This will surely end well
September 10, 2015 9:37 PM   Subscribe

 
My current subscription runs through November. It will not be renewed.
posted by easily confused at 9:38 PM on September 10, 2015 [11 favorites]


.
posted by schmod at 9:48 PM on September 10, 2015 [3 favorites]




.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:53 PM on September 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


.
posted by Tsuga at 10:06 PM on September 10, 2015


Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse?
posted by orange swan at 10:07 PM on September 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


The irony of a climate change denier now owning an organization that gives money to scientists is not lost on various commenters.
There is irony, but the National Geographic Society will continue operating and see its endowment grow to close to one billion dollars.
The National Geographic Society is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focused on its mission of science, exploration and education. Consideration for the transaction is valued at $725 million. As a result, the Society’s endowment will significantly increase to nearly $1 billion. The new entity will be owned 73 percent by 21st Century Fox and 27 percent by The National Geographic Society with a shared governance structure and equal representation on the board of directors.
posted by b1tr0t at 10:14 PM on September 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


Climate change… it's a joke.
posted by unliteral at 10:17 PM on September 10, 2015


Hopefully they'll use the billion dollars to buy a massive boxing glove to punch Murdoch in his freckled wizened face.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:20 PM on September 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


.
posted by mmoncur at 10:22 PM on September 10, 2015


This news worries me also.
posted by Artw at 10:23 PM on September 10, 2015


.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:26 PM on September 10, 2015


Upcoming Cover Stories for National Geographic Now That Rupert Murdoch Owns It

For once, do read the comments. Some of them are at least as good as the entries in the article.

(The one about "National Parks: Privatization is the Answer" is a bit too naked, at least right out of the gate. For the first year they'll just do moving stories about the responsible custodianship of some rancher and his private property.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:27 PM on September 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


own the media, control what people can think.

film at 11
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:32 PM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure why this is all that much of a shocker, given how crappy most of the content on the National Geographic channels has been in the last several years, from Alaska State Troopers to Filthy Riches to Doomsday Preppers.

It's been basically a nature channel for Tea Partiers, tinfoil hat wearers, and trailer trash.
posted by blucevalo at 10:35 PM on September 10, 2015 [19 favorites]


Why did the National Geographic Society consent to this, besides the obvious glib answer of "a big bag of money"? With modern wealth disparity, there are no shortages of billionaires. Surely there's something more to this deal.

Either way, I hope this inspires the creation of watchdog websites that will pour over every issue of the new edition of this magazine in search of corporate bias.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:36 PM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but now the Magazine will be run by the crew that ran Nat Geo aground, too.
posted by notyou at 10:37 PM on September 10, 2015 [8 favorites]


It's been basically a nature channel for Tea Partiers, tinfoil hat wearers, and trailer trash.

But enough about TLC, A&E, the History Channel, Discovery...
posted by Apocryphon at 10:37 PM on September 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


If I could quadruple my organization's endowment by selling off most of a cable channel and a probably money-losing periodical I'd be hard-pressed to say no. the most valuable single asset here was probably the cable network, which employs a good friend of mine, and was already partly controlled by Fox.
posted by silby at 10:37 PM on September 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


the defining characteristic of Americans is that they will put up with anything. We will accept any injustice, any disgrace. and sure, we will take sides in some comments forum somewhere, but ultimately we've already decided to accept the current shift of power transfer because we've already been conformed to that's how it's going to be.
posted by sineater at 10:38 PM on September 10, 2015 [8 favorites]


I don't have cable television, so on the few occasions that I have time in front of it, pretty much every time I go, "oh look there's National Geographic, except on my television, surely that's got some quality nature docos on it", then I turn it on and I go "oh fuck what is this unscientific dreck?". So I'm just saying they've been burning through their credibility capital for a while now.
posted by wilful at 10:38 PM on September 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


it's really the ultimate irony, to have a country defined by some definition of freedom to embrace the exact opposite in the name of freedom. it's so mind boggling backwards that nobody is really able to even discuss it rationally.
posted by sineater at 10:39 PM on September 10, 2015 [11 favorites]


