Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Buys National Geographic Magazine
dywolf writes: In a move that has inspired "dread" among the publication's journalists, as well as long time readers, Rupert Murdoch has just bought a controlling interest in all of National Geographic's media properties. The move turns the long time non-profit into a for-profit media corporation in the process. Some commenters have pointed to Murdoch's previous collaboration with the National Geographic Society, the NatGeo TV channel, as well other once respected publications he has bought such as the Wall Street Journal, as an example of what to expect, and to explain their apprehension at the deal.
This raises a question for reader KatchooNJ: As many of you likely know, Rupert Murdoch has famously not been quiet about his denial of climate change. National Geographic gives grants to scientists... so, is anything going to now change with the focus of National Geographic's organization?
Fuck you, stupid dinosaur. Oh wait, I suppose evolution is also a myth so you can't be a dinosaur since they never existed.
"In a move that has inspired "dread" among the publication's journalists, as well as long time readers, Rupert Murdoch has just bought a controlling interest in all of National Geographic's media properties."
Read this portion and knew that I had read all I needed to. A shame as I have subscribed to the magazine for quite some time.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
This is just a continuation of the consolidation of media outlets into the hands of the few. Not really surprising. Real journalism is almost dead in the 21st century anyway.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media? I find that much more disturbing, and would ask that the people petition the government to break up the monopolies.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Interestingly, on this day in history (90 years & 2 months ago)... http://education.nationalgeogr...
if yesterday were today yesterday then today is tomorrow today.
Nat Geo's been on a decline of relevancy for a long time now but this is it for that once groundbreaking magazine.
Rupert Murdoch turns respectable informative publications in to conservative outrage media entertainment tabloids. Don't fool yourself. He's done this to push his agenda and to stifle a viewpoint that runs counter to his financial interests, and those of his friends.
>> once respected publications he has bought such as the Wall Street Journal
AFAIK, WSJ is still a top-tier newspaper in the same class as the NYT or Washington Post. (And its circulation is still strong.)
>>"dread" among the publication's journalists
From what I've seen in print media over the past 15 years, any journalists left are lucky to have their jobs. Fortunately, NG is as much a photography magazine as anything else (if you don't believe me, look at who advertises in it) so I don't see that changing, even if the print staff decides to take their ball and go...well, where?
One only needs to watch the drek on the National Geographic channel -- an endless parade of shockumentaries and "reality" TV -- to see the lowest common denominator at which Rupert Murdoch is aiming. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we can also expect as the future of National Geographic Magazine. Loads of articles intended to shock, articles on the latest travels of the celebrities du jour, plenty of paid product placements, and precisely no actual science.
Mourn for National Geographic magazine, ladies and gents, because it just died and the corpse will now be reanimated.
Can someone verify this? I read somewhere last night (can't find the link) that he only bought the media portion of NatGeo. The non-profit part that runs the museum in DC and gives out research grants is still under the control of the NatGeo non-profit. They basically sold the media segment so that they could still continue operating as a research non-profit. But I could be wrong.
I grew up combing through my dad's huge collection of issues, reading and discussing the articles with my dad and pouring over the incredible maps that came with many issues. National Geographic atlases, in particular The Earth and Man, were a dear part of my childhood. That I am a geography teacher today is directly related to my love of maps and the world around me. And now I have to mourn the passing of a loved and respected pillar of learning. Climate change denial and preppers are all that await now.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
If National Geographic was for sale, then it's owners had already abandoned the principles of a "non-profit" organization. This is just making it official.
I also subscribe to the magazine, and have enjoyed it for decades. Definitely not happy with this news. :-(
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
people are worried about this buyout and its usually because Murdoch owned fox news and the Wallstreet Journal slid hard right when they were bought by him,but i think its important to put this in perspective. hes a businessman.
Ive seen upcoming articles, and they look promising. "Gazelles, harbingers of homosexual war on christmas" seems to tackle a subject in a fair and balanced manner. "Penguins, natures undercover abortion factories" and "pot smoking illegal immigrant peregrine falcon migrations" might sound a bit heavy handed but the cover art is very dynamic.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It's either agree with us on everything or you are out. Climate change perspective is an obvious example. Those who are not sold on the idea are basically cast out of the scientific community. There is no open mindedness anymore. Maybe this is one step in that direction, be it good or bad.
Amen, the endless harping on the AGW propaganda and scare stories (think of the polar bears !) were a big turn off.
Maybe they will go back to covering geography and the animals and people of the world as was their great tradition.
Scientific American is another magazine ruined by a political agenda.
