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?
Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?
Because governments won't fund much science any more, and neither will for-profit corporations unless that science helps grow their profit in 1-2 years max, and neither will most people directly because they are too preoccupied with shiny, but people are willing to buy a shiny, intelligent magazine, and that magazine's (former) owners believed for more than 100 years that they should use those profits to fund science, so they did?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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.
That rollback occurred during the Gringrich congress which had a veto proof Republican majority. I'm not sure on this particular bill but if it's like the others Clinton didn't have any say in the bill as the Vote was veto proof.