Posted on 09/07/2004 7:29:53 AM PDT by ZGuy
This is not your father's National Geographic any more. Once a coffee table staple with gorgeous photos of people, places and things, it now more resembles a host of other slick lobbying mags, pushing today's popular issues.
Last month's cover story was "fat." This month it's global warming, a subject that actually lends itself to quantitative fact-checking, of which National Geographic apparently did little.
I will start with the first misrepresentation of facts. When I get to this article's word limit, I'll still have 75 percent of them left. . . .
It begins with a picture of a flooded rice field in Bangladesh . . .
The first article starts with the melting of Sperry Glacier. . .
Next column: "The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912." . ..
Two pages later, we read, "Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming." That's not true either.
Seven misleading statements in three pages. There are 28 more. When the truth gets this stretched, that's more than one person's work. Instead, it's a process, where scientists tell editors what they want to hear, editors don't check the facts and, ultimately, we all pay with very bad policies. Unfortunately, it's all predictable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The only two magazines I can stand reading are Guns & Ammo and my NRA Rifleman. I like my outdoor pictures seen through iron sights or a Leupold scope.
Well, have you noticed that these Green Pol Pots have managed to arrange to throw you in jail if you dare drive vehicles in Yosemite Park? It is now their private playground.
I would respect their commitment and honestly some, if they had banned motor vehicles from the park for themselves!
What's ideological about military spending? Clinton sent our armed forces on more deployments than any other president. Even John Kerry votes for military spending when he isn't voting against it.
National Geographic has been off my list for some time. It was a combination of the overt lefty politics and the rather obvious emphasis on using sex as a marketing tool. Back in the day, the sex in National Geographic was incidental (though of great importance to some FReepers, apparently). Lately, it looks more and more like they are intentionally highlighting the sexual aspect in order to sell the magazine. In a few years, NG will start to look more like Maxxim. This I don't need.
I mean, I like nekkid ladies as much as the next guy. I just don't like them to be everywhere.
Well, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are among those who believe that science, history and the environment did not exist before you were born.
If you can pick an issue from the 60's, compare it with a current issue as to percent of science content vs controlling twit crap, and not see a difference there isn't anything left that you can contribute to any discussion of science.
Another copernican dork.
Not only was this IPCC statement meaningless but it wasn't in the original report that most of the scientists agreed on.
The report was changed after they signed it.
I also got this month's global warming copy...and I decided enough was enough...I was going to stop my subscription. They dedicated almost 70 pages (double any previous subject in the entire history of the magazine). And it comes out just 3 months prior to the election. It was total eyewash. Even the editor hinted...that a few people might halt their subscription but this had to be done. My guess is that 15 percent of the members will quit the publication by next month. If I were the board, I'd fire the entire lot of them...and bring back the crowd from the 1970s. I can remember my dad preaching to me back in 1971...to read NG to be smart about geography. The whole magazine has sunk to a low and simply isn't worth reading. I've noticed several articles which historically were totally inaccurate...and should not have been printed. I've noticed articles that were biased to the 9nd degree...but obviously published. Its sad to drag down a good publication.
Nothing pollutes more than a paper mills, especially the ones that produce slick paper.
There is also talk about banning hiking in some places. The idea is that "non-indiginous" species of plants may be transported in the soles of hiking boots.
That is hilarious. A glance at any copy between 1938 and 1952 would have one believe it is a military/military aviation magazine.
There is a difference between a topical trend and a philosophical one. What is it about the "old" Geographic that made it maps and geography first and changing trends second?
Would the popularity of the magazine plummet if they honestly renamed it Environmental and Socialist Ignorant Trend of the Month?
Good post. I've been arguing with "someone" that NG has changed but they refuse to believe my perceptions. Now here's a bunch of the same perceptions.
That issue (Global Warning) was particularly annoying to me because the back even contained full-page legal notices.
Is NG pretending to be the journal of record for the international criminal court or something?
Don't read Backpacker. It's worse.
My subscription is an annual Christmas present from a long-time friend who asks each year if I want it to continue. I have answered "yes" more and more hesitantly the past coupla years, and I'm afraid that this year, it's gonna be "no." Used to love the magazine, and have some dating back to the early sixties (including the John Glenn orbital issue), but I guess the time has come to say buh-bye.
Sic transit etc.
Bump from a 1981-1985 NGS member
Just cancelled my subscription after 31 years. But I'm not sad about it - it's been several years at least since I looked forward to reading the magazine. Lately, reading the work of "luminaries" such as Joel Achenbach and Alexander Cockburn has become a chore.
ff, a Trains subscriber since 2000
I dropped my subscription years ago. They have gotten away from anthropology and geography and I learned that they make their maps with slave labor driven by whipping and fed with thin gruel. Besides, the che who did the mountain shading with airbrush retired.
35+ years ago,
one could take the board of directors of the NG and compare that list with the boards of directors of various globalist organizations--UN as well as other NGO's . . .
and there were a lot of the same names on the different lists.
Clearly, PUPPET MASTERS
There's an agenda.
A godless, satanic globalist government. The theme has been there all along.
It hasn't gone away. It's intensifying.
It's Biblically predicted. It's happening.
Wake up USA.
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.