National Geographic and Fox have been tangled up for years. Unfortunately the only place I knew about that seemed to care, a blog by a former National Geographic editor, got spooked by the Society's lawyers and shut down last year. Take a look at the archives, there's a long list of troubling incidents.
posted by Small Dollar at 10:46 PM on September 10, 2015 [12 favorites]


To be fair, if you walk into any 84-year old gentleman's home, you'll probably find stacks and stacks of National Geographic in the rec room. So this is a pretty canny purchase for Old Man Murdoch: he knows his demographic.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 PM on September 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


Anyhow, the page 3 will likely not change much under new management.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:06 PM on September 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


I would consider cancelling my subscription, but my inherited collection of every published issue of National Geographic since the 1930s isn't going to keep itself going.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 11:06 PM on September 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


Upcoming Cover Stories for National Geographic Now That Rupert Murdoch Owns It

For once, do read the comments. Some of them are at least as good as the entries in the article.


The Endangered Species Act: Four Decades of Welfare for Lazy Animals

seriously, those bald eagles have been getting our government handouts for far too long!
posted by numaner at 11:19 PM on September 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


Damn. I don't know what I'm going to do about my subscription. On one hand, to hell with Rupert Murdoch and everything he stands for. On the other hand, my boyfriend and I have a longstanding tradition of making waffles on lazy Sunday mornings and sitting on the couch reading National Geographic, and he's not going to let that tradition die off just because of some rich asshole's shitty politics.

I might just have to open the offer letters that Canadian Geographic keeps sending me...
posted by Banknote of the year at 11:31 PM on September 10, 2015




I can't wait to wake up from this dream and be 14 years old again.
posted by Token Meme at 12:13 AM on September 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


I have heard that NG was sinking financially, and that it was this or go under.
posted by pracowity at 12:23 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


The anthropology/sociology room in my high school had a cupboard filled with 30 years worth of back issues. Perhaps others know of institutions or places where stockpiles have accumulated over the years?

A quick search on ebay shows several people like this selling sets of back issues for about what it costs for a current subscriptions.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 12:28 AM on September 11, 2015


To me, the best part of National Geographic was the maps, and they replaced those with the execrable "posters" years ago.
BrotherCaine: Smithsonian subscription page.
Smithsonian has declined so rapidly in quality that my Old Man, a member and subscriber for almost 50 years, cancelled it.

It's kind of a shame that these kinds of societies — Dad used to be a supporting member of Mystic Seaport too — have suffered so greatly under neo-liberal economic doctrines. They can only really flourish when working families can afford to support them.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:51 AM on September 11, 2015 [11 favorites]


At this point, it really would be better to buy someone's old stockpile of the magazine and read one issue a month, in order, cover to cover, until you die. "Oh, look. Hillary has made it to the top of Everest!" and so on.
posted by pracowity at 1:25 AM on September 11, 2015 [12 favorites]


This was the first place I ever worked after college, in the early nineties. Wow.

I'm a little shocked, I could say a lot about what this organisation was. In some ways, it was archaic. It was a elite gentlemen's exploring society that found itself with an natural genius editor in the 1920s (Gilbert Grosvenor) as its first full time employee. Under his watch, the magazine began a rapid expansion and the Society an unintended media organisation in the package of a non-profit. In those days, non-profits meant "spend the unintended profits". Thus the hq, the staff, the cafeteria in which Swiss pastry chefs toiled (and I used to eat Maryland She-Crab soup for 50 cents). This all built to a head until the peak in the late 80s, from which the magazine circulation has now gone down to a third.

There's a few things going on here, there's TV (which was always a slightly uncomfortable fit). The rest of NGS also used to keep the NGTV at a slight arm's length. They hemmed and hawed, and Discovery Channel took their brand on the airwaves, then they played catch up. TV is a different medium, and its hard to avoid the dumbing down impulse for any broadcaster. When I was there we used to fact check every script with 3 sources for every assertion of fact. They were jealous of their credibility, but I suspect that doesn't happen any more.

