National Geographic sold to Rupert Murdoch


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Minor amounts of inexplicable sadness.


#3

Sad news, but a very interesting photo-collage. I never imagined anything but tired milky eyes behind that visage. The intensity of the eyes in the subject of Afghan Girl are unmistakable. Great work.


#4

Time to cancel my subscription.


#5


#6

I let mine lapse after that multi-page Cargill ad that credited the monopolistic big agriculture behemoth with remedying world hunger that ran alongside articles about GM crops.

At that point, I was like, “Welp, I can’t take THIS seriously anymore.”

NatGeo’s TV offerings have long been sub-History-Channel BS, to boot.

It’s disappointing that a beautiful exploration of our world doesn’t stand a chance of independent survival without wealthy monopolists supporting it. It’s like the HBO-Sesame Street thing: we should value these products more than we do as people, so that they didn’t feel pressured to surrender to overlords with other agendas.


#7

[sarcasm] Well, he did do wonderful things for Scientific American. [/sarcasm]


#8

Can somebody explain how a nonprofit organization can be purchased? Does this mean he’s turning it into a for-profit business?


#9

The $750m deal places the legendary nonprofit under 21st Century Fox’s control.

Verily, this is pretty misleading.

The magazines, websites and other media assets are being shifted to a new company majority owned by Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox

And thus the nonprofit itself remains independent.

Seems fairly inevitable to me, really. I’m surprised they managed to last even this long.


#10

Actually I think the parsing that the society is doing is more misleading.

The magazine IS the legendary non-profit. National Geographic Magazine, a very important institution in the US, and previously a non profit.

Now off in the background, far less visible, the society itself will continue as a non-profit. Doing some grant funding, paying its executives fat salaries, maintaining luxurious offices, throwing parties, etc.

But the legendary non-profit National Geographic Magazine is now a subdivision of Fox.


#11

From now on all of the Indigenous Cultures articles will be on page 3.


#12

I know 4pm is too early to be drunk, but didn’t I just comment on this article?


#13

I think Roger Ebert said it the best.

Fry and Laurie’s take being a close second.

https://vimeo.com/57263481


#14

You know he’s going to meddle. So fuck him, hope it goes under, I know I’ll never it buy it again. My advice to the editors, jump ship and start a new independent Geographic periodical and let Ruppy swing.


#15

Article in the next NatGeo:

Cheetahs: They always prosper.


#16

I’m sorry, I’m sad about this too, BUT DID NO ONE NOTICE THE PHOTO-SHOPPING OF RUPERT ON THE ARTICLE?


#17

Ugh. I let my subscription slip a couple of years ago, was thinking of renewing, and now, no way, man.

I am sad.


#18

Please be from April first, please be from April first, please be

SHIT.


#19

Shit. So that’s what happened. I picked up an issue the other day at the dealer getting some service done to the car, and tried to read the pile of shit. Every other page was an ad, multiple multipage ads, and every article I could find was like the scientific version of the gossip mags you see at the grocery checkout. A lot of headlines, very little useful substance, tons of hype, boring read.

How long has he had it? Did it always suck that much? I found myself contemplating reading better homes and gardens, and I hate that shit, just because that really would have been better, anything would have. I felt like I wasted 30 of my life, on something that intrinsically elsewhere makes me happy- science & tech.

What a steaming pile. First Fox, then scientific American, the Sun, the Globe, and now National Geographic?
Fuck. Is there any medium this man doesn’t cheapen and ruin?


#20

This is some BORG shit right here… MUST BUY/CONTROL EVERYTHING - BECAUSE!!!

barf.