Global Warming doesn't exist, The Earth was created in Six Days, Woman evolved from Adam's Rib, and liberal policies are destroying the planet.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
...will all the topless native women be on page 3 now?
You dont actually subscribe to national geographic magazine, you join the national geographic society and that membership comes with free issues of their magazine.
The magazine itself is really just a showcase of what the society has been doing with your money.
How can that drivel be modded up?
Who gave mod points to Murdoch?
Try it! Library of Babel
Woman was created from Adam's Rib
liberal policies are destroying moral values witch are in turn destroying the planet
Just reading about the US defense posture in the face of a warming melting Arctic. Maybe Defense hasn't been given the message that it's claptrap?
NatlGeo has been a huge apologist for the Chinese (both environmentally, socially and politically) especially before, during and after the Olympics. Their kid glove handling of certain groups destroying archaeological sites and profiting from stolen antiquities, and ignoring local responsibilities in order to pound the "exploited by The West" drum has made NatlGeo less than pleasing to read.
We switched to Archaeology magazine because it was consistently even on going after those who destroy provenance to make profit, and damage the world's historical sites, regardless of how politically correct excusing their behavior is currently. Nor did they excuse the complicity of the locals and their own goverment in these actions.
But too many will see the removal of NatlGeo's bias and any trend towards proper neutrality as a "shift to the right" and close their narrow little minds down.
Remember kids, just because you love "left wing" ideas doesn't mean your outlook is any broader, you've just shifted your tiny wedge farther a different direction than the guys you hate. And perhaps your hate is because they are just like you.
you got your sensationalist headline from someone who ideologically and/or financially profits from the status quo and you shut down your critical thinking and didn't bother to read or research further to at least even justify your reaction.
Thank you for being another part of the problem. Does clickbait form all your political prejudices?
... NatGeo is being run by Murdoch's Son, Who recognizes climate change is a real threat.
...it just died and the corpse will now be reanimated.
So, the zombie invasion is for real...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The National Geographic Society president and CEO, Gary Knell, will serve as the board's first chairman.
The new joint venture will give the National Geographic Society the "scale and reach to continue to fulfill our mission long into the future", Knell said in a statement. The transaction is expected to close later this year. "As media organizations work to meet the increasing demand for high-quality storytelling across multiple platforms, it's clear that the opportunity to grow by more closely aligning our branded content and licensing assets is the right path" he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
I will not knowingly support this revolting worm. The world will be a better place when he's gone.
My head is hot when buried in the sand. Global Warming!
This guy does not even know the difference between climate and weather, often people like him are unable to perform any abstract thought.
Really sad. The political cost of mental deficiencies.
The WSJ did NOT slide to the right at all when Murdoch bought it. Where are people getting this whining drivel? Murdoch had zero effect on the editorial stance of the WSJ.
I know, because I DO read the WSJ. Every issue since 1980. I've been a subscriber that long.
It has ALWAYS had the obvious conservative bias that some people detest. Nothing changed in that regard.
What DID change was the business practices, in a very obvious way. When I got a renewal notice demanding $650 for the next 12 months (approximately a tripling of the price) , I cancelled my 32 year old subscription and then resubscribed via some shady broker on Ebay at $130 for 12 months.
And the customer service, which always exemplary and USA based (in Springfield, MA if I am not mistaken) went straight into the toilet as well as going to India.
I'll just leave this here.
The linked article is unfortunately abbreviated and incomplete, and as a result, the conclusions being drawn are wrong.
First off, the Society itself is still an independent non-profit. It just no longer has 100% ownership of the magazine. The effect on the Society is that it will have more money to give to scientists (while 21st Century Fox will have no say in how that money is handed out).
Second, they did not sell a controlling interest; the Society explicitly retains 50% of the Board of Directors for the magazine. The "73%" is Fox's share of profits, not control.
Yeah, the organization has been increasingly revenue-focused lately, which explains how this could happen. The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit, so Murdoch can't force them to sell. It's not near bankruptcy, either, so this isn't a distressed forced sale. Why would they sell a 127-year-old magazine with a respected brand, when their charitable mission is to promote the progress of science and inform the public? It seems the answer is that the current board of the National Geographic Society isn't content with its current size, but wants to make it a mega-sized nonprofit. To do that, they need more money, and this is one way of getting more money.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, the zombie network is real, and it's name is spelt F. O. X. Murdoch is zombie-in-chief.
This one may generate some good discussion, even though it's either misguided or incorrectly/confusingly stating issues. I don't agree that it's a "Troll" and will point out that a different opinion does not make it a troll. I do hope someone with Mod points corrects the rating.
Does Government want the monopolization? Absolutely, it's so much easier to control fewer media companies and this is about control.