It was an strange place to work, full of good intentions, smart (though unnaturally blue-blooded) people, and occasionally very odd office politics. Maddening, yet an unconscious part of me always hopes to end up back there in the way it doesn't exist any more, like a salmon.

The revolution in print and digital and media economics is just an unbreakable wave

This acquisition makes me sad, even while I realise that the old NGS was not perfect and probably, as Brian Wilson says, "just not made for these times".

I hope they haven't sold their soul to save their future, though.
posted by C.A.S. at 1:37 AM on September 11, 2015 [33 favorites]


I just re-upped my subscription, too.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:41 AM on September 11, 2015


Just as one example of how the old National Geographic used to work, photographers were king. The NGM earned their reputation as the leading visual media brand, and guarded it jealously.

Each magazine story (4 per issue?) used to be allowed months of shooting, unlimited travel budgets,, and shoot an average of 15-20,000 frames per story (by still the greatest photographers ever), edited down to the best dozen or so by an army of picture editors. I don't even think Life Magazine in its prime put so many resources into its visual storytelling. Its hard to imagine that this would be sustainable for ever.

I once was hired by Discovery Channel to assess a natural film library that they acquired. It was from a guy who made natural history films for NGTV in the seventies and eighties. In those days, NG only owned the shots used in the final cuts, and this guy sold 500 hours of old natural history film reels (that someone else paid all the expenses to produce) for several million dollars. It was a funny old world, and now its gone reality tv. No one will be buying stock footage film libraries of Greatest Catch or Honey Boo Boo in the future.
posted by C.A.S. at 1:47 AM on September 11, 2015 [14 favorites]


This is an interesting insight into the struggle for the soul of the Society in the last 10 years of decline and challenge. Although it has the slight "pissing into the wind" feel at this point.

Society Matters Blog

Societymatters.org
posted by C.A.S. at 1:53 AM on September 11, 2015 [6 favorites]


So it'll be like the National Geographic TV channel, basically? Because that's always (as long as I've known about it) been all about "Look at this badass military stuff", "Supermax prisons are cool as shit", "How cops are nice people with difficult and dangerous jobs who definitely shouldn't need to care more about black people", and some sort of "Rugged living/working redneck manly men" show.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:01 AM on September 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


On the same topic, after working for NGS, I spent many years doing a lot of work with Discovery Channel/TLC.

Even that world, which was NOT non-profit, is subject to a boatload of change. It was always privately owned with a mix of owner capital and private equity from Liberty media.

Since I've left that world, the founder sold out and the company has gone public, a wave of constant executive change is a constant, and the golden boom years of cable tv is probably not long for this world.

Yet the CEO cashed out so much last year that even with an average salary of 80k in the company Discovery has the highest CEO to Average Salary ratio of all public companies.

Discovery CEO Pay

Glassdoor Discovery
posted by C.A.S. at 2:03 AM on September 11, 2015


C.A.S.: " No one will be buying stock footage film libraries of Greatest Catch or Honey Boo Boo in the future."

After the apocalypse, what fragments remain of Honey Boo Boo footage will form the basis of a new socio-religious order, presided over by a 6-year old God-Empress.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:03 AM on September 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Something about this deal seems squatchy to me.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:39 AM on September 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


.
posted by acb at 3:03 AM on September 11, 2015


Special Bigfoot edition!
posted by buzzman at 3:46 AM on September 11, 2015


"You don't like coconuts? Say, brainless: don't you know where coconuts come from?"
posted by steef at 4:25 AM on September 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm really sad about this. For me - and millions of others like me - the Nat Geo Society is Nat Geo Magazine. It's the only way I heard about its work, it exposed this scrappy farm kid in rural QLD Australia with a vast panoply of different cultures, and worlds which I never knew. It was thorough, exhaustive, and even when I couldn't understand the stories the pictures spoke to me so deeply. I have been a subscriber for years, even as two young kids steadily wittled down the percentage of a given issue I could work through.

Fox, and everything it stands for - including the execrable nat geo tv - is the antithesis of what I believe nat geo should stand for, on every level. I can't believe the board would do this - they are custodians of an incredibly valuable brand; even if they magazine doesn't change a bit, they've just pissed it down the toilet overnight. An endorsement (or disendorsement) from nat geo mag will lose any meaning whatsover.

