Rupert Murdoch now owns National Geographic Magazine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    The National Geographic magazine has been a nonprofit publication since inception in 1888, but that ends today.

    Maybe NatGeo will now publish an honest article on clean carbonless nuclear power, instead of endless hand-wringing and solution-free designed to scare people and increase sales.
     
  2. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Just so long as he doesn't mess with my photos and captions.
     
  3. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #3
    Just when my subscription is up for renewal!

    I've been a subscriber for close to 30 years and maintained it partially to support NGS's independence and not-for-profit status.

    I usually only read the magazine on my iPad while traveling.

    B
     
  4. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #4
  5. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #5
    I swear, I only buy Nat Geo for the articles.
     
  6. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
  7. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #7
    I've been a subscriber for a long time...... I will re-consider my subscription.

    I don't know of any good alternatives though.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    The network that puts Phil Robertson on the air to dissect foreign policy buys NatGeo. What could possibly go wrong?
     
  9. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #9
    Ouch.

    I am sorry to learn of this. National Geographic was an excellent publication and I would hate to see its quality suffer and its reputation for intelligent integrity compromised by this purchase.
     
  10. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    National Geographic sacrificed their own integrity long ago. "Doomsday Preppers" anyone?
     
  11. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #11
    According to the article, Fox has already had a majority stake in their tv channels going back to 1997.
     
  12. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #12
    Unlike some who have posted here, I'm not a subscriber, just an occasional reader. The publications I subscribe to tend to be more political in tone, although I have long liked both National Geographic, and Scientific American.

    However, my memory is of a broadly excellent periodical, beautifully produced and illustrated, and thought-provokig and interesting to read.

    While I am not an expert on National Geographic, I am more than familiar with the grotesquely malignant influence that Mr Murdock has exercised both on print journalism and on television in the UK since the 1990s. It is a cause both of considerable concern to me and of deep regret for me that a once highly respected journal should have been bought by this dreadful individual.

    As a result of this, I have no doubt that its independence will be curtailed and its integrity compromised. Irrespective of whether National Geographic managed to stay true to its founding principles, to me, this is a sad day for journalism, writing and the notion of independent ownership and publications.
     
  13. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #13
    I don't think that exists, or is even possible. Nuclear is quite dirty. Just because the dirty bits can be contained and buried deep under ground doesn't make it clean. It's a different kind of dirty than burning coal, but dirty none the less.

    Also while generating heat and turning it into electricity using nuclear can be greenhouse-free, obtaining and purifieing that uranium fuel is not greenhouse-free at all.

    I advocate a mix of solar, wind, hydro (fish-friendly designs only), geothermal, and wave power. (1) Those are all truly clean*. (2) After the initial investment that will have greenhouse emissions, it is possible to reach a point where new ones are built using only clean energy from the older ones. (3) No complex mining is required*. (4) Decentralized mini-power sources available locally everywhere, rather than one huge power source for a whole region, will lead to a more reliable and less vulnerable grid (this is good from both a defense perspective and from an efficiency perspective).

    * I recognize that manufacture of solar cells can be a bit dirty, and does require some hard-to-get materials. However, the amount is very small relative to how much energy it can make in it's life, on a per-unit basis.
     
  14. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68030

    SactoGuy18

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA USA
    #14
    I think the advocates of the molten-salt reactor fueled by thorium-232 are right: today's pressurized reactor vessel uranium-235 fueled reactors are not that great. Not only do we have the massive nuclear waste disposal issue, but also safety is a major issue with the reactor vessel exploding or the fuel rods melting down if the cooling system is cut off, as we saw from the Fukushima Dai-ichi experience back in 2011.

    That's why Indian and Chinese scientists are building technology demonstrator reactors based on the molten-salt reactor design Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratories built in the 1960's. If they can scale up what Weinberg achieved, we get a new type of nuclear reactor that is extremely safe to run (even in areas of high seismic dangers), uses a nuclear fuel in thorium-232 that is as common in the soil as elemental lead (the cost of the fuel is really cheap), and the nuclear waste generated in very tiny in amount and with only a half-life of under 300 years (e.g., really cheap waste disposal, if the nuclear medicine industry doesn't grab it first!).

    Personally, I'm not a fan of wind power. Not only are the maintenance costs just too high, those large-blade wind turbines are also a huge hazard to any bird flying nearby (the wind turbines at Altamont Pass just east of Livermore, CA experienced a lot of bird kills). I do advocate solar, but only in parts of the world where there are enough sunny days to justify its installation cost (e.g., the Australian Outback, the deserts of the Middle East and northern Africa and southwestern USA).

