JBoard.tv

This Is Kirk! wrote:

sarisson wrote:Is this satire?
How would National Geographic get political? Is Koch Industries going to put 40 full-page ads in every issue? Will there be a miniseries on NatGeo on young-earth creationism, or the abiogenic origin of oil?

It's not necessarily the stories they will publish but possibly stories they may decide not to publish now.

NG always had a point of view. The fact that they might develop a slightly different one now doesn't seem all that significant for purposes of deciding whether a game/quiz show should partner with them.

I LITTERALY WASN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISSPELLING OF THIS MEME.

Magna wrote:

This Is Kirk! wrote:

sarisson wrote:Is this satire?
How would National Geographic get political? Is Koch Industries going to put 40 full-page ads in every issue? Will there be a miniseries on NatGeo on young-earth creationism, or the abiogenic origin of oil?

It's not necessarily the stories they will publish but possibly stories they may decide not to publish now.

NG always had a point of view. The fact that they might develop a slightly different one now doesn't seem all that significant for purposes of deciding whether a game/quiz show should partner with them.

More to the point, why should we or Sony punish NG for stories they "possibly" might not publish in the future? Maybe they possibly *will* publish them. The media entities (not the Society itself) will be owned by a partnership controlled by the entity that controls The Simpsons, not by Roger Ailes. I'll bash the nauseatingly biased, Orwellianly anti-thinking Thought Police called Fox News as much as the next non-drooling guy, but that's not what's at play here. I think everyone should just get a grip.

Rex

Magna wrote:NG always had a point of view. The fact that they might develop a slightly different one now doesn't seem all that significant for purposes of deciding whether a game/quiz show should partner with them.

Rex Kramer wrote:[W]hy should we or Sony punish NG for stories they "possibly" might not publish in the future? ... I'll bash ... Fox News as much as the next ... guy, but that's not what's at play here.

Perhaps I am too pessimistic. I tend more to think that the writing's on the wall, and that failure to be proactive in ending a potentially embarrassing association could be a foreseeable mistake. But we'll see. I agree that this is not quite the level of, say, a Subway firing a Jared Fogel after a federal raid, but it's far from the typical corporate takeover, also. It's more like if Montgomery Burns bought PBS. It doesn't take a genius to see that the next Sesame Street character is going to be Cooling Tower Tommy. I'm not sure there's any precedent for a major media conglomerate effectively buying a nonprofit's business operations.

Maybe NatGeo will turn into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, we won't even notice.

Some people thought that Murdoch would ruin The Wall Street Journal, and he didn't. (I hear that The Times of London is a shell of its former self, though.)

Stanislaus Jacob wrote:Some people thought that Murdoch would ruin The Wall Street Journal, and he didn't....

I don't think those who were worried about the WSJ knew the political leanings of the WSJ in the first place.

Robert K S wrote: Maybe NatGeo will turn into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, we won't even notice.

Indeed, you didn't notice in 1997 when Nat Geo partnered with Fox to launch Nat Geo's cable channel, which has been Nat Geo's most profitable venture. And while you liberal morons trash Murdoch, not one peep of criticism for those at Nat Geo who sold (out) to Murdoch in the first place.

Volante wrote:

Stanislaus Jacob wrote:Some people thought that Murdoch would ruin The Wall Street Journal, and he didn't....

I don't think those who were worried about the WSJ knew the political leanings of the WSJ in the first place.

It was not feared that he would change the editorial page but that he might interfere with the news side and/or give the paper a more tabloid-y style. This does not seem to have happened (although they do have photographs now, but that was likely inevitable).

Vanya wrote:...not one peep of criticism for those at Nat Geo who sold (out) to Murdoch in the first place.

Au contraire--while the sale on Mr. Murdoch's end was just Murdoch being Murdoch, on the Nat Geo end it seems the board sold out the organization's principles. There must be some special circle of hell for trustees that betray the purposes of their trusts.