Additionally, I expect the magazine will change, substantially. Subscriptions have always been insanely cheap, half the newstand price - I expect prices to double. Ads have been muted and very few; I expect them to at least double as well.

Horrible news. I actually feel a bit betrayed by this.
posted by smoke at 4:29 AM on September 11, 2015 [10 favorites]


I recently read a few issues while waiting for someone in a doctor's office. Either they have seriously dumbed down the magazine, or my memories of it are wildly inflated. It still has pretty pictures, but the articles weren't impressive. But even so they were direct about climate change and other scientific issues, and it would be very sad if that were to change under the new regime.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:16 AM on September 11, 2015


My dad is an archaeologist and wrote about his digs and discoveries for the magazine many times over a nearly 40-year span starting in the early 60s. It was always a thrill to see him and his colleagues (and in one photo, the back of my mulletted 13-year-old head) in the magazine. So was visiting then-editor Gilbert Grosvenor's office in the late 70s, full of artifacts and objects from around the world. Sure, some of the magazine's earlier anthropological articles seems distinctly cringey today. But the magazine evolved.

The sale to Fox was probably inevitable. Today I'm flying home from a huge content-marketing event in Cleveland, and it's a little disheartening seeing how many writers and editors, including myself, now put their skills into selling brands and products instead of informing and enlightening, while the great journalistic institutions falter one by one.

A couple of years ago one of my kids got this piece-of-crap toy robot for Christmas. The fact that it was a NG-branded product seemed doubly sad as it stuttered, stopped, emitted a burning rubber smell and died under the Christmas tree.
posted by bassomatic at 5:34 AM on September 11, 2015 [9 favorites]


"When I was young," there's nothing I loved more than in my idle time to get monstrously baked and watch some nature shit on TV. Are kids no longer doing this? Is there not a hidden untapped market of college stoners for your space and flyover-style arctic adventure shows in glorious HD?
posted by echocollate at 5:34 AM on September 11, 2015


It is a very sad day that this once great institution has finally been disconnected from life support. I haven't subscribed in 10 years at least. Do they still give out free maps every 3rd issue or so? That must cost a lot of money so say goodbye to that for sure if it hasn't happened yet.
posted by bukvich at 5:50 AM on September 11, 2015


I might just have to open the offer letters that Canadian Geographic keeps sending me...

Sadly, Canadian Geographic is actually in a much worse state, having recently decided to take money from the tar sands lobby (including the Koch Brothers) to create a slick website for misingforming children. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: EnergyIQ
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:53 AM on September 11, 2015 [6 favorites]


Does Dick Smith's Australian Geographic still exist? And would the answer to the previous question have ever been relevant to this discussion?
posted by acb at 6:09 AM on September 11, 2015


My current subscription runs through November. It will not be renewed.
posted by easily confused at 12:38 AM on September 11


That was my first reaction, but I don't know that it's the right one. Not saying it's wrong, just this leaves me upset and confused as to what to do.

Might there be good that comes out of it?
posted by glaucon at 6:25 AM on September 11, 2015


"When I was young," there's nothing I loved more than in my idle time to get monstrously baked and watch some nature shit on TV. Are kids no longer doing this? Is there not a hidden untapped market of college stoners for your space and flyover-style arctic adventure shows in glorious HD?

No, because that nature shit is not shown on TV anymore, at all. Go ahead, flip through your 900 cable channels and try to find David Attenborough, I'll wait. Can't find any? Now how many channels were showing Pawn Stars or Ice Road Truckers?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:26 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


I can't believe the board would do this - they are custodians of an incredibly valuable brand...

The saddest part of your comment, is that you consider the worst thing they could do is to piss away a valuable brand. Never mind the implied documentary ideals that the magazine upheld.

NatGeo brought the world into my home as I was growing up. I valued what I believed were independent observations of life in places that I would likely never see in my lifetime. How will the stories and journalistic ideals contained within change, now that the mag is controlled by Fox?
posted by Snowflake at 6:38 AM on September 11, 2015


b1tr0t: There is irony, but the National Geographic Society will continue operating and see its endowment grow to close to one billion dollars.

