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

Ditch the global warming crap !

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Grants? That is your worry?

[jcr]

Sorry to break it to you, but it's government that drives the consolidation. If you want to see a bunch of independent media outlets again, then fight for massive rollbacks in regulations.

-jcr

Re:Grants? That is your worry?

[Jhon]

"isn't democracy a type of government... and more government is never the solution so... we need less democracy and this is clearly the step in the right direction."

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are in fact right -- we need *LESS* democracy. You cannot have liberty with greater democracy -- nor with a powerful central government (no matter the type). There's a reason why the US isn't a democracy, but a republic -- and the bits of democracy added were *NOT* to give the people a larger voice, but to counter the voice of the state governments in their appointment of Senators (who where appointed, not elected). Our founders were about as afraid of democracy as they were of monarchy.

We can argue about the reasons for the 17th amendment -- but I believe the solution created un-intended consequences that have damaged and continue to damage our nation and liberty and have caused wide and systemic divides between our peoples. "If you agree with "X", you are EVIL!" (where 'X' is abortion-bans, or gun control, or gay marriage or whatever). You cant long run a nation like that before you have too many folks will feel their liberty is trampled. 20 years ago, talk of secession was the realm of nut-jobs and the tin-foil hat crowd. Today, while still a bit wacky, it's coming from many who are much more main stream.

Our government was designed to SLOW dramatic changes until a critical mass of the governed "agree" on something. Now, it can be done by judicial fiat where a slight majority (or arguably even a minority in some cases) agree.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

How long until enough people perceive they are alienated by the government before they want to govern themselves? Remember, 18th century patriots were a minority and about 60%-70% were either loyalist or indifferent. And you think a few folks with a 'cause' cant disrupt a government, look at Libya and Syria right now.