[Migraine]

I found the cover story of that issue of Geographic to be nothing more than an editorial, intended as a salvo in the evolution/creation foment. I agree with the premise of this post: the failure of the mag to acknowledge evolution's evidentiary difficulties, in effect, turned the mag into a rag. After 30 years, no more for me. Too shortsighted and polemical.

[Mr. Jeeves]

After 30 years, no more for me. Too shortsighted and polemical.

I had 31 years in, but the Global Warming and "FARC is Wonderful" articles did it for me.

I wonder how many other long-time subscribers are dropping the magazine, and if they are recruiting enough new Green Party activist readers to make up the difference?

[Ichneumon]

I agree with the premise of this post: the failure of the mag to acknowledge evolution's evidentiary difficulties, in effect, turned the mag into a rag.

Please state, in your own words, the "evidentiary difficulties" you feel that National Geographic has failed to acknowledge.

[R. Scott]

I quit renewing my subscription to National Geographic a few decades ago. It lost its objectivity – along with Smithsonian Magazine.