After 127 years as a purely for-information, not-for-profit publication, National Geographic has been pulled into Rupert Murdoch's media-industry fold. In a $723 million deal, 73 percent of shares in National Geographic were bought up by the media mogul who owns companies such as 21st Century Fox; only 23 percent of shares remain with the Geographic Society. Although announcements from Murdoch's son James have stated that the integrity of National Geographic will remain intact, skeptics are voicing their opinions.
During its century-long publication as a non-profit magazine, National Geographic has produced some of the most visually stunning photo stories and given the world a view into every major scientific discovery made by man. It has also printed some of the most well known photographs of all time. The question on many lips is how that integrity will survive under the pressure of producing a profit, as well as being under ownership of a man whose empire is responsible for the infotainment-style journalism of Fox News, which is in partnership with National Geographic Television.
Over the past two weeks since the acquisition, Internet users have taken to social media platforms to express their unease. Twitter and Facebook have been bombarded with parodies of National Geographic's covers, which have been augmented to include Fox News style headlines and Murdoch's famous skepticism about climate change. It should be noted, however, that despite their 73 percent share, the Murdoch media group will only have a 50 percent representation on the board of the newly formed National Geographic Partners.
In the modern world, with the freedom of information we now enjoy, it can be difficult for a non-profit such as the National Geographic Society to survive. So, the flip side of this coin is that we may see a bigger and better National Geographic with even more funding for its stories as the cash begins to flow. FastCompany did an interesting write-up on this side of the story. The changes that this new partnership will bring will be carefully watched, and National Geographic's reputation as one of the finest scientific magazines in production will rest on how the changes are interpreted.
For the sake of the continuation of this visually stunning magazine, I hope that the injection of funding this partnership brings is used to continue this staple of print media long into the future as the industry leader it has always been. It will be interesting to see where it goes after the deal is closed.
How do you feel about this deal? Will National Geographic endure the inevitable influence of mainstream media funding, or will it wither into mediocrity?
How does something like this happen? More importantly, how long before other important nonprofits are bought by corporations looking to silence social and political opposition?
it happens because NatGeo turned to the left and in all likelihood saw a drop in subscribers as a result. don't forget that Fox and NatGeo have been in partnership for quite sometime (see NatGeo channels)
Oh, I see, how did I miss that? So I guess this was you the other night too:
http://tinyurl.com/plhnp2o
I'm not overly concerned. I feel like Australia fucks things up much less than America, in general. They acknowledge the ozone issue with free cancer screenings for everyone, twice a year. Schoolkids can't even play outside if they forget their hat. They banned plastic grocery bags to protect their waterways. Their abundance of sugarcane is used for sugar and rum, as opposed to our insistence on the meth-lab process of creating corn sugars, due to government subsidies. Murdoch already has deep pockets, and I can't see him wanting to line them further at the expense of quality. Only time will tell.
"Murdoch already has deep pockets, and I can't see him wanting to line them further at the expense of quality." Yeah, apparently you don't know Murdoch very well.
A for-profit NG is better than no NG. I think we have ourselves to blame here.
A for-profit NG *is* no NG.
I simply cannot think of a single for-profit corporation that places the importance of integrity over the importance of its shareholders or corporate for-profit advertisers. And if there was one for-profit company in the history of humanity that I would trust the least to do so, it would be Fox. I think we're in complete denial to think that it won't have any effect on what National Geographic produces, and whether or not the words in its pages will continue to be taken with such virtue as it has in the past. Only time will tell, but, well, a for-profit company by definition needs to make a profit, so I think we're all fairly aware of how this story is likely to unfold.
Without the stories and photos, the magazine is nothing. If they try to take cut expenses there, then there will simply be no more magazine, which is not a smart business move. It already has a huge circulation, and I'm sure Murdoch has advertisers lined up.
How much have you donated the to the National Geographic Society?
