[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.

[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?

[DrewsDad]

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

[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

[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.