Posted on 09/10/2015 11:38:18 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic. Here’s the problem everybody should be talking about.
The media was up in arms yesterday at news of Murdoch's high-profile acquisition. Here's what you should know.
The news that National Geographic has now been placed in the hands of Rupert Murdoch prompted a predictable outcry, roughly akin to what happens in the movies when the clearly evil tycoon takes the orphans away. A bastion of popular science is now controlled by a very prominent climate change denier who, despite his company’s assurances of editorial integrity, has spent decades interfering with the independence of his properties. A tabloid king could now apply the values of the New York Post to one of the world’s oldest magazines.
I’d be the last to tell anybody not to worry when Murdoch comes to town, but some of the agita missed the fact that National Geographic has had a long partnership with Murdoch’s media empire, most notably through the Nat Geo TV channel. (You didn’t think Nat Geo was airing all of those Bill O’Reilly documentaries because of their educational value, did you?) National Geographic may be sacrificing its non-profit status, but Wednesday’s deal partially cemented what had already been put in place.
Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take anything away from how unsettling it feels to see a stalwart brand like National Geographic go down such a blatantly commercial path. It has whiffs of the creepiness that surrounded the announcement that HBO will now be the primary home for “Sesame Street.” Both events highlighted the deplorable lack of a non-profit media infrastructure in the United States.
America spends a fraction of the money other industrialized countries do on public media. Networks like the BBC or CBC are far from perfect, but they have a commitment to public service broadcasting that puts American networks to shame. PBS, a mere minnow in this universe, still produces programs on art, science and history that would never make it onto a broadcast network. If you want anything beyond weather reports, top 40 and horrible people discussing sports, public radio is pretty much the only game in town.
Of course, public media in and of itself is not the answer. The news that PBS or NPR produce, for instance, is often as bland and corporate-friendly as the news on any of its rivals, and public broadcasters are often subject to government pressure. But it’s noteworthy that PBS’s biggest troubles have inevitably come from the compromises it has made with business interests in an effort to secure more funding.
There are those who point to cable, with its hundreds of channels, and say it negates the need for more public broadcasting, but that ignores history. Look at the History Channel, or Bravo, or A&E, or TLC. All of them started out doing very worthy things. Then they realized there was more money in moving downmarket. Now, History does lots of reality shows about loggers, and while Andy Cohen is definitely providing a needed public service, it’s pretty clear that his stuff would be out of place on PBS.
I’m not against any of these channels. Who doesn’t love Bravo? But it’s a problem when one beloved public or non-profit institution after another throws up its hands and decides it has to go corporate. More to the point, “Sesame Street” was only able to thrive because it came about during the relatively brief period when the government was actively behind the expansion of public broadcasting. If we don’t figure out how to give more support to public and non-profit media, there’s no guarantee that the next “Sesame Street”—or, for that matter, the next National Geographic—will even get off the ground.
There’s a thing called the internet, you can listen to ANYTHING now. Even radio airchecks from decades past. Or podcasts or small market radio stations/programs, etc.
Who needs NPR?
it never was a science journal...... it was all about geography and maps, exploration and topless native women
Leafing through old NGs is a pivotal part of any youngsters’ development.
It opens up new worlds to young minds.
I noted that the articles were much more literate and fact-based in the old days.
Every home with kids should possess a large pile of old NG magazines.
Years ago, someone made the point that they call it pornography when it’s a white woman and anthropology when it’s a black woman.
A brutally, truthful observation.
“If we don’t figure out how to give more support to public and non-profit media, there’s no guarantee that the next “Sesame Street”—or, for that matter, the next National Geographic—will even get off the ground.”
So government financed TV guarantees that the next Sesame Street or Nat Geo will get off the ground? Wow what arrogance. Of course the author will be glad to tell us what should be financed.
Liberals of course believe the 1st means “right to be heard” which means someone has to be forced to pay for their idiotic speech. They just haven’t yet figured out hot to make us listen, and then respond according to their wishes. But they are getting around to it.
The amount paid? 725 million is listed for the Murdoch deal. What they are getting? It’d be curious....if they revert back to the old standard....tens of thousands of people would re-engage with the subscription business.
NG is an iconic brand. Like the Boy Scouts. The left infiltrates these institutions to surreptitiously influence the body politic.
With the Muslims destroying all the ancient historical sites, what will NATGEO be doing stories on ?
Life Insurance talk
I agreed with that philosophy from the late 60’s to the late 90’s. Over the past fifteen years...no. I wouldn’t advise any kid to waste time with the slanted material that NG puts out.
I will readily admit...between NG and Argosy Magazine...it was probably half my knowledge base as a twelve-year-old kid. A guy could write up a six-page essay on head-hunters in the Pacific and I’d absorb every single word of the whole article. Go look at NG today...they probably haven’t done a head-hunter essay in thirty years. How many global warming essays per year on average? I’ll bet at least forty-related articles from 120-odd essays that they publish.
In the old days. NG today is just leftist propaganda.
In the middle of our homeschooling years in the early 2000s I ended the subscription.
really , I always understood it as an euphemism for the farmer dying and his insurance paying the mortgage.
“A bastion of popular science is now controlled by a very prominent climate change denier”
well, well, well... the propaganda of the leftist progressives might be challenged. GOOD science is ALWAYS about challenging the status quo. The arrogance of the LEFTist scientists has stymied real research into climate change for far too long. Maybe “real” science will be placed on the pages of this once awesome magazine.
I’m really enjoying the Progressive hand-wringing on this.
I waded into a FB debate on the subject last night. In response to some Proggie’s “I dont want them to become biased” lament I said:
“They already are. Or don’t you believe portraying Moon landing conspiracy theorists as mainstream and widespread in order to attack religious belief* to be bias?”
* that was in their recent “War on Science”’ edition btw.
You still can find neat stuff in them, occasionally. Their coverage and sponsorship for Ballard’s expeditions for instance. AND remeber that they helped sponsor the raising, excavation and preservation of the CSS Hunley.
So there’s still a bit if the old Nat Geos I loved to brouse through and buy for $0.25 a pop at church book sales left in the place.
buy the farm. To die, espescially in combat; most likely from the idea that a dead soldier's death benifit would serve to pay off his family's morgtage.
Just the pictures of those African tribes though. :-)
Last year my family subscribed to NG for one year for a special rate of $ 12. We charged it to a credit card. Last month the credit card showed a NG renewal at $ 19. We did not intend to renew but somewhere in all the papers we had agreed to perpetual renewals. On my phone call they agreed to unsubscribe us.
I’ve noticed a lot of companies are using that ploy, whereby you have to opt-out or you’re in forever.
Just as many totalitarian leaders do, the superficial propaganda of “Church, Cooking, Children” served the state by not alienating the church, and keeping the woman working hard in their ordained role. We see this again with Putin’s octopal embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church with his tentacles. We had Franco in Spain and the Catholic Church, etc. etc. Of course these people were all murdering scum.
My mom got me a subscription when I was a kid, I enjoyed it, then.
Sesame Street is on HBO now?
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.