    But getting back on topic, I didn't know that that Murdoch managed to get control of National Geographic magazine. I can just hear all the handwringing over this change. It will be very interesting to see what will the editorial policy of the magazine be from now on.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15


    As I think you noted in an earlier thread, printed magazines still have a visual and tactile appeal that even the finest digital representations somehow never quite seem to match. And National Geographic is probably exhibit 1A in that argument.

    Despite the alarms raised in some quarters over the ownership of a revered scientific treasure such as National Geographic by the Murdoch media monster - I think there is considerable cause for optimism.

    National Geographic has been associated with Fox for some years through its participation in the NatGeo cable TV channel. And the experience there has been almost universally positive. Magazine staffers and editors have indicated that the television people came to them for story and series ideas. Apparently the suits at News Corporation are not so blinded by political ideology to destroy a brand founded on the scientific and natural wonders of the world by injecting it with right-wing denialism of issues such as climate change.

    On a larger scale, I think developments within News Corporation itself point to a waning of the more malignant influences that led to the monster that is today's Fox News. Roger Ailes, the Nixon-era political operative who almost single-handedly created Fox News, now reports to Rupert Murdoch's sons: Lachlan and James. Both of whom have reportedly very strong environmental commitments. And both of whom are reported to despise Fox News' political bias. Neither Rupert Murdoch nor Roger Ailes will live forever, and I think its fair to say that we've probably begun to see the beginnings of a crumbling in the neoconservative groupthink that permeated Fox for most of the past decade. Thank James Murdoch. Thank the UK phone hacking scandal. Thank Donald Trump if you will. But whatever the sources - I think the writing is on the wall for the Fox News as the declared voice of the worst elements of the Republican Party. Fox News is not going to disappear. Its not going to morph into the New York Times or Mother Jones. But I'll settle for a return to relative sanity.
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    What if we all find out the Nat Geo thrives with this change in ownership? Maybe we'll see that the sky hasn't fallen.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    Although a Murdoch spokesperson stated they have no intention of messing with National Geo,when it comes to reporting on and editorializing global warming, that remains to be seen.
     
  19. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19

    Yes, but so long as they maintain photographic essays of young nubile partially clad native women gyrating in the night around a pillar of fire, I’m good with it.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    .....

    How much carbon is released in building these plants, and mining? :rolleyes:

    Hint: Far more than your BS accounts for.

    Also, show me ONE plant on the face of the earth that has any financial viability without billions in dollars of taxpayer subsidies, just one! You can't.
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21

    Does Solyndra count?

    Solyndra was subsidized but went belly up.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142364037/solyndra-highlights-long-history-of-energy-subsidies

    Some claim most green initiatives are heavily subsidized crony capitalism that ultimately fail in the marketplace.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...-thinly-veiled-exercises-in-crony-capitalism/
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    I didn't know that magazine was still around. Hell I didn't know any magazines were still around.
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    I'm not sure that's fair.

    From Nat. Geographic, published July 2015: "Could Next-Gen Reactors Spark Revival In Nuclear Power?"

    The article focuses on Leslie Dewan, a co-creator of a new molten salt reactor design.

    Of note, the "public appeal" mentioned in the article was written by four climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen with Columbia University's Earth Institute.

    And, the article is clear-eyed about the complexities of new reactor designs and includes quotes from Matthew McKinzie with the National Resources Defense Council.

    "Clean" is a misnomer. While the next-gen reactors are an important technological step, there's still significant environmental costs in mining the fuel, construction, and operation.

    That's not to say that these reactors aren't a solution, but let's not kid ourselves.
     
  24. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #24
    Thanks, my barber must have misplaced that issue. I'll have to look it up.

    The glaciers are retreating, the poles are melting, mankind stands on the threshold of extinction, and you're fretting about government subsidies? Obviously, you're in no way alarmed by climate change. Must be a Fox News addict.
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    I just realized that the story was published online as part of Nat. Geo's "Great Energy Challenge" series and there wasn't a published component. (Articles published under ngm.nationalgeographic.com are in the magazine, all else is online or for the network).

    In searching, I found this story in the April 2006 issue of National Geographic, which was published in the magazine: "It’s Scary, It’s Expensive, It Could Save the Earth Nuclear power risking a comeback."
     

Share This Page