Our name is about honesty. The Monitor is owned by The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and we鈥檝e always been transparent about that.
The church publishes the Monitor because it sees good journalism as vital to progress in the world. Since 1908, we鈥檝e aimed 鈥渢o injure no man, but to bless all mankind,鈥� as our founder, Mary Baker Eddy, put it.
Here, you鈥檒l find award-winning journalism not driven by commercial influences 鈥� a news organization that takes seriously its mission to uplift the world by seeking solutions and finding reasons for credible hope.
Explore values journalism About us
Mark Sappenfield
Today鈥檚 five hand-picked stories touch on what new French strikes say about trust in government, the future of the Iran nuclear deal, the stunning scope of the Australian wildfires, a crucial step in rooting out German anti-Semitism, and a firsthand glimpse of homebuying in California.
In all likelihood, you鈥檝e never heard of Martin Gurri. I hadn鈥檛 until I read . Mr. Gurri is a former CIA analyst who predicted the current state of political turmoil in his 2014 book, 鈥淩evolt of the Republic.鈥�
His insights are fascinating. The very abridged summary is: Democracy worked better in the recent past because governments could largely control narratives. Essentially, governments could tell voters what was right and wrong, and voters would mostly go along.
Well, that鈥檚 clearly out the window in this new era of information, and so voters are unifying only around what they reject: elites, 鈥渢he system,鈥� the 鈥渟tatus quo.鈥� Unifying around these vague negations 鈥� rather than a positive vision 鈥� is not ideal, Mr. Gurri says.
Yet turn back the clock 500 years, and there鈥檚 a useful comparison. about how profoundly Johannes Gutenberg鈥檚 invention of the printing press disrupted religion, politics, and society, spawning the Reformation and, centuries later, the Enlightenment and modern democracy.
Today, you could argue we鈥檙e going through Gutenberg 2.0. And it鈥檚 perhaps less important to try to guess where all this is going than to recognize that, for all the bad and good brought by the first information revolution, the balance clearly tips toward the latter.