Over the past 30 years, myself, I've donated plenty as a subscriber and to various pursuits of theirs I believe in. And if we count the 55 years that my father has been a subscriber and part of the society, that's plenty more. And we've already both ended up subscriptions immediately. Not a single dollar of mine will go to help line Murdoch's pocket. And, speaking of donating, well, I guess another byproduct is it's no longer a tax write-off...
And yes, the magazine is nothing without the stories and photos, but it's not beyond an organization to take something over, use it for what it's worth, including Murdoch's advertisers, and squeeze it for what they can while they can. That's called capitalism. 'Strike while the iron's hot etc etc.' I don't think it'll be drastic and immediate by any means. It'll take time. And on that same token, yes, I don't think they'll cut expenses on the stories and photos, it's just the nature of the stories and photos they'll be publishing in the future. That's where my concern lies. As soon as the first climate change skeptic piece pops up on their pages, refer back to this conversation.
I can respect your opinion, and your position on this. But do the math. If the magazine is worth roughly a billion dollars, it would be foolish to change too much, and there is really no way to extract a huge profit, then dump it.
I think it will take some time before we can judge what will happen. Businessmen are still businessmen -- they want to turn a profit. Say what you want about Murdoch, but he's not stupid. People can make mistakes, sure...but my money is betting that he knows enough to not change too much about how the magazine operates. I think it'll be okay...again, because they want to make money at this, not lose subscribers.
Of course, his own politics and views will turn some away as some have already stated. But they'll gain some love, too, from other corners of the country. Largely, though, I think we'll have to wait and see. It's just too early to start assuming this is the end (although the parody covers are cracking me up, admittedly...but really, why do really need so many animals??? Joking, joking! Relax, guys...).
Its funny watching everyone get their knickers in a knot over this. since the late 90s early aughts NatGeo has moved to the left with their editorial content. at one time they published objective non-partisan articles, sad to say they don't anymore they push climate change and the gospel of the environmentalists.
Nat Geo hasn't moved to the left, it's the right has moved away from science and reason to superstition and greed. Call it as it is.
Troll.
Right back at you. Just like all conservatives, as soon as someone disagrees with you, you immediately start insulting or call them a troll to shut them up. Unfortunately for you I've earned my free speech by serving this great nation by wearing the uniform for 18+ years so far, so you can shove it.
You're the first person to ever call me a conservative, and I suspect you're the last. But it's your right to be wrong, so bask in that.
As for the right to free speech, that was granted to all of us well before you were even born, so don't get too full of yourself. By your logic, do those that have not served have no right to free speech?
NG has been corrupt for years. Pushing global warming propaganda lots of back door dirty deals. Now they've joined the larger gang of media criminals. Goodbye NG...
You have some real characters here Fstoppers...
NG = climate conspirationist and leftist? Gimme a fucking break!
As a former Fox News employee I can assure you that there will be editorial changes. Murdoch does not separate business and politics. I have been reading NG since I was a child, but I fear in a couple of years the magazine will look like USA Today. It is unfortunate that NG did not find private equity funding or other investors that would have allowed it to remain independent. The only means to voice our displeasure now as consumers is to not renew our NG subscriptions.
Anyone who's donated to them should ask for their money back.
I thought we come here to talk about photography?
One of the great things about National Geographic is that their powerful published photographs illustrate perils to our planet.
The images show rising sea levels, receding glaciers, massive forest fires, drought, collapsing ecosystems and our earth that is not flat. These images tell important stories regardless of whether you are left wing, right wing, or wear a uniform. If climate change and abuse of eco systems is a hoax, then good for you. I value the unretouched story telling from National Geographic photographers.
Unfortunately from what I've seen of NG TV shows is a lot of sensationalism. They've actually left educational TV for edutainment TV long ago.
My comments were in regards to NG Magazine and their contributing photographers and editorial staff. Their editor is a former staff photographer. I am deeply troubled by Shark Week and similar televised programs that demonize animals for profit. Photography can be a powerful tool for education and a call to action.
I welcome more features on documentary photography on Fstoppers.com