I was horrified to learn that Rupert Murdoch had bought a controlling interest in that venerable institution, National Geographic. Jennifer Ouellette explains why this is such bad news.
What does Murdoch get for his $725 million? Under the terms of the deal, Fox owns 73% of the fledgling NPG, with the National Geographic Society controlling 27%. That’s…. a little worrying, despite the fact that each partner will have equal representation on the board and governance will be shared equally between them.
It didn’t take long for people to start voicing concern. Among other things, Murdoch is on the record as a hardcore denier of the fact that humans are causing climate change. Sure, he’ll insist he’s really more of a “climate change skeptic,” and not an outright “denier.” But he’s not fooling anybody, especially when he says stuff like this:
Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here… How much of it are we doing, with emissions and so on? As far as Australia goes? Nothing in the overall picture.
Naturally there is some concern that Murdoch and his minions might be tempted to put pressure on the magazine regarding its editorial coverage, particularly on politically controversial issues like climate change. On that score, National Geographic editor-in-chief Susan Goldberg is toeing the party line, at least in her public statements. She says she thinks the deal will be “great for the magazine” and insists she’s been assured that 21st Century Fox will not interfere with the magazine’s content. Fox CEO James Murdoch and National Geographic Society chief executive Gary Knell both echoed that sentiment, swearing that there had never been interference with the content of the TV channels and the same would be true of the magazine.
Having a science denier in charge is worrisome. But, you might argue, look on the bright side: a lot of NatGeo content has been sliding into the shit already, so it can’t get worse!
We only need to look at the programming on its cable TV channels to see how the association might have an adverse impact on content over time. Back in 2013, Michael Parfit — a regular contributor to NatGeo as both a writer and a maker of TV documentaries — wrote a pained Op-Ed in the Globe and Mail decrying the proliferation of programs dominated by “ghosts, UFOs, scary cultures, doomsday, booze” on NatGeo channels in the name of “It’s just business.”
Also, this time it’s personal. I have a copy of Pharyngula on Scienceblogs (I post just the science stuff there, so if you want Pharyngula without the atheism and feminism and most of the commenters, you know where to go). Scienceblogs is owned by NatGeo, and the driving force behind the establishment of FtB was the fact that NatGeo was going to impose new Standards & Practices on us, which meant that that atheism and feminism stuff would have brought down managerial…tut-tutting (they avoided the censorship word) upon our content.
NatGeo is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, so who knows what editorial changes may occur. With any luck, nothing: Scienceblogs has been ignored by the management there for a long time, so Murdoch may not know we exist.
Let’s keep it that way, ‘k? Nobody tell him that there are science bloggers under his thumb right now.
I’m not too worried that the existing Sciencebloggers will get much editorial advice — we’re living in an atmosphere of near-total neglect there — but I wouldn’t want him to start packing the joint with denialists. I’d have to run away.
ScienceBlogs has been the neglected stepchild of NatGeo ever since Seed palmed it off. It’s possible that Rupert and his evil minions won’t even notice that SciBlogs exist. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on SciBlogs continuing to be benignly neglected.
re @1:
correct. reading news of the acquisition yesterday, spurred me to write a little announcement over in the “octopodes=aliens” thread.
The article I read (somewhere around Gizmodo), included a shout-out to Pharyngula for rightfully “abandoning the ship” when absorbed by Foxy. I write this now to admit defeat at finding that quote to repost it here to support PZ as a semi-figurehead to be referred to in news of bigger controvs. my google-fu failing me.
The unfound article also included a mild shout-out to Insolense (ie. Orac) as a clinger to the Scienceblogs Titanic.
…and with that, I’m officially out of a subscription that started in the late 60s. I refuse to support anything that is going to give such a shitty excuse for a human being more capital to spread lies and deceit. I was already on the fence because of the religious twaddle that occasionally crept into the magazine. I don’t need to be searching under rocks looking for evidence of Jeebus, and I certainly don’t want to be having to check every NG article for citations wondering if they have been futzed with to push a Murdochwellian dystopian future.
What’s in for Murdoch?
Australia has already a Prime Minister who laughs about Pacific nations being wiped out by rising sea levels, who is on the record for saying that “coal is good for humanity” while at the same time gutting renewables because they are “ugly” and “noisy” (unlike coal mines and power stations).
Of course it’s impossible that any of that could be Murdoch’s influence
Argh. My subscription of 30 years lapsed this month and I was just about to renew when I read the news, so put me in the “I’m out!” camp.
…which is really sad. I grew up on the stuff as my folks had/have shelves and shelves of the yellow-spined magazine, ready for random perusing. As an adult, I carried on the tradition, passing on my copies to the young’un and occasionally giving gift subscriptions to other family members.
It bothered me that more and more of the magazine was getting taken over by ads; I figured they had to make rent, so I sucked it up, but they’ve finally gone too far. Better to die on their knees than become a husk filled with Fox “News” crapola.
So this is how he pushes his anti-science agenda.
Fuck Murdoch and fuck NatGeo for selling out to him.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. I wish I was wealthy. I would have bought NatGeo… then put PZ on the board of directors.
This is what Murdoch always tells the original shareholders: “I won’t interfere in editorials once I own the publication.” And once he owns it, he completely ignores his promise. After all, what can the old shareholders do about it? That’s what happened to the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and so on. Within 3 months of acquisition, they all start printing more global warming denial pieces and more propagandist in tone.
In a word: FUCK.
I’d expand on that, but it requires the use of far more fucks than I have available at the moment.
I was very sad to hear this news. I will simply never subscribe to NatGeo mag again. I haven’t had cable since before their branded channels existed and did not realize they had gone down the silly aliens/ghosts routes. Very sad.
Terrible news, but good to see our very excellent First Dog On The Moon get a run. If you’re interested in a progressive and humanist take on the current Tony Government clustermess in Australia, First Dog is a great place to start.
I flat, outright, unequivocally, simply don’t believe it. The Fox guy is lying. It’s what they do. The NGS guy may be trying to fool himself, but he’s gotta know.
Murdoch doesn’t do anything that doesn’t have some direct benefit to him, ever. He’s incapable of it, as far as I can tell. I doubt NG makes enough money, if it even turns a profit at all, to be worth his attention, so he must have some ulterior motive(s), and I don’t think anyone has any trouble figuring out what those might be.
Never underestimate Murdoch’s talent for making everything worse.
@chrislawson #7:
He said the same about The Times and The Sunday Times. It doesn’t even have to be overt interference. His editors know that they’re not going to get promotion (or even keep their jobs) if they don’t keep him happy. He even started making it easier for them a couple of years ago, by getting himself a Twitter account for them to take a lead from.
I have to agree with Rich Woods @ 12 here; what you have at the moment is a Nat Geo that is steadily sliding into unfocussed credulity and the spewing of idiotic woo. Nauseating, to be sure, but not a calculated campaign of disinformation, which is exactly what you will get under Murdoch – Nat Geo will go from a declining publication that spouts tosh half the time to an active organ in the planned dissemination of climate change denialist and otherwise Right wing propaganda.
Things can definitely get worse, especially since the lying sack of the proverbial will doubtless trade on Nat Geo’s (admittedly now rather tarnished) former good name in order to lend an undeserved aura of credibility to his own self interested agenda.
the only “slack” I can give Rupy: he is a moneygrubber *full stop*. That Faux Noize is not a sinister cabal created by him to disseminate his version of reality. It’s simply a money maker, with high commercial value, that rakes in gobs of moola to put in his coffers. He don’t care the Noize they make, propagating untruths and outright lies, as long as the audience will lap it up and patronize the gullible sponsors who give Rupy money to put their adverts on his Noize. This characterization of Rupy is the only way to account for Simpsons and Seth McFarland being on Fox Network. Those two are so anti-Murdoch, ant-Fox, anti-religion, etc. That if Rupy cared about the content of his shows they would be axed forthwith. They bring in the cash though, so let em be. Murdy’s stance on “climate change” is only, that to support it, would cost him a few bucks. Can’t have that, no no no. He’d rather pander to the big capital deniers (Koch Bro) to lure their bux to his coffers.
in summary, MAYBE Rupy won’t corrupt NatGeo to be another form of propaganda dissemminating delusional views of reality. He just wants to turn it commercial (based on its popularity), in order to rake in more big bucks. Though this sounds like I’m a shill, it might be too soon to cancel subs to NatGeo. better to cancel reacting to a piece of myth presented as science. To get the message that NatGeo is for actual reports of findings about the natural worl and not just fictions presented as facts. Excuse me for venting, expressing a hypothetical, of what I would do IF I were a subscriber.
I gave up on National Geographic yonks ago — before their takeover of Teh SciBorg — to the extent of canceling a multi-decades old “membership” in the “society” — and have avoided them ever since (with the sole exception of Orac) — but nonetheless, I am beyond livid at this complete sellout. This is not acceptable and I urge poopyhead to resign from
Teh SciBorg, I meanTeh NatGeo LieBorg, I mean The Murdock FakeSci BlogLie without further hesitation.I guess if you can’t silence your critics, buy them.
slithey @14,
There’s actually a real suspicion that Murdoch runs at least some of his newspapers at a loss, in order to maintain political influence. Being able to install and remove Australian and UK governments, for example, has real benefits to him. See, for example:
http://mumbrella.com.au/chris-mitchell-australian-struggled-profitable-since-gfc-208815
to rebut myself:
the anti-Fox placement of Seth McF__ and The Simpsons on Fox is the purrfect camouflage for the masterplan of the mastermind Murdoch. As in, it being the perfect cover, for him to be able to get innocents, like me, to give him a pass, as only a little moneygrubber and not totally evil. (while he tents his fingers like Mr, Burns).
ooo I see it now, pity me, Fox you foxy fox you oooooooooo
Scienceblogs is not owned by national geographic and never was, so don’t worry.
Also, before everyone throws out NG make sure you know what you are doing.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/13/national-geographic-the-whole-world-is-watching-something/
Be vigilant, but don’t jump to conclusions.