MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fox Just Bought a Majority Stake in National Geographic  (Read 3570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 11, 2015, 13:31 »
+3
21st Century Fox Just Bought a Majority Stake in National Geographic.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/10/national_geographic_merges_with_fox_is_the_future_of_this_national_treasure.html

time will tell...but FOX, seriously... :o
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 13:44 by KnowYourOnions »


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2015, 15:05 »
+4
Let my subscrption lapse just for that reason. They've already laid off 10% of the staff.

« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2015, 15:07 »
+4
Wow!

Well, judging by what Rupert Murdoch does to everything he touches, we can kiss good-bye a high-quality, highly respected publication.

Adis, National Geographic!

« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2015, 15:34 »
+7
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2015, 15:45 »
+2
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm afraid of. No kidding!

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2015, 15:59 »
+3
After 130 years National Geographic has now been placed in the hands of Rupert Murdoch.It's time to say bye bye Nat Geo!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 04:59 by fritz »

« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2015, 16:01 »
+2
Very sad news.

« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2015, 16:17 »
+1
Another one bites the dust

« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2015, 16:26 »
0
RIP NG
 :(

cuppacoffee

« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2015, 19:10 »
+3
The partnership will actually double the size of the society's endowment and increase its ability to fund scientists, says Goldberg. (Also worth noting: 21st Century Foxs day-to-day operations are now headed by Rupert's son James Murdoch, whose wife works for the Clinton Climate Initiative.) Fox will effectively own National Geographic's media brands, not the National Geographic Society.

« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2015, 19:12 »
+4
The partnership will actually double the size of the society's endowment and increase its ability to fund scientists, says Goldberg. (Also worth noting: 21st Century Foxs day-to-day operations are now headed by Rupert's son James Murdoch, whose wife works for the Clinton Climate Initiative.) Fox will effectively own National Geographic's media brands, not the National Geographic Society.
are those the type of scientist that still believe the world is flat? L

« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2015, 19:23 »
0
The partnership will actually double the size of the society's endowment and increase its ability to fund scientists, says Goldberg. (Also worth noting: 21st Century Foxs day-to-day operations are now headed by Rupert's son James Murdoch, whose wife works for the Clinton Climate Initiative.) Fox will effectively own National Geographic's media brands, not the National Geographic Society.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fox-acquisition-national-geographic-1.3221474

Christopher Palmer, an environmental filmmaker and professor at American University, said Fox and National Geographic would seem to be incompatible to most people.

"Many people feel the National Geographic Channel has become more sensational and think that it's due to the Foxification of the channel, and now Fox is taking over all these other media properties including the iconic National Geographic magazine," he said. "So the question is: will National Geographic maintain its very high standards in the future under this new arrangement?"

Additional funding for science and research is a positive aspect of the deal, Palmer said, but the red flag is whether funding for media will come with demands "to be more commercially sensational in order to get the audience" Fox wants.

« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2015, 19:36 »
+3
Before I became interested at university in ecology, environmentalism or even geography, beyond where I had travelled, I was at primary school where the pile of National Geographic magazines were always the first stop for looking at pictures of naked women around the globe.

In this area, at least, Rupert Murdoch, has a track record.

« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2015, 00:59 »
+1
Science fiction films/books of corporations becoming stronger than nations is coming to fruition. Its already depressing to me in order for me to find animal programming i have to got nat geo wild. Now Nat Geo and all its affiliate channels i cant take seriously any more.

« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2015, 01:53 »
+3
It's all part of media control. 90% of US media is owned by 6 corporations.

« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2015, 08:48 »
+5
I was thinking of going on one of the NAT GEO trips to Antarctica. Guess those trips are caput, too.

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2015, 09:42 »
0
Science fiction films/books of corporations becoming stronger than nations is coming to fruition. Its already depressing to me in order for me to find animal programming i have to got nat geo wild. Now Nat Geo and all its affiliate channels i cant take seriously any more.
You can't get the BBC Natural History Unit programming where you live?

« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2015, 13:39 »
+2
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

Did it ever occur to anyone here that all species not dancing with the brain-dead bi-partisan cacophony are "inferior"? Apparently not.

So everyone here seems to think NPR or HuffPost would be better for NG?! And back we are in that old black-and-white thinking again. I thought, we are grown-ups here, seriously, and are also capable of understanding a bit more of the news than the mainstream mass-media boneheads usually give us. Not? Must still be a matter of Republicans or Democrats for some. Very disappointing.

The REAL problem is that they've been sold AT ALL! Let us watch and see how that one turns out...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 13:46 by stuttershock »

« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2015, 13:43 »
0
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

so everyone here seems to think NPR or HuffPost would be better for NG?! I thought, we are grown-ups here, seriously ;) The REAL problem is that they've been sold AT ALL! Let us watch and see how that one turns out...
Google it, I don't make this up.

« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2015, 13:50 »
0
-
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 13:53 by stuttershock »

« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2015, 13:51 »
0
-

[yikes -- can't delete, sorry]
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 13:55 by stuttershock »

« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2015, 13:53 »
+2
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

Did it ever occur to anyone here that all species not dancing with the brain-dead bi-partisan cacophony are "inferior"? Apparently not.

So everyone here seems to think NPR or HuffPost would be better for NG?! And back we are in that old black-and-white thinking again. I thought, we are grown-ups here, seriously, and are also capable of understanding a bit more of the news than the mainstream mass-media boneheads usually give us. Not? Must still be a matter of Republicans or Democrats for some. Very disappointing.

The REAL problem is that they've been sold AT ALL! Let us watch and see how that one turns out...

I should say I am not an American just someone who watches the political antics in America. I stand by my original tongue in cheek statement. If there is a way for this to stay non partisan I'd love to hear about it, but I really doubt its the case.

« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2015, 15:22 »
+1
You'll now see articles like The Heady Rise of Republicunus Erectus and Why All Other Species are Inferior

Did it ever occur to anyone here that all species not dancing with the brain-dead bi-partisan cacophony are "inferior"? Apparently not.

So everyone here seems to think NPR or HuffPost would be better for NG?! And back we are in that old black-and-white thinking again. I thought, we are grown-ups here, seriously, and are also capable of understanding a bit more of the news than the mainstream mass-media boneheads usually give us. Not? Must still be a matter of Republicans or Democrats for some. Very disappointing.

The REAL problem is that they've been sold AT ALL! Let us watch and see how that one turns out...

Why is there an assumption everyone here would prefer npr or huffpost? I consider myself an independent more than either party because i'm all about greyscale.

The REAL problem really is progress or technology. Not many are willing to pay the prices people used to pay to get subscriptions to the national geographic when there is so much more alternatives that have surplanted reading that magazine publication.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2380 Views
Last post January 30, 2008, 18:08
by madelaide
34 Replies
13132 Views
Last post August 18, 2010, 03:38
by sam100
17 Replies
4008 Views
Last post September 05, 2010, 09:54
by robggs
112 Replies
19402 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 09:08
by rubyroo
33 Replies
5884 Views
Last post August 31, 2014, 13:08
by PZF

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results