What you seem to be missing in your dollar count is that many of us are worried it will be the National Geographic Society in name only. If it becomes, even slightly by degrees, an extension of the Rupert Murdoch Misinformation and Propaganda Monster, all that money will be bad for us, and for the legacy of the institution.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:52 AM on September 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


I actually hope this sort of feeling is something everyone experiences as they get older - that the giants of their generation are falling, and the offered replacements are pitifully inadequate.

I hope this because it would be very sad for me to think we're heading downward vice upward.
posted by Mooski at 7:00 AM on September 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


I am upset because (among other things) the National Geographic Society was a reliable source of grants for observational, natural history type research and expeditionary archaeology and paleontology. Take a look at the recipients of Explorer and Young Explorer grants. How many Jane Goodalls and Louis Leakeys and conservationists are they going to support in the future? Who is going to decide the scientific merit of their projects?
posted by ChuraChura at 7:09 AM on September 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


No, because that nature shit is not shown on TV anymore, at all. Go ahead, flip through your 900 cable channels and try to find David Attenborough, I'll wait. Can't find any? Now how many channels were showing Pawn Stars or Ice Road Truckers?

Don't know about cable, but you can get it on Netflix. I've watched a number of my favorite Attenborough-narrated visual glories there.

And yes, I know a few young folk who I'm quite sure would happily pick up the blaze-up-and-marvel-at-nature activity.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:37 AM on September 11, 2015


Who is going to decide the scientific merit of their projects?

"So You Think You're A Nature Reasearcher?" coming soon on Thursday nights to FOX!
posted by Talez at 7:45 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, i think the Nat Geo glory days are a long time gone. We were having beers with Emory Kristof one time and he regaled us with tales of how he got the magazine to fund ridiculous stuff like submarines and even he seemed to find it unbelievable when looking back.
posted by snofoam at 8:16 AM on September 11, 2015


"Anyhow, the page 3 will likely not change much under new management." -- posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:06 AM

My, uh... pornography... at an early age was copious quantities of Nat Geo from the 50s-70s (not sure the precise range of dates, here).

Was about to make a page 3 joke, ctrl-f'd... not disappointed.

Seriously though. I get that the TV channel sucked - the website mostly sucks, too. I don't even know if I'd consider the magazine up to what it used to be, but maybe that's just me being cynical. Still, the magazine was fairly good.

I honestly couldn't give two shits if the properties were the TV Channel and the Website. But the magazine is like flagship product and now? Ugh.

I mean, ok, they have more money to do their work, but at the same time, to me, part of that work is providing education to the public in a good solid way.

Though I suppose, at least according to a blog linked previously in this thread, even that was tainted for a while.... So who knows. It's one thing to have a sin of omission (Hedge's Egypt report being pulled), but another to outright lie (which is what I fear will be the case when Rupert gets his filthy-lucred-mitts on it).
posted by symbioid at 9:28 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


The Science Channel, despite being a Discovery property and their sweeps-week obsession with Punkin' Chunkin', is generally pretty good for documentary type stuff. There's a lot of middling How It's Made, Time Warp, etc, plus a fair number of hour or more shows about astronomy and physics.
posted by wierdo at 9:29 AM on September 11, 2015


OYYYY.

re: all the comments on the National Geographic Society and grants/support for, specifically, scientific research: optimistic possible example: Templeton Foundation?

Maybe truth-deniers have accepted their misdeeds and shall henceforth nurture big mama earth.

re: climate change (Rather polemic) tangent, by Jonathan Chait (lol). Was planning to later post this as a thread on the here blue; surprisingly relevant here, incidentally.

Also ambivalent that ideologically boycotting and dismissing it would be the solution here, but alas, what power can we claim?