Also, Vanya, I have to wonder if you didn't realize I was paraphrasing a famous line from The Simpsons.

Vanya wrote:

Robert K S wrote: Maybe NatGeo will turn into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, we won't even notice.

Indeed, you didn't notice in 1997 when Nat Geo partnered with Fox to launch Nat Geo's cable channel, which has been Nat Geo's most profitable venture. And while you liberal morons trash Murdoch, not one peep of criticism for those at Nat Geo who sold (out) to Murdoch in the first place.

*double checks URL* Nope, not yahoo.com...this is weird...

JonathanHenke wrote:Jeopardy has has so much blatant product-placement lately that I wonder if *this* is the ethical hill to die on. I mean, however far NG falls from its previous quality, Jeopardy is likely already shilling for even shadier organizations.

This is what I was thinking. A National Geographic product placement seems less egregious than something more commercial. I sometimes feel dirty when I see clues that mention (or are) brand names of various products. (Nothing that Dove soap wouldn't cure, though.)

Robert K S wrote:

Vanya wrote:...not one peep of criticism for those at Nat Geo who sold (out) to Murdoch in the first place.

Au contraire--while the sale on Mr. Murdoch's end was just Murdoch being Murdoch, on the Nat Geo end it seems the board sold out the organization's principles. There must be some special circle of hell for trustees that betray the purposes of their trusts.

Also, Vanya, I have to wonder if you didn't realize I was paragraphing [sic] a famous line from The Simpsons.

The Simpsons is stupid, and I am proud of my ignorance of it. Perhaps you are proud of your ignorance too, as I'm sure you meant paraphrasing, not paragraphing (cue inevitable blame of auto-correct).

I wonder if you know what Nat Geo's principles are (you can look them up), and how well it has upheld them over the years. Just one example: "If parallels of latitude were drawn around the Earth at fifteen degrees north and fifteen degrees south of Washington [D.C.], the land within these parallels would include all the countries of the world that have been highly civilized and distinguished for art and science... The nearer man lives to the polar regions, the greater his inferiority in intellect, the greater his barbarism." (1894). Nat Geo was born in an era of western colonialism and has always existed to advance it, and to advance capitalism, and patriarchy. It has always portrayed non-Western cultures in an infantilizing and patronizing way. It is entirely fitting that a group started by old white guys has been taken over by an old white guy.

Recommended reading: "Veils and Daggers: A Century of National Geographic's Representation of the Arab World", by Linda Steet, 2000.

Vanya wrote:I'm sure you meant paraphrasing, not paragraphing

Weird typo, yeah, but the autocorrect to blame is the one between brain and fingers.

Vanya wrote:It has always portrayed non-Western cultures in an infantilizing and patronizing way.

I have been a subscriber and reader all my life. The magazine means to me nearly the opposite of what you're arguing it represents. I have found its coverage to be enlightening, unbiased, sympathetic, and probing. I still routinely learn about species, peoples, places, and ways of life that I did not know existed, even after three decades of reading. You are going to have to do more to convince me of the correctness of your (repeated) choice of the word "always" than to quote from 1894 if you're interested in showing National Geographic to be an imperial boogeyman. I suspect the western colonial mindset of the Society and its publications went out long before western colonialism.

Vanya wrote:It is entirely fitting that a group started by old white guys has been taken over by an old white guy.

Alternatively, it is a tragedy when the assets of a trust for the benefit of the public fall into private hands.

Robert K S wrote:

Vanya wrote:I'm sure you meant paraphrasing, not paragraphing

Weird typo, yeah, but the autocorrect to blame is the one between brain and fingers.

Vanya wrote:It has always portrayed non-Western cultures in an infantilizing and patronizing way.