Has deregulation caused the problems? Sure, but those go back quite a ways. The debates allowing mergers really started in the late 80s under Reagan. The deregulation happened under Clinton's first term. It took a long time to monopolize the media, but that should have been an obvious desire. Too much too soon and people would have worried and stopped the process. People in Government, contrary to popular myth, are actually quite intelligent and understand things like incremental change and rhetoric. They also happen to enjoy Sophistry and Rhetoric, which makes it a lose lose for society.
Massive roll backs? It was not a lot of deregulation. The regulation is the easy part to put in place. The hard part is all of the court rulings (I'll agree if you claimed it mostly Kangaroo) which allowed the deregulation before and after it occurred. Also the court rulings which allowed dishonesty in media (Florida Supreme Court vs. Fox) are going to be messy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As I'm seeing discussion of this across the web, I'm starting to wonder how many people commenting have actually read National Geographic Magazine anytime in the last three decades. The level of science there has been steadily decreasing for a very long time - replaced slowly by adventure reporting not entirely unbiased "issue" reporting. On the other hand, the bias matches that of liberal/libertarian demographic that makes up a good part of the /. demographic, so it's probably been invisible to them. Which also explains why so many are mourning a mistaken image, rather than seeing it for the drek it has become. The science based National Geographic was bedridden by the 80's, comatose by the 90's, and has been on life support machines since the 00's.
Just like Discover, Scientific American, and Omni before it.
Why? Because real science is fucking boring, so boring that even those supposedly interested in it failed to notice it slipping away. It's no surprise to me that same demographic worships at the faux science altars of Mythbusters, Alton Brown, Bill Nye, and Niel DeGrasse Tyson - they want science, but only if it's tarted up, made entertaining, and reduced to sound bites they can pass around like cargo cultists. On Slashdot there's a constant refrain about the slipping position of science in American culture, and while it's often blamed on the conservatives and the Religious Right... Look to your mirrors and consider carefully the glass house in which you dwell.
And, as usual, the truth will be modded down - because it hurts.
Two more decades long subscribers will not be renewing, my father and me. Even if the content of the magazine does not change, I will not knowingly do business with Rupert Murdock or support his media empire.
DoD is confused about Climate Change 'cuz it's their job to turn up the heat. They don't know how to deal with a positive feedback loop when successful escalation leads to a negative outcome. It was all much easier before the way of the righteous man was simply beset by the tyranny of evil men and all one need do was shepherd the weak. Now that nature is calling us out, it's going to be a bit more difficult to see which side of the unleaven bread to butter.
-- Jesus! Save me from your followers. -- (A. Philistine)
I don't know about the magazine, haven't bought one in over a decade, but as you rightfully say the TV channel couldn't be a bigger pile of drek (that's another word for poo) if you shoveled it on with caterpilars. There is absolutely no way that anyone, even Murdoch, could make that any worse than it is. Therefor, I applaud this takeover and welcome our new NG overlord, his taste in TV programming MUST be better than what the current management is making of it.
From the man that brought naked women in British papers comes a man that brings you naked women in American magazines.
I always liked their archaeology articles. A few years back I bought the complete National Geographic on DVD. I like to pick an issue at random and read it from time to time. Although are they still producing new real documentaries like what use to show on PBS in the 80s or is that now left to the BBC.
Time to offend someone
> people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community
When did astronomers reject relativity?
The good part about science is that if you perform the techniques correctly, you end up with reliable data, even if you're somehow biased. This is a good thing, because it means we only have to make sure that rigorous investigational procedures are properly followed, rather than hoping for mythical unbiased people to perform them.
You're suggesting that it should be supported with billions of tax payers cash like the BBC, are you? I love C-Span as much as anyone, but there's a limit to how much freeloading media entities can do. The Guardian, Islington's newspaper of choice, is only around because it's horrific, paid for capitalist publications are so profitable. Itself it loses huge amounts of cash every year.
Anyone calling that left-wing outlet right-wing is obviously a left-wing shill.
Step 1) Show me a competent CLIMATE scientist that is arguing against anthropogenic climate change. ...
-There are many. Dr. Richard Lindzen, endowed professor at MIT. (Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)
Christopher W. Landsea (born 1965) is an American meteorologist, formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic
Step 2) Get them to explain how steadily increasing the amount of infrared-scattering CO2 gas in the atmosphere, acting in a frequency band that's still fairly transparent (and distinct from the frequency band scattered by water vapor) can have any effect *other* than raising the average global temperature
-The bands get saturated (Beer's law) so adding more CO2 has less and less effect. The true greenhouse effect warms us up by a degree from added CO2 according to IPCC. Further warming is based on speculative positive feedback mechanism. Many of these are probably negative feedbacks, which is what one would expect from a stable system that oscillates in temp in a few degree range for billions of years.
