, and it is magnificent. Perhaps, as Babcock asserts, it was not worth the expense, I don't know. I do know that it was bustling with visitors the day I was there, and that my visit was well worth my time and money.

My old friend and former colleague Bill Babcock accurately lays out the church’s and the Monitor’s recent history, all of which I’ve lived through and observed at close range as a staff writer and editor since 1972. But I doubt that not having spent millions on television, I.M. Pei’s architecture, the Mary Baker Eddy library, etc., would have “saved” the Monitor as a print daily. The 200,000 circulation was artificially inflated at the time, and it would have taken at least twice that to attract topnotch national advertisers. Our means of distribution – the airlines (which, as we’ve seen, have had major economic problems of their own) and the antique US postal system – have always been a major challenge that nobody, even a Board of Directors made up of the apostles themselves, could have overcome. Then along came the Internet, and that pretty much defined the future of journalism. Even the storied New York Times is in trouble, and it may well shuck the Boston Globe (which has seen round after round of staff cuts). The Monitor’s move to “web-first plus a print weekly” really was the only option for us, especially for an enterprise that was never going to have a strong local base for circulation and advertising. The rest of the newspaper world knows this all too well, and it’s watching very closely as we make the leap. Meanwhile, new journalistic enterprises with real reporting (not just pajama-clad thumb-suckers with blogging attitude) are beginning to emerge. I don’t agree with everything said here:
http://charlotteanne.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/newspapers-dont-own-journa...
But the writer does make many valid points, as does Cary Tennis in this provocative piece in Salon: http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/03/17/journalism_school/
And as somebody who lives where industrial logging has littered the landscape with clearcuts directly related to habitat destruction and species decline, I think the reduction in trees-converted-to-newsprint is a good thing.
Brad Knickerbocker
Ashland, Oregon

I think that over economy and dwindling advertising, or even the Internet, all of the large dailies are struggling because of poor executive leadership, not just the CSM.

The profit margin expectations are unrealistic. These private equity firms who buy the papers treat them as a commodity like oil or steel.

Additionally, these executives and their editorial extensions were dreadfully slow to embrace the Internet.

It's a shame that quality reportage has to suffer under the basically brainless leadership of the executives.

The problem with the Monitor was never its form '...print newspapers dying... yada...yada yada...' is nothing but lame excuse-making. The real problem with the CSM is its bankrupt CONTENT.

Loyal Monitor readers are shocked! and angered! I tell you when told that the Monitor is nothing but a biased liberal rag that echos the same superficial and tired liberal pap that you can read in the LATimes, UKGuardian , New York Times etc. etc. The Monitor's reporting on 'climate change' for one example is just so painfully inadequate as to be embarrassing.

One of Mrs. Eddy's rules for Christian Scientistis is to not 'influence erroneously' .. yet the Monitor influences erroneously every day with its biased content .. is it any wonder it is failing as a result?

All the Monitor has to do is get honest enough to rid itself of its liberal biases and show some modicum of impartiality ... (everyone who works there should read Thomas Sowell's 'Vision of the Annointed'.) Ridding itself of its liberal biases would immediately double The Monitor's circulation ....and do much more than that because there is nothing the world needs more than HONEST reporting -- that would be IMPARTIAL reporting.

I'm quite sure Mary Baker Eddy did not intend her paper to be a narrow mouthpiece parroting narrow talking points .. however that is what the Monitor has become and no doubt will continue to be be unless it cleans up its act. It's either get honest or die and I hope and pray for the former.

No, he's absolutely right. The Mother Church sunk a quarter of a billion dollars into the media buildup between 1987 and 1992. A quarter of a billion in 1980s dollars. If they had taken just half of that and put it in the endowment fund think what that fund would be worth now. Mrs. Eddy was not particularly concerned with how many papers were sold or for that matter, whether it made a profit, which is what various boards were concerned with. In the 50s the Monitor had about 150,000 subscribers. 90% of them were Christian Scientists. That means that only about 15,000 of them were not. But those 15,000 people consisted of leading intellectuals, government officials and world leaders, and the rest of the journalistic establishment. The quality of its audience rather than the quantity was why the Monitor had the impact that it did.

The Monitor has been slowly dying since November of 1988. That's the first time the Board tried to close the daily paper. That led to the resignation of the three senior editors, including the legendary Kay Fanning, and the best and the brightest of the Monitor's newsroom. If the Directors had tried to live up to Mrs. Eddy's expectations for the paper she founded and endowed it in 1988 rather than blowing 250 million dollars on a failed cable news channel and a glossy magazine, it is hard to imagine that the endowment fund would not have grown enormously during the economic expansion of the last two decades. It's hard to imagine that we would be forced to close the paper today.