November 3, 2015 at 9:49 pm #15173
Says it won’t impact the editorial direction. Ha!
I’m cancelling in the morning. Sad day.November 4, 2015 at 12:11 am #15177
In the past, National Geographic was the journal of the National Geographic Society, a scientific research organization. The changes started to occur just a little over a month ago. Per Wikipedia:
On September 9, 2015, the Society announced that it would re-organize its media properties and publications into a new company known as National Geographic Partners, which will be majority-owned by 21st Century Fox with a 73% stake. This new, for-profit corporation, will own the National Geographic magazine, as well as its affiliated television networks—most of which were already owned in joint ventures with Fox.
Although it is slightly off-topic, National Geographic was the vehicle that caused me to start questioning religion. In the summer of 1984, when I was 10, National Geographic ran a fascinating article on early human fossils. I was amazed by the detailed manner in which National Geographic presented the information and by how the scientists were able to work with the limited information that they could obtain (such as skulls and skeletons with missing pieces). A few months later an angry letter to the editor appeared from a reader who believed that the human fossils article had insulted his religious sensibilities and who demanded immediate cancellation of his subscription. A comment appeared below this letter stating that the offices of National Geographic had received about 100 similar letters.
Regarding the National Geographic evolution article fiasco, my dad said to me, with GREAT frustration in his voice, “There are people in this country who are so ignorant that they believe the Bible was written in English!” To this day, I have been wondering how literally that remark was meant to be taken.November 4, 2015 at 6:58 am #15187duxruleParticipant
I said when this deal was first announced that it would not go well for NatGeo. 😛November 4, 2015 at 6:59 am #15188
Yes, me too Alfredo. Grandpa had bought a subscription for me, until I was 18. Read every one of them cover to cover.
Looking back, I can point to that resource being responsible for a lot of good in my life and awareness of the world and it’s peoples.
I’m not happy about this at all. Maybe, maybe, maybe, just maybe, the long tradition can continue after some efforts to get it back into financial shape.
Hope so. It’s tough to think about more losses involving great photography and long form journalism. We need those things.
Spot on Dux. Sadly.November 4, 2015 at 10:01 am #15190
I apologize for the double post. I think that some technical glitch might have happened yesterday.
I think that you might enjoy the following lagocentric presentation of that day in the summer of 1984:
“There are people in this country who are so ignorant that they believe the Bible was written in English!”November 4, 2015 at 11:19 pm #15201skepticalParticipant
Breaking . . . NatGeo announces it’s new Editor-In-Chief: Ken Ham!November 5, 2015 at 9:58 am #15208
I am baffled that the story about the changes at National Geographic has not received very much press. I would have considered this an important news item. However, I have not heard any commercial radio station run the story. I tried a Google news search yesterday, and saw that none of the headlines that popped up when I loaded the page were about National Geographic. I searched on National Geographic layoffs, and that only turned up a few stories.November 5, 2015 at 10:28 am #15209BroadwayParticipant
>>new Editor-In-Chief: Ken Ham
hey, I like that one!November 5, 2015 at 11:20 am #15212
Alfredo, that speaks to the quiet following Nat Geo has. (maybe had… we shall see)
Throughout all the massive changes, Nat Geo largely just continued to execute on long form journalism. I think the respect behind that was more about readers and people familiar with the format. I know, until I saw this, I more or less took Nat Geo as given. It’s not sexy or flashy, and the great work of the foundation to just bring us the world, seems a heady enough thing to go under the radar.
For me, Nat Geo is (maybe was) the one constant through my life. It does what it does, and it matters.
Most all other media has transformed and maybe this just isn’t even notable to them.November 5, 2015 at 11:34 am #15214AmusParticipant
I predict photoshopping of clothes onto the pictures aboriginal Afican Tribespeople.November 5, 2015 at 4:53 pm #15225
Wow, two in one day. Another false headline. 9% cutbacks in the entire organization, and a similar number at NGTV.
The spinners keep spinning…
That being, I also grew up with the yellow-bordered mag on our coffee table. I’m talking 1960 to about 1990, yes some living at home as an adult, but irrelevant. Always great, always pictures that were stunning and were paired with intelligent, but clear writing, that both adults and kids could understand. Pure journalistic greatness.November 5, 2015 at 5:50 pm #15227
Which of the headlines is the false one?November 5, 2015 at 5:55 pm #15230
Both. The Carson story was from a satiric website and does not represent his context of words. The National Geographic headline was even worse, as the cuts there are not the “total” staff, just 9%.
Good gawd, I also predicted this years ago…internet headlines that are inaccurate and wrong but no one to call them on it. This is troublesome, IMO, and one of the downfalls of internet news/communication in future years. Check back in 2018 or 2020 and see if this is still a problem. My guess it still will be.November 5, 2015 at 8:27 pm #15237
Yes, it’s a shit headline.
However, that 9 percent of Nat Geo is fact checkers, field people, writers, etc… It’s a significant gutting in terms of editorial content of the magazine.
We shall see. I did cancel, and I’ll wait it out. If, somehow, this really does end up being some sort of reorg and the overall mission / editorial content isn’t too impacted, I’ll continue on.
I really like having that particular world focus. It’s a niche that maybe the likes of the Smithsonian can cover, but not with the breadth Nat Geo has typically demonstrated.
In particular, coverage of various peoples, their politics, culture, environment, etc… has been what keeps me interested. And that’s surprising to me, as I’m generally focused on other things. When contemplating what I really value, that’s what came up.November 5, 2015 at 8:45 pm #15238
It takes intelligent people to discern what is real and what is not.
The Internet has no intelligent meter, per se, and that is the problem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.