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"
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.
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.
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 ^_^
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.
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?
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
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.
Yeah no kidding. People who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side 6000 years ago have been cast out of the archaeology community too, as have people who believe the earth is flat from the geography community and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community. Where did open-mindedness go?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
No, he is proof that the the dinosaurs walk among us...
This is a sad moment for Nat Geo. Maybe the association can divest itself of him and take their money elsewhere.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...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...
Dinosaurs existed, Jesus played with baby ones when he was a kid.
Step 1) Show me a competent CLIMATE scientist that is arguing against anthropogenic climate change.
No, not biologists, economists, doctors, chemists, etc. PhDs are notorious for being utterly convinced of their own competence on things far outside their actual field of expertise. I want someone who has actually spent decades studying the intricacies of climate science.
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
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.
Step 3) Ask them to explain what's *actually* causing the *observed* increase in global temperatures over the last couple decades.
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).
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
My head is hot when buried in the sand. Global Warming!
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
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.
The situation you describe is the most logical output in this kind of operations. Companies only want profits and will never change what is already generating them.
Murdoch will certainly not affect the underlying ideas of National Geographic. A different story is the quality: reduction of expenses is usually the first step when moving from non-profit to for-profit.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
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.
That was Moses, Ezekiel whizzed around the sky on a hover board. Jesus spent his time denying gays the right to marriage.
Devoid of context this really misleads.
Full interview: http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik...
Then let's hope he buys Dice.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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
I think you overrate the "disposable income" available to "most people". If you don't have much spare cash, you spend it on things that provide immediate gratification, because things that are long term are out of reach.
When I was growing up, I strongly believed in saving. And when, as an adult, I saved I noticed the money that I had saved evaporating into inflation higher than interest rates. Now that inflation is relatively low, interest rates are a joke. It's enough to make me understand the "gold bugs".
Well, I'm in a category where I have some of my money invested in stocks. That is, usually, growing faster than inflation. But then I'm considerably about the median income level. (Though I'm well below the mean...and when the median is well below the mean, that should tell you about the income structue. And let's not even contemplate the mode.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes actively filtering information to determine what is true and what is not is a valuable skill on the internet and one that I use regularly, but that is only useful when you are trying to evaluate opinions on complex issues.
I will gladly sift through competing opinions to formulate my own opinion, but what I will not do is sift through bald faced lies to determine what is true and what is not just to get to the point of being able to form my own opinion. That is a waste of my time.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
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.
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
In capitalist USA, fossils own National Geographic.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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
First off, thank you for presenting a decent argument requiring me to bruch up on my understanding of some details. Now let me address at least some of your points.
-The bands get saturated...
Okay, that's true if you're trying to see images through the atmosphere at that wavelength, but is not really relevant to energy transfer. The IR in the relevant band is absorbed by the atmosphere BUT it's also immediately radiated in a random direction (half of it downwards) at the same frequency, aka scattering. 100% of the heat will eventually escape the atmosphere, it has to or the Earth would have been burnt to a cinder billions of years ago from trapped heat. The question is only how long it takes to do that. For simplicity think of the atmosphere as a bunch of layers of heavily frosted glass or semi-silvered mirrors reflecting heat, with every layer represents the thickness of atmosphere required to reflect 50% of the IR passing through it back at its source. And the Earth is at the bottom immediately re-radiating every photon that gets bounced back at it. Every photon that leaves the Earth will eventually escape the stack of mirrors, but essentially none of them will do so in a nice straight line (the straight path is saturated). Instead each one is going to bounce back and forth between mirrors at random until eventually it gets lucky and manages to make it through the topmost mirror. And the thing is, it doesn't matter how many layers there are, adding another one will always increase the total number of bounces required for a photon to escape (half the photons that would have escaped get bounced back downwards to wander randomly through the layers until they make it to the top again). And that's essentially what we're doing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere - we reduce the thickness of atmosphere required to reflect 50% of the heat, so that there's more atmosphere left over to act as a final mirror at the top of the stack (it probably won't be a full 50%, but the point is it will stop some of the photons from escaping immediately, increasing the average number of bounces required). And the whole time it's bouncing around it's contributing its energy to the atmosphere. Make it so that the photons take an average of 10% longer to escape to space, and you've increased their contribution to atmospheric temperature by a similar amount.
-CO2 is not only from humans.
You neatly ignore my point: measured atmospheric CO2 is increasing at *less than* the rates at which it is emitted by humans - logically if we stopped emitting fossil CO2 we could reasonably expect atmospheric CO2 levels to begin dropping.