Step 2B) - if they deny that humans are responsible for the rising CO2 levels, ask them how exactly they explain the fact that measured atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing at roughly 80% of the easily calculated rate that humans are releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere, and what exactly they would expect to happen if we magically stopped our emissions tomorrow.
-CO2 is not only from humans. Indeed CO2 levels have been higher in the distant past without coal burning power plants. These are vast natural processes.
Step 3) Ask them to explain what's *actually* causing the *observed* increase in global temperatures over the last couple decades.
-More than half the increase has been created by dubious data adjustments to the temperature records. The satellite measurements (RSS and UAH) have not shown warming for the past 18+ years. Those data sets are not beeing adjusted to serve political purposes. Also the USCRN is the USA best temperature measurement system. No adjustments needed or allowed because of pristine rural sites (no urban heat island warming or airport temp readings). ANd it shows for its entire 10 year history - NO warming in the USA at all.
Do that, and then we can have a reasoned conversation on the topic. And it's a conversation I'd love to have, truly, because frankly things are looking pretty bleak, and the only contrarian voices I've heard have been from self-important crackpots and heavily vested interests (and their lab-coated puppets).
-Things are not looking bleak, hurricanes and tornado are down for flat. A little warming is good for people, and CO2 is an essential plant nutrient, so plants the basis of life on earth are thriving, including crop production. The sea level is rising, but it has been for thousands of years since the last ice age, and our tide gauges show for the past hundreds of years. A slow few mm/year with NO signs of acceleration.
The bleak part is the UN and Obama trying to ram draconian energy restrictions down our throat, destroying the industrial economy of the US. And asking for billions of "climate reparations" from developed countries for the UN wealth redistribution program. That is bleak !
Woman was created from Adam's Rib
liberal policies are destroying moral values witch are in turn destroying the planet
the planet really doesn't care about morals, your body decomposes the same either way
For me it the death of an institution. I am really really sad.
"The Great White circles its helpless victim. The distressed mother whale is just about to..For your personal financial solutions, see ElderFix! Mutual funds, retirement savings, long and short term investments, reliable safety! ElderFix!..she fails and .. Nutrilux enhancement and nutritional products now near you! Feeling tired, worn out? Nutrilux "vitamin" supplements are the cure! Nutrilux!Produced by National Geography. Underwater photography by.."
> One only needs to watch the drek on the National Geographic channel -- an endless parade of shockumentaries and "reality" TV -- to see the lowest common denominator at which Rupert Murdoch is aiming.
They're terrible, yes, but they also predate his control over the channel.
I've been a subscriber since 1977 and your point of view is not representative of reality. The science based aspect has not declined at all, including the current issue that's on my dining room table right now. That you follow that up with a strange finger-pointing routine further undermines your unfounded statement.
That said I expect Murdoch will poison NG with his horseshit as he does to every media outlet he consumes. NG played a major role in shaping my view of the world and the universe beyond and it saddens me that it will soon be gutted, just another political mouthpiece added to the braying armies of hate.
How can anybody call him a "denier" when he acknowledged global warming in the first twenty seconds of the cited video?
He is more of a lukewarmist, meaning that he agrees that the climate is changing, is not certain that's a bad thing, and reserves judgment on controlling emissions until there is more data to confirm the models' predictions.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Just to be clear on this one, the channel was a partnership with Fox, and has been since inception. The change here is with the magazine.
Where's McGyver when we need him?
Great post.
No, they're long out of the "real" documentary business.
At least the Wall Street Journal isn't a liberal hack like the New York Times.
I used to think of the magazine as one of the pinnacles of our culture but in many ways it's become just another News journal (mostly bad News).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hopefully we'll only have a few more years of damage from this fool and his heirs can start the process of bungling the evil empire.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I told him that they had executed their organization's credibility, and that no one with academic credentials would work for them once the meaning of this management decision soaks into everyone's mind.
Also that they were dead to me forever.
It was longer than what I have quoted, but I went to physical therapy after sending it and now all I remember is the stretching of my shoulder.
I can't believe that the place where I learned what anthropology and wildlife biology and archaeology and photography were all about is now a political propaganda arm of a political party that expressly does not believe in science and the scientific method. That was also in my letter.
I put in that if he was lucky he would have to report to Megan Kelly, but I took that out, she isn't management track with Rupert.
Think of the Irony!
Cant these billionaires do anything better than just make more $$$. Whats the point of being the richest man in the graveyard ?
