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?
"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"
>> 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?
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.
More government is never the solution. Government is out there to screw the population and protect its own interests. If you don't trust mainstream media, get your news from other sources.
So what is the solution? No government? Government by benevolent oligarchs? Theocracy? The combination of the last two which the Republicans seem to favour?
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.
Yeah, well Nat. Geo. TV is no gem. These are the same bozos who gave us Extreme Worm Wrangling (watch life and death struggles between he-boys and earth worms), Dangerous Minnow Fishing (he-boys bait and hook deathly minnows while they aren't looking), NASA: The Unexplained Files (UFOs are everywhere, Aliens buzz the Earth, no actual film of aliens, they are shy little devils...but we'll breathlessly tell what they COULD do were they to take out your brain for foosball practice), etc.
Murdoch and Nat. Geo. TV is a match made in Heaven.
Slice it however you like, it's still a cake. More specifically, in either case the claim is incorrect. The Government already has the power to break up monopolies, and has already done so several times. The Sherman Act and Clayton Act ensured that the power was clearly defined.
Going a bit further, I am extremely Libertarian minded. One of the few powers I believe the Government should have it to protect the public from monopolies and predatory behaviors money can bring about. You won't get me to rally for Government action on most issues.
Your second paragraph would simply take too long to debate, but I completely disagree. In simple terms, the Press (Media) has a specific purpose which is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Monopolization prevents Media/Press from doing it's job and working _for_ the citizens.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.