Murdoch now owns 73% of National Geographic

[Mathy]

I feel very sad about this. That someone of Rupert Murdoch's ilk, now has majority control of this iconic organisation is a sad example of the way the world is. RIP NatGeo :(

http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/09/national-geographic-society-21st-century-fox-agree-to-expand-partnership/

[ameerat42]

I coMMISerate fully with you, Mathy.:(:(

[ricktas]

agree. National Geographic was a not for profit, and has donated huge sums of money to research etc over the years. Now it will become another tabloid rag, filled with ads and simply to support the financial bottom line of Mr Murdoch's companies. Sad day indeed.

[I @ M]

Yes, truly sad.
I had the misfortune to tune into the nat geo channel on the tv in a hotel a few months back.
It was unadulterated purile yankee doodle dandy crap and sadly the once admirable magazine will probably go down the same sewerage path.

[Mark L]

While I understand your dismay Mathy Newscorp have been a major shareholder for years and years now. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought a National Geographic magazines for years and years now.
From the article, "The additional resources will enable The National Geographic Society to basically double its investment in an array of science, research and education programs." And that may be a good thing??

[Mathy]

While I understand your dismay Mathy Newscorp have been a major shareholder for years and years now. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought a National Geographic magazines for years and years now.
From the article, "The additional resources will enable The National Geographic Society to basically double its investment in an array of science, research and education programs." And that may be a good thing??
I think Fox TV have owned the TV show up until now. Now they own 73% of the whole lot. What planet have you been living on with regard to the Murdoch press? Did that nasty little episode of phone hacking in the UK pass you by? NatGeo, now owned by an acknowledged climate change denier, and the organisation is about presenting the truth about science - doesn't compute for me :D

I'm puzzled, if the Board of NatGeo thought they needed a financial restructure (or whatever), why didn't they go to someone like Bill Gates or Richard Branson, both of whom would have given them a good hearing. But to sell to that prick OMG!

[ameerat42]

I Like BG because he makes us ALL philanthropists - by default!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
(Richard who--??:rolleyes::rolleyes:)

[arthurking83]

It should be noted too tho, that he doesn't own National Geographic Society!
That is still not for profit, and a separate entity.

What Murdoch now owns is just the magazine. He obviously thinks that there's some value in the archive of data they still own.

Knowing how modern media empires operate .. within a few years time the illustrious nature of the Nat Geo wildlife photographer is going to go the same way as the Dodo(and all other highly regarded news photographers!)
Nat Geo will eventually rely on crud sourced .. I mean crowd sourced :rolleyes: images of the natural world.

[Mark L]

What planet have you been living on with regard to the Murdoch press?

The planet that excludes a single cent of mine going into his pockets.


While I understand your dismay Mathy Newscorp have been a major shareholder for years and years now. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought a National Geographic magazines for years and years now.

[ameerat42]

Wells Head, Mark.
Zounds to me you are both on the same planet.

Now who is this character, anyway?

[Mathy]

The planet that excludes a single cent of mine going into his pockets.
They didn't own the magazines, they owned the TV rights to the documentaries - a minor piece of NatGeo.

Irrespective of different points of view, a thunderingly good natural science organisation has been bought by the most crass, and corrupt, commercial interest.

And for the person who asked who RB was, that would be Richard Branson - owner of Virgin - a pretty good, all round, corporate guy and philanthropist.

Maybe some people might want to spend some time in the world "other" than photography, because there's all sorts of rubbish happening, and you might want to know about that. There is some value to be had in choosing to NOT be too insular about your world :) cheers

[ameerat42]

Gosh, Mathy. Is it boxing gloves next? We ALL know who RB is, even me, who "asked". And if he's that good for you then fine. Pardon others who may not agree.
I see you have pretty strong opinions on good and bad (people), and waste generation. How do you know what anybody else does, how insular they are, etc?

[danny]

I must say that when I heard I was a little... disappointed. I'm not sure if disappointed is the right word, I haven't bought one in a long time, I just have this image of what they were to me in my childhood. It would be safe to say that this publication inspired me to pick up a camera in the first place. Having big business control it just seems a little dirty to me. But maybe they have always done so it has just been my naivety.

Cheers

[Hunter50]

Like a lot of people, I am disappointed to hear that National Geographic is in an expanded business partnership with 21st Century Fox. From what I have read this afternoon, the deal will be finalised by the end of 2015, so I believe we are unlikely to see any change before then.

It seems subscription to National Geographic magazine has been significantly the 1980s (from 12million copies per month to 3million copies per month, in the US market, obviously many more when global subscriptions are included), along with advertising revenue. It is interesting to note that Canon, is a long time advertiser in the magazine. The loss of subscriptions and revenue is clearly a dramatic change. The issues facing the Society have been around for 30 years, so I wonder why their plans to address this loss of subscription have not been successful. I know, as a subscriber, you can get their content online, but there is something special about receiving your magazine in the letterbox and hear those pages peel apart, as you look at the photos and glance at the articles. I am looking forward to the October issue arriving, sometime on mid October.

I can't see any description on the websites I looked at today of how the new business will operate and how it's content will be determined. It is not clear what freedom the publishers, editors, journalists and photographers will have in the future, the same as always, I hope. I will wait and see, and continue my 30 year subscription, in the meantime. I would hate not to be a subscriber, but time will have to tell.

National Geographic Society has gone through many changes in its 127 years. While there is a great deal of surprise, disappointment and disbelief around this partnership with 21st Century Fox, I will wait to see how the magazine looks during 2016 and beyond. I do not know how the new board will work, with the current CEO taking on the role of Chair of the National Geographic Partnership (this is the new name of the National Geographic and 21st Century Fox business), for a period of 12 months. I am not sure how a rotating Board Chair will offer stability to this business, with new a Chair every 12 months. also, who are the Board members?

If we are passionate about the role that the National Geographic Society has played in exploration, science, journalism and photography over the past 127 years, we must continue to offer our support, until there is a clear change that can be attributed to the investment by 21st Century Fox. That's what I'll be doing.

[Mark L]

Maybe some people might want to spend some time in the world "other" than photography, because there's all sorts of rubbish happening, and you might want to know about that. There is some value to be had in choosing to NOT be too insular about your world :) cheers

Ah the wonder of living in a supposed western advanced country (lucky us). We can afford to be insular, and even if you take an interest in the "other" to some degree you're still being insular. You have made that choice in your own little world (lucky us to have a choice).
Might start reading the newspaper to start finding out about this "other". But if you live outside of Sydney or Melbourne you'll probably get fed a paper that's also insular that happens to be owned by a partisan bloody yank. But so many people read that stuff. :confused013
Can't stand the "other" world presented on the radio and TV. More insular presented to my insular.
I spent all day today as a volunteer giving training to other volunteers. I'm so insular that all ll I could think about was "why aren't I out take photos?":rolleyes:

- - - Updated - - -


I think Fox TV have owned the TV show up until now. Now they own 73% of the whole lot. What planet have you been living on with regard to the Murdoch press?
And that was good enough reason to stop buying the magazine.
And I live on planet Mark L.:);)

[ricktas]

and now they start getting rid of staff : https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-society-sets-biggest-layoff-in-its-history/2015/11/03/2966e1b4-8252-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html?postshare=4221446603378896

[ameerat42]

Well there you have it: the good:) (some of the changes); the bad:( (most of the changes); and the ugly:eek: (one of the changes:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

[Laosie]

Unfortunately the future for Nat Geo may look something like this...........

***Image deleted at user's request.***