As for alternate CO2 sources, that is true, however there are two distinct carbon cycles to consider. There's the short-term ecological carbon cycle that involves plants, animals, oceans, and the atmosphere. It shifts carbon around into some sort of equillibrium, but can fluctuate quite a bit - and our emissions are admittedly tiny on that scale, only a few percent of the total carbon being moved around. But the carbon we're emitting wasn't part of that cycle! It was part of the geologic carbon cycle, a MUCH slower cycle by which carbon is trapped as rocks at a fairly constant (and very sow) rate, and released by weathering - and we are responsible for releasing geological carbon into the ecological cycle MUCH faster than naturally occurs. Weathering, global volcanic activity, etc - it all pales to nothing compared to us. And the result is that we're "filling up" the ecological carbon cycle - there's no mechanism to significantly increase the rate at which carbon is stored in rock, so instead it builds up as CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. It could theoretically also be stored as biomass, but available evidence suggests that global biomass is actually shrinking rather than growing, so that's no help.
As for your heating and whether claims, I'm sorry to say they are simply false. There's plenty of specific regions that aren't experiencing warming, but that is to be e
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
Great post.
No, they're long out of the "real" documentary business.
So apparently that quote is a really bad translation from German. Just ran it through Google Translate and it gave a better tranlation, but the actual gist is that climate policy is not the end all and be all of environmental policy. which is to say that the climate is just one aspect of a much larger environmental policy.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that when Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, he dragged it far back towards the center from the extreme right-wing rag it had become at the time. He's good at assessing what political slant for a given property will sell the most, and so I really doubt he'll change the left-wing slant of NatGeo very much.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's off-topic, but This is the guy you want to look at, he's a top climate scientist (lead author of the IPCC report) and maybe knows more about clouds than anyone alive.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Carbonic acid is dissolved CO2. That the ocean is acidifying is well known, and should nicely account for the discrepancy.
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!
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.
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.
Sound science is a "left wing slant" now ? Actually I wish I was surprized.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Yeah, well Nat. Geo. TV is no gem.
It's not as bad as "History Channel".
No sig today...
Hogwash, Jesus was born long after the Dinosaurs so how could he have been there? More importantly, who was there to capture that moment in a painting? /s
You stole my line!
And since reality has such as liberal bias, conservatives have been forced to create their own version of Wikipedia
Uhh, if you read TFS, you'd see Murdoch basically helped *create* Nat Geo TV.
So, yeah, we know it's bad. The concern here is now he's going to mess up all their other properties too.
Bingo! If those TV shows are anything to go by, the magazine is doomed.
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
Yeah, well Nat. Geo. TV is no gem.
It's not as bad as "History Channel".
Ah... another channel I lament the loss of. It used to be a great channel to watch. Those were the days... Boy, the way Glenn Miller played...
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
After seeing what Harper has done to science in Canada, I have no choice but to agree.
Quite, CO2 levels are increasing in both the ocean and atmosphere, but that's not my point. My point is that the levels are increasing at roughly the same rate as we are converting geologic carbon reserves into CO2. Thus making a claim that we are not responsible is disingenuous.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That's the same guy as referenced in the first post that I replied to. As far as clouds specifically are concerned, they are admittedly a complicated system, but much study has been done since that talk, and the real-world measurements suggest that they will contribute to a net increase in warming, though possibly only a small one.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That's the same guy as referenced in the first post that I replied to.
Sure. Apparently the cognitive dissonance is too much for you, because your responses show no sign of having understood Lindzen's points. What a pity.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
It might surprise you, but NatGeo is not The Journal of Climate Change. It's not their focus. Pretty much every NatGeo story ever about wildlife has ended by talking about what man is doing to kill all these cute animals, and I seriously doubt that will change (climate change is just the reason currently fashionable, but that's hardly the important bit).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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
Nobody said it was. But the science in natgeo has always been rock solid. Which is bloody rare for a non journal publication. And so wheln climate science was the topic it was science they published not politically motivated wishful thinking.
As it happens the natgeo edition with the greatest climate focus back in 2007 never mentioned wildlife once. Instead it had articles on decades old ski resorts that were closing because of glacier melt.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
he science in natgeo has always been rock solid.
Meh, it's good by the standards of science journalism, but that's a pretty low bar.
As it happens the natgeo edition with the greatest climate focus back in 2007 never mentioned wildlife once
Right, so my point was: that's rare, while talking about shrinking habitats and extinction risk is almost-every-issue common. I'd be surprised if there was a noticeable change in that content, as all that would do is reduce sales. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if we start seeing more of what drew in subscribers back in the day: attractive topless women (Murdock's other specialty).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, because I'm sure you have a carpenter work on your teeth. Sure, he as no idea what he's doing, and doesn't even have the right tools for the job, but at least he's not part of the global dentist conspiracy.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
Really makes me miss the Hitler Channel.
Nat Geo is listed at "slipped" on TV Tropes's excellent Network Decay page. "The channel still shows programming related to its original concept, although it is significantly showing programming not related to their genre in some way."
"The National Geographic Society's website features the slogan "Inspiring People to Care About the Planet"; how exactly they're accomplishing this with The Dog Whisperer, Locked Up Abroad, Is It Real? and shows about bounty hunters is left as an exercise for the viewer. It doesn't help that Locked Up Abroad is a case of both tourists doing things that border on moronic (hence why the end up as in the title) and portraying countries that aren't Anglo-American as virtual hellholes."