Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Businesses Earth The Almighty Buck The Media News Science

Rupert Murdoch Buys National Geographic Magazine 286

Posted by timothy from the flat-earth-society-is-pleased dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rupert Murdoch Buys National Geographic Magazine More

Rupert Murdoch Buys National Geographic Magazine

Comments Filter:

  • Well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Forgefather ( 3768925 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:23PM (#50496921)

    "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.

  • The many into the few... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagickalMyst ( 1003128 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:25PM (#50496941)
    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.

    • Real journalism is almost dead in the 21st century anyway.

      Define "Real journalism," because I don't think it's dead, just changed. And maybe somewhat more rare and difficult to discern.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        If you can't tell that it's believable, does it count as "real journalism"? Perhaps is does if a historian will someday be able to validate it. Perhaps not.

        It's my opinion that "real journalism" requires trustworthy sources of information available to the reader, not only to the investigative reporter. And trust is subject to being lost when unethical activities are detected. (Also, unfortunately, when they are fabricated, if the fabrications can't be detected as such.) For news organization the prime

  • Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:25PM (#50496943)

    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.

  • Why the hate? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:31PM (#50497015)

    >> 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?

    • Re:Why the hate? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Todd Palin ( 1402501 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:43PM (#50497143)

      When the WSJ was sold the bias of the paper shifted not-so-subtly to the right. It may be a top-tier newspaper, but its bias clearly indicates it is a tool of the Murdoch empire.

      Comparing the WSJ to the Washington Post probably is appropriate since the Washington Post shares the right wing bias.

      The bottom line is that he owns way too many media outlets which tends to drown out other voices. The argument that any of his media outlets are truly independent is really a joke. They publish what he wants them to publish through direct, indirect, or implied influence. That is why the hate.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Trepidity ( 597 )

        The WSJ editorial pages have always been right-wing, even kind of angry cultural right-wing (not business-conservative, as you might expect from the title). But the news pages used to be strongly firewalled from the editorial, which I think is the main thing that's changed.

      • When the WSJ was sold the bias of the paper shifted not-so-subtly to the right.

        You faithfully read it 'before' and 'after' to state that definitely? Or are you just repeating something you heard from a college professor?

        • I have read the WSJ since about 1960. And no, I didn't hear it from a college Professor. I'm offering my opinion, which is a little different than "stating that definitely". Determining bias is always a little subjective, but I suspect your college professors would agree.

          How about you? Have you read it?

    • WSJ is still a top-tier newspaper in the same class as the NYT or Washington Post.

      Absolutely! As political rags they certainly are in the same class...

  • National Geographic magazine lost all credibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweilo8888 ( 921799 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:31PM (#50497019)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Trepidity ( 597 )

      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

    • 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.

      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.

      • 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.

      • Re:National Geographic magazine lost all credibili (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spinalcold ( 955025 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @03:49AM (#50501229)

        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.

  • Just the media part? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Berkyjay ( 1225604 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:32PM (#50497029)
    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.

    • Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?

      • Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?

        Same place they did before - donors.

        • That raises the question - what percentage of those donations were received from people who specifically liked the membership perk of receiving a nice colorful monthly magazine details some of the more interesting results?

        • Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?

          Same place they did before - donors.

          donors who like what they read in the magazine

      • Somebody already mentioned the donors. But I have to imagine the money Murdoch is paying for the media portion is significant enough to keep them solvent.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trepidity ( 597 )

        As far as I can tell, the arrangement will give them a share of the revenue. So they've basically licensed the magazine "brand" in return for a cut of the profits.

        I don't think this is really good stewardship of the organization, personally. They're a non-profit that is supposed to serve the public interest, and maintaining a non-profit magazine to inform the public is an important part of that. But if their goal is just to maximize money they have for grants, sure, it'll probably do that.

  • Like a punch to the gut (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bayoudegradeable ( 1003768 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:34PM (#50497049)
    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.

    • Re:Like a punch to the gut (Score:4, Funny)

      by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:43PM (#50497129)

      Who are you kidding? You were looking for the native's titties.

      • Maybe Murdoch will resurrect those kinds of articles in an effort to increase readership. Maybe that is what he thinks his followers like. He might be right.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:38PM (#50497085)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 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.

    • Woman was created from Adam's Rib
      liberal policies are destroying moral values witch are in turn destroying the planet

      • 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

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10, 2015 @01:43PM (#50497141)

    ...will all the topless native women be on page 3 now?

  • 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 ou

  • WRONG (Score:5, Informative)

    by SEE ( 7681 ) on Thursday September 10, 2015 @02:28PM (#50497565) Homepage

    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.

    • Second, they did not sell a controlling interest;

      You can still "control" and threaten to cripple an organization if you pull your funding, even if it's not "controlling".

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close