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?

Comments

Rupert Murdoch

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Fuck you, stupid dinosaur. Oh wait, I suppose evolution is also a myth so you can't be a dinosaur since they never existed.

Re:Rupert Murdoch

[gtall]

That was Moses, Ezekiel whizzed around the sky on a hover board. Jesus spent his time denying gays the right to marriage.

Drama queens

[argStyopa]

Oh no, "dread" because the Dark Lord of Evil Media(tm) has bought the holy, sacred, pristine, and virginal Nat Geo? Oh noes! What will he do???!?!

1) if he's so incredibly evil, why did they sell to him? Seriously, if you put your precious morality is apparently up to the highest bidder, ipso facto you're going to be bought by a rich dude (who are all evil, right?).

2) if NatGeo is NOT making money and he's rescuing it, well, even the righteous have to pay rent.

3) I've actually been considering cancelling my sub for the last few years, considering the constant and unending sky-is-falling-global-warming editorial stance they've had. Pretty much anything bad happening in the world is explicitly or implicitly blamed on global warming which is simply tedious and monotonous, if not outright tendentious (which is where Scientific American went in the early 2k's).

Nat Geo

Re:Grants? That is your worry?

[losfromla]

That will never happen for us moron. We who read here will never, ever, ever be in that situation because we weren't born into it. Should it ever occur, it won't be a problem because, not being able to go from 3 billion dollars to 4 billion is not really a heartbreaking situation. Your argument is the absurd one that the very rich in the repugnican party use to sucker the working poor into voting for laws that benefit the very wealthy at the extreme expense of the working poor.