NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC PROPAGANDIZES KIDS

LifeSite ^ | Monday April 7, 2003

[nickcarraway]

LifeSite, April 7, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - National Geographic's Kids magazine has just sent its young readers a special issue titled 'Save the Earth'. An 11 page section of the edition, headlined 'Save the Planet', discusses '5 Big Problems Facing the Earth'.

The 'Alert missions' given to the young readers in 5 brief articles are global warming, pollution, declining biodiversity, overpopulation, and habitat destruction.

The Global Warming article warns many scientists predict that "temperatures may continue to rise by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit over the next hundred years" and that "heat is melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, which causes sea levels to rise. Millions of people who live along coasts may be threatened by flooding from rising seas."

The articles does not mention that there is still intense disagreement among many of the world's leading scientists about the extent, causes and actual effects of global warming.

The overpopulation article notes that "someday there may be more people on earth than there is food to go around."

[Zipporah]

What else from those who employed Peter Arnett..??

[Bobber58]

Yes, We have noticed this in the past.
No more socialist geographic in our house. :)

[CyberAnt]

Looks like they missed the 150 kids Saddam kept in one of his prisons. Some had been there for 5 years.

[Search4Truth]

The NY Times has infiltrated the Discovery channel. They are preaching the same garbage now.

[mom-7]

So much for National Geographic. In the trash can.

[D Rider]

"The overpopulation article notes that "someday there may be more people on earth than there is food to go around.""

Yep, cyclical warming always follows with a sudden chill (iceage). This time when the Vikings flee Greenland, I say we make'em stay in thier boats! Don't need all those extra mouths to feed.

[Blue Screen of Death]

I have always wondered why big corporations like Ford and GM buy ads in National Geographic. The magazine spends page after page attacking big business then expect support from the very businesses it is attacking.

[NewMexLurker]

Over 30 years ago I started my membership in Nat'l Geo. I was still in high school and used my own money I earned working at a gas station to pay for it. At the time, and for many years afterwards, I loved that magazine. About 10 years ago or so I started noticing a definite trend to the left. It has become so bad that I can now barely make it through each issue. I imagine soon I will give up and cancel my membership, although it will break my heart to do so.

I've also noticed that Scientific American is going down this same sad road to the left. It's never been a right-wing kind of magazine, but the liberal bias these days is blatant. Has anyone else noticed that?

[chickenlips]

The NY Times didn't have to infiltrate the Discovery Channel. It is HQ'ed in the heart of Silver Spring, in the People's Republic of Montgomery County, MD and on the border of Takoma Park (motto: We're further left than North Korea) where this type of thinking flurishes.

Forgive me, I shouldn't say "thinking", let me change that to "emoting".

[DrewsDad]

Here is an article refuting the overpopulation panic called The Myth of Too Many

[NewMexLurker]

I like that "People's Republic" line. I stole it from someone else to refer to where I work - The People's Republic of Santa Fe.

[holden]

Irrespective that they fired Peta Arnett reflexively after the tremendous outcry over his Iraqi TV statements, they hired the guy knowing full well what he was like. Peter's sentiments are essentially their sentiments.

HF

[Doomonyou]

I only buy it for the pictures.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[okie01]

"I have always wondered why big corporations like Ford and GM buy ads in National Geographic. The magazine spends page after page attacking big business then expect support from the very businesses it is attacking."

It's called Protection PR, not advertising.

Keeps the Rent-a-Mob away from the front door of corporate headquarters. Besides which, it gives the corporate wives a foundation to "get involved in".

[tdadams]

Let me be the voice of dissent and defend NG on two points.

First of all, they did fire Peter Arnett immediately (not to say they weren't misguided to hire him in the first place).

Secondly, did the article about global warming blame it on the greenhouse effect? From what you wrote, there's no indication of that. I neither believe nor dispute the contention that the globe is warming. It may be, but that's probably only due to geothermic fluctuations and not a man made situation. If the NG article postulates that it's a man made problem, that's irresponsible, but I don't see you indicating that's what they wrote.

If they're simply writing about the phenomenon and informing readers about the consequences, I see that as informative and see no problem with it.