I have been a subscriber and reader all my life. The magazine means to me nearly the opposite of what you're arguing it represents. I have found its coverage to be enlightening, unbiased, sympathetic, and probing. I still routinely learn about species, peoples, places, and ways of life that I did not know existed, even after three decades of reading. You are going to have to do more to convince me of the correctness of your (repeated) choice of the word "always" than to quote from 1894 if you're interested in showing National Geographic to be an imperial boogeyman. I suspect the western colonial mindset of the Society and its publications went out long before western colonialism.

Vanya wrote:It is entirely fitting that a group started by old white guys has been taken over by an old white guy.

Alternatively, it is a tragedy when the assets of a trust for the benefit of the public fall into private hands.

One would have a hard time convincing a capitalist (which I believe Vanya identifies as) of that. Your statement pretty much is the left-right difference in a nutshell, one on the left such as us would indeed bemoan the loss of a public resource, one on the right such as Vanya would encourage private enterprise to provide these benefits. Vanya sees this through the same lense you are yet the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are reversed. No one here is unbiased and thus can't say whether this is good or bad.

Volante wrote:Fox also ran the Cosmos reboot.

Hitler also gave us Volkswagen, and it's a fine company... Oh, wait...

dhkendall wrote:
One would have a hard time convincing a capitalist (which I believe Vanya identifies as) of that. Your statement pretty much is the left-right difference in a nutshell, one on the left such as us would indeed bemoan the loss of a public resource, one on the right such as Vanya would encourage private enterprise to provide these benefits. Vanya sees this through the same lense you are yet the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are reversed. No one here is unbiased and thus can't say whether this is good or bad.

I don't care what National Geographic does. I wouldn't call it a "public resource" in any case since it is not controlled by the public, but by a small group of fucked-up white guys with a long history of promoting colonialism and racism. What I protest is Robert KS bringing his bullshit bias into a what is non-issue, and using it as an excuse to trash Murdoch and Fox News (not that I care what Fox News does, either). He should stand by his opinion and cancel his subscription to National Geographic, and stop watching Jeopardy!.

Vanya wrote:I don't care what National Geographic does. I wouldn't call it a "public resource" in any case since it is not controlled by the public, but by a small group of fucked-up white guys with a long history of promoting colonialism and racism. What I protest is Robert KS bringing his bullshit bias into a what is non-issue, and using it as an excuse to trash Murdoch and Fox News (not that I care what Fox News does, either). He should stand by his opinion and cancel his subscription to National Geographic, and stop watching Jeopardy!.

I agree with Vanya that this ought to be a non-issue. I am also in terrified awe of the infinite loop of irony he has created by posting this statement along with his new avatar.

Rex

Vanya wins this thread.

Robert K S wrote: I have found its coverage to be enlightening, unbiased, sympathetic, and probing. I still routinely learn about species, peoples, places, and ways of life that I did not know existed, even after three decades of reading.

I agree it has a lot of good information in it that most of us wouldn't have access to any other way. The one thing I take issue with is "unbiased." Almost all publications have a bias, NG included. It's just that people who agree with it tend not to notice it.

It's like when someone from the Midwest says people from somewhere else speak with an accent. The truth is, everyone speaks with an accent. One accent might be thought of as the norm, but it's still an accent.

Vanya wrote:What I protest is Robert KS bringing his bullshit bias...

I don't recall "trashing" Murdoch or Fox News. Their motives and MOs are well-documented and I need hardly add to what has already been said about them elsewhere. If you find it offensive that I've raised the issue of Murdoch's acquisition of the magazine and other media properties and the possibility of the change in public perception of the meaning of the National Geographic brand for discussion in this forum, you always have the option of "stand[ing] by [your] opinion" and canceling your subscription to my posts, which is quite easy to do with the forum software. I'm a bit puzzled by the apparent animosity of the language you've used in your recent posts. I appreciate that we may see differently on some (though not all) issues, but I've always been willing to listen to what you have to say, and that's what makes a discussion forum a discussion forum rather than a "toe-the-line-or-else-find-yourself-censored" forum.