SHOPPING!!! (For AskMeFi tag/sweaters, heh.)
posted by pos at 9:38 AM on September 11, 2015


Just cancelled my auto renew subscription.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:42 AM on September 11, 2015


Seems to fit Murdoch's pattern. He got rich by buying failing publications and adding bare-breasted women.
posted by JackFlash at 10:16 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


Awww, this has been the only magazine I've been subscribed to for years. :(
posted by Ms. Moonlight at 10:30 AM on September 11, 2015


When did the magazine stop featuring bare breasted women?
posted by wierdo at 10:32 AM on September 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


I've been a subscriber since 1968. Back then, despite the reputation for photographs of non-westerners in their non-western garb -- or lack thereof -- the National Geographic magazine was quite stodgey, conservative, and above all, apolitical.

What I've see change in the last few years: The maps and graphics have got better, the photography has got MUCH better -- stunning, even -- and the editorial line has become sublty more political. At some point, they stopped avoiding controversy and the writing and story choices began to shown an increasing advocacy orientation with respect to environmental degradation, climate science, bio-ethics -- a whole host of relevant contemporary issues that they'd never have touched before, say, the mid 1990s.

I don't know whether these evolutions argue for or against a turn in the opposite direction -- toward protection of corporate privileges rather than protection of nature.

Maybe it means the 'door has been opened' for advocacy journalism in National Gee, subject to the whims of whoever controls the presses; maybe it means there are more hands on the wheel already, steering away from such a turn; maybe it predicts mass firings or resignations.

It's a disturbing turn of events, but I am not ready to abandon ship just because of this change of ownership.

Not yet.
 
posted by Herodios at 11:22 AM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


"When I was young," there's nothing I loved more than in my idle time to get monstrously baked and watch some nature shit on TV. Are kids no longer doing this? Is there not a hidden untapped market of college stoners for your space and flyover-style arctic adventure shows in glorious HD?

I am 28 and getting super high and watching nature documentaries is my version of a day at the spa.
posted by invitapriore at 1:01 PM on September 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


"I don't know whether these evolutions argue for or against a turn in the opposite direction -- toward protection of corporate privileges rather than protection of nature.

Maybe it means the 'door has been opened' for advocacy journalism in National Gee, subject to the whims of whoever controls the presses; maybe it means there are more hands on the wheel already, steering away from such a turn; maybe it predicts mass firings or resignations.

It's a disturbing turn of events, but I am not ready to abandon ship just because of this change of ownership.

Not yet."



Hear hear, Herodios.
posted by pos at 1:06 PM on September 11, 2015


Maybe Murdoch will turn it away from advocacy, but back to stodgy apoliticalness. Because then when people accuse his media empire of right-wing bias, he can use a not-right-wing yet neutral National Geographic as a lightning rod to deflect (wrong verb?) criticism. So it'd be different from the current NG, but not as bad as it could be.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:00 PM on September 11, 2015


The sort of gentlemanly gee-whizery the old sock is famous for these days is hardly a threat to entrenched ideologues like Murdoch.
posted by clvrmnky at 4:00 PM on September 11, 2015


Maybe the National Geographic brand (which ultimately derives from the magazine) will be too important for Fox to mess with. That's my hope, anyway. They'll continue to turn the cable channel and merchandising and whatnot into a schlocky media empire, but leave the Magazine as a loss leader and brand definer.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:02 PM on September 11, 2015


Inside this issue:
The Sahara - Phew what a scorcher!
The great white shark - It'll bite yer bum!
posted by w0mbat at 1:47 AM on September 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


If we lose this, then mankind has truly sold its soul to the highest bidder.
posted by infini at 2:21 AM on September 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


That's a good point. The eponymous Magazine is the face of the National Geographic Society, but they have a whole family of other publications, with many local versions of each, and a book publishing arm as well. Hopefully they can all keep going.
posted by Kevin Street at 9:48 AM on September 12, 2015


Tom the Dancing Bug nails it as usual.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:21 PM on September 16, 2015


John Baez: "Some publications have Public Editors who investigate complaints of editorial interference. Please click the link and sign this petition asking National Geographic to get one too!"

'24,836 actions taken—99% of our goal of 25,000' :P
posted by kliuless at 11:56 AM on September 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older The Right to Repair   |   Llanfairpwllgwyngyll​gogerychwyrndrob​wllllantysiliogogogoch... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments