RIP National Geographic

As a child I remember our collection of National Geographic magazines. We kept the magazine with the iconic yellow border in a box in a closet after we had enjoyed them; they were too beautiful to throw away my parents said. When the new issue arrived, I would flip through its pages and open them to a world I had never seen. The pages were a passport to corners of the world rarely seen, a glimpse into the lives of people barely known, a expedition into the wildness of the animal kingdom, and an exploration into the secrets of Mother Nature. Those pages opened my eyes to my future; I knew I wanted to investigate the world some day. National Geographic made an impact on my life, and it changed how I see the world. It sparked a fire in my desire to travel, to learn, and to embrace culture near and far. When I got an opportunity to go on what my mom called “an adventure of a lifetime,” she told me to pick any place I wanted to go. I had no hesitation when I blurted out “the Serengeti!” When she asked why I picked it I told her I wanted to go on a safari and see the exotic creatures that National Geographic had shown me over the years. That trip to Tanzania remains one of the most prolific experiences I have ever had, and I have National Geographic (and my mom) to thank for it. This September, the legacy that is National Geographic came to an end after 127 fabulous years. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch collected the non-profit, research-based publication and added it to his empire of profit-based, corporate news outlets. Murdoch killed National Geographic as we know it, and most likely, the magazine will transform its content into a more vague, less transparent, and more biased journalistic specimen. In the near future, I suspect the magazine will fall far from the tree in which it was perfectly ripened and start to rot under the harsh environment of corporate greed.

My immediate concern when hearing of the buyout was that of many others; Murdoch has been vocal about his disbelief in global warming. He has a documented history of comments regarding the conversation of climate change, and in a 2013 interview with Sky News Murdoch offered his solution to combating it by saying, “If the sea level rises six inches, that's a big deal ... we can't mitigate that, we can't stop it. We've just got to stop building vast houses on seashores and go back a little bit (Nuccitelli).” In February he poked fun at the topic on Twitter and tweeted, “Just flying over N Atlantic 300 miles of ice. Global warming!” Scientists have continued to debate whether the melting of polar ice is inevitable, but none-the-less, the fact that ice is present doesn’t mean there is not climate-induced melting. To make such a statement is to mock the very science that tries to explain natural phenomena. The point of whether global warming exists is not my main concern, my concern is having a man that blatantly interjects his bias in ignorant fashion in control of a publication that has supported exploration into science’s truths for decades past. It was no surprise that November’s issue of National Geographic had a picture of Earth within its yellow border with the phrase “Cool It” written across it. In the first full month after Murdoch’s acquisition it should only be so fitting for the publication to jump right into the discussion of global warming. Coincidence? I think not.

National Geographic is now going through what I call “Foxification,” joining Murdoch’s Fox empire, New-Corp, one of the six largest media companies in the world. National Geographic has thus begun growing its new conservative roots. Some may suggest that Murdoch’s 73% control of the company won’t be affected by his personal beliefs, but history would suggest otherwise. In 2007, News-Corp purchased another American news outlet, the Wall Street Journal. At the time of the acquisition, people were divided on whether his deep pockets would hurt or help the publication revered among its readers as a distinguished example of watchdog journalism. Sarah Ellison, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, published a book called War at the Wall Street Journal: Inside the Struggle to Control an American Business Empire. The book reveals her observation of the takeover which resulted in her leaving with a bad taste in her mouth. Not only did Murdoch bring in his own management and editors, as he is doing with National Geographic, but the focus of the publication also changed. According to Ellison, gripping headlines, big photographs and shorter stories was the new format for the once wordy paper with in-depth coverage and cutting-edge feature stories (Folkenflik). In Ellison’s opinion, the paper now has more politics and international news and less of the flavor of the past; coverage of corporations on Wall Street (Folkenflik). This should be no surprise, as Wall Street is the pulse of big business in America and the lifeline of many Forbes mega-hitters. Murdoch finds himself with a cozy seat on such a list in 2015 as #35 on Forbes’ most power people with a networth of $12.6 billion. He has a vested interest in protecting shadowy secrets of Wall Street in which the Journal was once in place to expose. Murdoch has the buying power to craft his own reality and he is doing just that. According to Ellison, he once joked to a group of executives that, “I’d love to buy The New York Times one day. And the next day shut it down as a public service (Grove).” I consider this a glimpse into his demeanor, and all jokes set aside, they stem from some truth. I can’t help but wonder if his move in the direction of National Geographic holds any of the same stretch of the truth.

As Foxification begins, National Geographic’s structure has already started to change under the News-Corp umbrella. On November 3, it was reported that the magazine was hit with the largest layoffs in the company’s history when 180 people were let go (Farhi). The downsizing came in the wake of the company repositioning itself to get closer to a profit margin acceptable to Murdoch and family. Perhaps this is one of the first moves that solidifies corporate take over, shaving off the fat to fill pocket books and undoubtedly unfill pages. Of the reported layoffs that touched almost all departments, the fact-checking department was hit with multiple losses (Farhi). I fear the needs of new ownership will trump the needs of readers that National Geographic has nurtured for so many years. I find it unsettling that the very department that dedicates its efforts to present the best known truths to readers was not important enough to leave intact. Gary Knell, the society’s chief executive, released a memo after the layoffs stating, “Looking ahead, I am confident National Geographic’s mission will be fulfilled in powerful, new and impactful ways, as we continue to change the world through science, exploration, education and storytelling (jimromenesko.com).” Sure, it might continue storytelling, but we can almost guarantee it will be done with less facts, more skepticism, and more appeal to who its new target audience will be. National Geographic, after all, is the new sibling to Fox News, who has a history of calling climate change a “superstition,” a “scam,” and a “hoax” (HuffingtonPost.com). They have also accused NASA of “fudging numbers” on climate change, attributing it to the work of “corrupt” scientists (HuffingtonPost.com). This kind of reporting sets the uninformed, untrained public against some of the nation’s brightest, educated minds and blurs the lines of entertainment and science. I for one don’t want to see the pages of National Geographic take such a stance that belittles the findings of science. What’s even scarier to consider is a new poll by Saint Leo University in Florida that found more U.S. adults believe Fox News as a reliable source of climate change over President Obama (Saint Leo University). It’s an interesting concept to consider how much merit is placed on news outlets run by executives with the first priority of audience and money as opposed to truth and discovery. Clearly with over a century under their belt as a non-profit, money was not the focus of the magazine; the society saw much more value in information for the betterment of humanity, the very foundation of journalism at its conception.

Under Murdoch’s control, I also question the fate of funding for research projects in which it has been known to support. National Geographic’s Global Exploration Fund supports research, exploration and conservation projects around the globe, sponsoring up to 300 projects a year (National Geographic). With majority control of the company and its assets, I wonder if the money given for such exploration will flow in the direction of Murdoch’s biases. Will the well dry up for in the pursuit of answers surrounding global warming? Only time will tell. But, chances are with his track record, Murdoch will not condone conversation he can’t control. At the time of the Wall Street Journal acquisition, a high-ranking editor, Marcus Brauchli, presented Murdoch with an editorial-independence agreement that created an advisory board to vet personnel choices and protect senior editors from the new ownership’s agenda (Grove). Murdoch not only rejected the proposal, but Brauchli was pushed out in less than a year. Furthermore, Fox has not been exempt to misrepresenting National Geographic in the past. They first joined forces in 1997 for the National Geographic Channel venture. The partnership has long been a source of internal conflict between Fox executives and National Geographic staffers who reportedly felt their vision of forward thinking and mindful conversation was outshadowed by decisions to air baseless shows such as “Doomsday Preppers” and “Banged Up Abroad” (Farhi). These shows are examples of slanting entertainment in replace of education and exemplifies the difference in Fox’s vision versus National Geographic’s mission. Last week, the current editor in chief, Susan Goldberg, commented in an interview that, “Fox has acknowledged that they have not always represented the National Geographic brand in some of those programs in a way we loved or even they loved (Farhi).” If decisions were made against the brand when the society still had majority control, I can only imagine what kind of debranding will take place now.

With 3.5 million subscribers in the U.S. and another 3 million abroad, National Geographic still has a massive following of people who expect their legendary quality and top-notch journalism. I don’t see how that trend can continue under the oppression that is Rupert Murdoch. If we learned anything from the News of the World scandal, a British News-Corp newspaper that went under fire last year after a decade-long scandal of phone hacking and bribery, is that Murdoch and family are willing to break the rules. They allowed their staff to be the pawns in their dirty game, and numerous News of the World journalists including the former editor faced prosecution and conviction for crimes in which Murdoch’s son, James, “admitted being aware of a damning email that contained evidence of widespread phone hacking (Boyle).” James is now the chief executive of 21st Century Fox despite his involvement in the scandal and despite the fact that the British paper folded after its exposure. There is no doubt his bad behavior won’t stay overseas where the Murdoch family was referred to as the “Murdoch Mafia” while the scandal played out. Instead, they have a whole new playing field with a publication that stands as a reliable news outlet for so many. Under the cover of such prestige, I worry they will manipulate the text to fit their agenda and chip away at the respect National Geographic has earned by so many talented, dedicated journalists and scientists of the past.

So long National Geographic; it was absolutely fantastic while it lasted. You will forever be in my childhood memories as a magazine that changed my world. Now, sadly, it is time for the world to change you. I am sickened by the thought that corporate domination has trumped the appetite for information that you have quenched for so many years.

-------------

Citations

“About the National Geographic Society.” National Geographic (2015). Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Boyle, Christina. “British phone-hacking scandal was a low point for Rupert Murdoch.” Los Angeles Times [California]. Los Angeles Times, 11 June 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Farhi, Paul. “National Geographic sets biggest layoffs in its history.” Washington Post [Washington, D.C.]. The Washington Post, 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Farhi, Paul. “National Geographic gives Fox control of media assets in $725 million deal.” Washington Post [Washington, D.C.]. The Washington Post, 9 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Folkenflik, David. “How Has ‘Wall Street Journal’ Fared Under Murdoch.” Wall Street Journal [New York]. Dow Jones & Company, 22 July 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Grove, Lloyd. “Paper Chase.” New York Times [New York]. The New York Times Company, 21 May 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

“More Americans Trust Fox News Than Obama On Climate Change, Poll Finds.” HuffingtonPost.com (2015). Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

“November 2015 Layoffs Begin at National Geographic.” JimRomenesko.com (2015). Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Nuccitelli, Dana. “Rupert Murdoch doesn’t understand climate change basics, and that’s a problem.” Guardian [London]. Guardian News and Media, 14 July 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Saint Leo University Polling Institute. “Global Climate Change Questions.” Survey. 19 March 2015.