The month prior to the 2004 election....came the global warming edition. Every single page...every article...all dedicated to global warming. For roughly ten years I’d been a subscriber to the magazine. I wrote a simple eight line text and noted that I quit. It was a blatant effort to affect the outcome of the election.
Oddly, after that point, I even came to note the same behavior of Readers Digest and quit them.
I agree, if you go back to prior the mid 1990s....it was still a geographical magazine and worth reading. It flipped over and became simple garbage.
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.
I'd start subscriptions for my grandkids - just as my grandfather did.
Without looking at specific editions, I agree pepsionice. National Geographic was being taken over by the left even before 2000, following the destruction by the left of Scientific American, which once published popularized scientific papers by such as Kip Thorne and Alvin Weinberg. Some time in the 70s the antinuclear crowd began to get front page articles. I believe even the fraud so beloved by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel Amory Lovins, now on a retainer by his comrade John Holdren our Presidential Science Advisor, got published. Any scientist who knows of Lovins and Holdren should rue the day their work appears next to such rubbish.
Scientific American’s owner, perhaps a son, was a major supporter of the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist hotbed for decades. It took until 2012 for someone to illuminate what had gone on in our government for about 50 years, a remarkable penetration by utopian communists, many working for the KGB, of most all branches of our government. Alger Hiss was one of thousands, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins, were near the top, Hiss having helped create the UN, White defined Chiang Kai-Shek to put Mao in power and Hopkins ran Yalta and much else while FDR was dying, as explained by Diana West in American Betrayal.
Murdoch might return National Geographic to its focus on our remarkable geography and nature. His partner, in this case, is not Obama’s patron, Alwaleed bin Talal, who owned the second largest block of stock in News Corp, Pox News and the WSJ, after Murdoch. The comment about Murdoch’s son also rings true. He is a stalwart defender of Saudi Family issues, and runs a Riyadh-based cable network. These are businesses after all, and Al Jazeera is the largest cable network in the world. The Saudis need to apply petroleum earnings to anything profitable to pay their protectors in the West, who seem for the moment to have abandoned them for the other Islamic Republic still watching wells for the second coming. Perhaps National Geographic can direct is amazing photographers to illuminate humanity instead of acting propagandists for the left.
I received a gift subscription for N.G., it’s still, every page, a reference to “global warming” or “climate change”. Simply unreadable.
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.