Poor Murdoch. Everything worth publishing that he touches turns to useless gold. So much for National Geographic. If he let's the publication still give in-depth coverage, he wins. If he does not, his gold will turn to stone. Wait for the press release. His Sunday papers aren't bought by anyone who's worth a shit. Is that his goal with National Geographic? We'll see it in NAT GEO's context. Real or Dung, and who has won?
I'm bad with sayings, so just go live life for crying out loud.
First: Your arrogance is not doing you any favors.
Second: You were not modded down. Are you going to apologize now? Most likely not...see point #1.
So you're saying that you're under the age of 50 and think NatGeo is a scientific journal, plus that the barrier to entry to children who want to do real science later should be much higher?
Hrm. Looks like none of those things are true.
It's no surprise to me that same demographic worships at the faux science altars of Mythbusters, Alton Brown, Bill Nye, and Niel DeGrasse Tyson - they want science, but only if it's tarted up, made entertaining, and reduced to sound bites they can pass around like cargo cultists.
I hate this being paroted around like it makes any point at all. It doesn't. You know who like to read science articles? Scientists. And just because a scientist knows physics does not mean they can understand all the jargon of biology, it NEEDS to be explained in a way that by-passes that specialized knowledge. And guess what? Some of us LIKE well written/explained concepts of complex topics, which is something most scientists lack the ability to do well. Most scientists don't take any writing classes and it shows, so if a well written article takes their ideas and explains it better than they can, I will prefer to read that, especially if it's in a field that I don't know well. Saying you don't like NDT or Bill Nye does NOT make you special, it makes you an elitist who doesn't understand that communication skills are an important part of the scientific process. Science does NOT exist in a vacuum, it is entwined in everything; politics, daily life, love, etc. Communicating that part of the world is important, and frankly we need more people that can explain scientific ideas to everyone--yes, other scientists as well--to make a better world.
Sorry if that was not your intended point, but I hear this thing constantly and it really gets under my skin. I study physics but my understanding of biology is, frankly, atrocious; so I rely upon communicators to get a basic understanding of DNA processes. Shows like Quirks and Quarks make up a lot of my understanding of the current work in a lot of fields, hell, even a lot of the complexities of physics I need describes in a way that most scientists can't do.
end rant.
"This raises a question for reader KatchooNJ: As many of you likely know, Rupert Murdoch has famously not been quiet about his denial of climate change."
No he doesn't deny climate change because the climate is always changing. As much as I despise RM I don't fault him for his position on the influence humans are having on the climate. He may be correct on that one.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never? If never then you are the ones in denial.
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
I'm going respectfully disagree here.
There has been a very noticeable change in the format, presentation, and content of the magazine.
Issues the last two years have been shorter, with one long article filling up half the magazine, and supplemented by several short articles that are often mostly pictures. The "Food" and "7 Billion" longform themes were interesting...but the biggest change to National Geographic Magazine lately has been the lack of diversity in their content.
For better or for worse, the staff have decided that every article has to be linked to climate change somehow, often in the final paragraph of an article that otherwise has no relation to the topic. I certainly don't mind articles about the history of some truly stunning national parks in Canada and how they will be impacted over the next fifty years, but I have to admit that I kind of struggle to see the relevance of connecting the history and study of Trajan's Column to climate change.
Another huge loss for the magazine was removing letters to the magazine. It went from the full spectrum, to only complimentary letters, to only some sparse infographics, to nothing at all.
I actually did "not renew" last month, (and the month before that, the renewal letters didn't stop).
Climate change coverage was only one aspect of my motivation. It is the simple lack of "geography" in the magazine. They don't do geography anymore. Rather it became the "Social Cause of the Month Club" magazine.
By the way, my degree is a B.A. in Geography. I may say something in the "Do Tech Firms Really Want Liiberal Arts Majors" article this same day. (May not apply in New York where Geography is a science.)
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Will all you climate true believers just die? You exhale CO2 and probably have large carbon footprints. Do the right thing and die.
Kiss it goodbye - as a source for scientific reality. USA is effectively an oligarchy - with rich science-denying aholes that deny because its good for them personally & could not care less about the little people, in fact, despise their very existence. Sociopathic ahole solution to imminent water resource wars? Just let em all die. So what to do, O helpless masses? Just pretend this planet is only temporary cuz heaven is the real prize? Poor earth and its biosphere's inhabitants. These rich oligarch aholes i.e. Rupert Murdoch, have been winning their damn battles against sanity far too long. The goal is obvious. Keep the young & old fools dumb and clueless - they'll be less trouble that way i.e. entire Fox News demographic.