Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The downfall of National Geographic

jjpryor.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#111

Post by [deleted] »

thisGuyFlicks wrote: post #44
brvsft wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember getting a subscription and canceling it immediately after getting my first issue, somewhere around 2015. It was about how Detroit is actually a very cool city and had photos and interviews of cool young people with tattoos. Simply not what I remembered of the magazine as a child. And I have no problem with tattoos, just the strange political agenda that had nothing to do with the environment or animals. I…

I'm failing to see the political agenda in an article about Detroit that features pictures of people that may or may not have tattoos. Edit: I'm assuming this is the article and I still don't see the agenda here. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/taking-back-detroit/see-d...

[deleted]

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#112

Post by chinchilla2020 »

hospitalJail wrote: post #12

This isnt exclusive to NG. This phenomena exists for seemingly every IP. I'll give video games as an example because it seems so clear cut and many people experienced this cycle already. >A company starts out relatively small and is able to turn a profit or attract investment. They continue to be relatively unknown. >The company releases their first breakout hit (Halo, Morrowind or Oblivion, Zelda OOT). The employees…

Use DICE and the once-legendary Battlefield series as an example.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#114

Post by JoeAltmaier »

For a fabulously wealthy national non-profit treasure, they sure have squandered their reputation. Instead of exploring those thousands of new buildings discovered by lidar in the Yucatan, they're putting up articles about bug repellents, summer holiday destinations or cocktails before bed.

I think they've been hijacked by some media/financial money-grubbing soulless web lizards, but hey maybe it just looks like that from the outside.

I wish big trusts like that (and like the Hewlett foundation) could be sued when they veer from their madate into ordinary base activities like hoarding money and fooling people into donating.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#115

Post by JoeAltmaier »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #63
g8oz wrote: post #8

"...And at the same time, the group that started the magazine, the National Geographic Society, which used to run on a budget of millions, now has 1.6 billion dollars in its piggy bank." What on earth are they doing as a non profit to justify keeping that stash safe from taxation?

I think savings like this are typically used as an endowment? they can hold on to it and operate off of the interest (would love if someone can confirm/deny this).

If by 'operate' you mean 'pay executives and lawyers exorbitant retainers' then I suppose you are right.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#116

Post by JoeAltmaier »

bregma wrote: post #57
throwaway4311 wrote: post #26

For National Geographic, I wonder if there is another dimension that isn’t talked about: Nudity For a significant portion of time, National Geographic was the only culturally acceptable and accessible place in the United States one could see photographs of nude women (and men). I would guess there were millions of boys across multiple generations in the United States who saw their fist photo of a nude woman in Nation…

The nudity was tolerated as long as the subjects were natives. No naked "regular people" appeared in the pages of National Geographic. Which does point to one of the causes for people complaining that it's gone down hill and isn't what it used to be, and other code language.

One exception I recall, a family of anthropologists were dancing with natives in a village and one photo showed their teen daughter with the others, topless as well. I remember it well.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#117

Post by JoeAltmaier »

cagenut wrote: post #16

Nearly every single newspaper and magazine company has the exact same revenue and subscriber growth chart over the last 20 years. Its a roughly 30-degree angle down and to the right, from a high around 2000 to todays near bankrupcy across the board. Everybody got laid off, everything is produced by freelancers hitting wordcount and postcount metrics by the hour. There's nothing special about NatGeo here, Time, Newswe…

They are constitutionally different. They are a non-profit, do (did) fund their own research around the globe, and reported on real things you couldn't find anyplace else.

That said, I discontinued my subscription decades ago for some reason. I don't remember why.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#118

Post by ghaff »

chinchilla2020 wrote: post #110
ghaff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet didn't exist and travel, perhaps especially exotic/adventure travel, was a much more rarified thing--so National Geographic was this window into a world that the vast majority of people would never encounter anywhere else.

exotic/adventure travel is even more rare nowadays. The rise of social media has funneled most travelers towards a few high-infrastructure hotspots like Bali, Yellowstone, and Barcelona. Historically, travel was performed much more 'blind', rather than following the internet-registered locations and reviews.

I don't know the effect in absolute terms but certainly there's less terra incognito from the perspective of Westerners than there was when the Wheelers founded Lonely Planet.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#119

Post by jppittma »

DougN7 wrote: post #41
jppittma wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying really hard to not be mean/offensive really is the same thing as putting people in camps for criticizing those in power.

There’s a huge difference between not being mean and actively pushing a view point (be it cultural, emotional or political).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "pushing a view point." Any form of communication qualifies as pushing a view point. Criticizing people for "pushing a view point" is basically criticizing them for speaking at all.

Re: The downfall of National Geographic

#120

Post by DougN7 »

jppittma wrote: post #119
DougN7 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a huge difference between not being mean and actively pushing a view point (be it cultural, emotional or political).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "pushing a view point." Any form of communication qualifies as pushing a view point. Criticizing people for "pushing a view point" is basically criticizing them for speaking at all.

There is a difference between pushing and sharing or discussing.
Post reply on HN