Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 10-02-2002, 03:22 PM

Has anyone noticed this? I am aware this might be more appropriate in the "Media and Pop culture" section but it does relate to science and skepticism. Is it not part of the scientific method to withold value judgements?
I see two trends that I think might be compromising the National Geographic societies scientific credibility.
1. appeal to a larger "pop" audience through other puplications an t.v. shows.
2. The development of what appears to be a "social conscience."

For example they seem to publish more and more articles relating to popular political issues covered in the mass media, they also seem to be trying to call attention to issues in order to raise help for people. For instance people that seem to be oppressed like lobster divers off the mosquito coast and then they give website info for people trying to help them.
Not that this is all bad but it seems unobjective to me and is causing the organization to loose some of the unique appeal it once had for me as a person interested in science and geography and anthropology.
Recently there have ben articles on ANWAR and wheather or not to drill there and this month an article on Israel and Palestine (how unique is that?)
comments?

echidna · 10-02-2002, 04:57 PM

You buy National Geographic for the articles ?

Strange, when I was 14 no one ever believed me �

Bubba · 10-02-2002, 05:00 PM

Your dead right about Geographic, But I still think that it's one of the best magazines out there.

Besides, it beats reading the Focus on the Family newsletter.

Bubba

echidna · 10-02-2002, 05:03 PM

Actually I see �pop audience� and �social conscience� as being a long-running feature of NatGeo for as long as I can remember (well that and nudey pics). In fact I�d still base that on journals as early as 1946 , even down to the nudey pics.

GeoTheo · 10-02-2002, 05:38 PM

well, I think they are becoming more obvious about it. There are not saying "Check out this culture/geographic region/scientific phenomena ect." They seem more and more to be saying "Look at this social issue we need to do somthing!"
No one can be totally objective I admit, if National Geographic is not the magazine that should strive for this what is?
If you are going around examining the globe if you want to understand it you should at least try to withold value judgements. They seem less concerned lately with even having a vaneer of doing this IMO.
(Bubba, I agree it is still cool though!)

echidna · 10-02-2002, 06:06 PM

Typically NatGeo deals with cultural, environmental and social issues, even political at times, generally from a pictorial and grassroots human perspective, usually left-leaning by common definitions. Given the complexity of these issues though, a truly objective analysis cannot be made even if a single volume dealt with just one microcosm at a time, an even if with dramatically fewer glossy illustrations !

That said I think NatGeo does a pretty good job of providing a human face to places we hardly knew existed. But I don�t see many economists reading it & personally I�d prefer neither did the politicians base their policies on its articles either.

butswana · 10-03-2002, 10:34 AM

It has to be for the articles. Who would want to look at a 35 year old tit that has never had any support?
My son completely destroyed my map of the Middle East before I got to check it out.
I do think it's funny that it comes in a brown bag.

fando · 10-05-2002, 11:31 PM

Count me in as a NatGeo geek since early adolescence. I stopped reading them once I became capable of understanding more advanced journals such as Science. Recently, I read a few issues of NatGeo and came to the conclusion that it really does appeal to a lay audience and it does seem to have a social agenda. So I agree with echidna. NatGeo is highly suitable for the doctor's waiting room, water closet and so on and so forth.

10-02-2002, 03:22 PM	#1
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	National Geographic becoming less scientific? Has anyone noticed this? I am aware this might be more appropriate in the "Media and Pop culture" section but it does relate to science and skepticism. Is it not part of the scientific method to withold value judgements? I see two trends that I think might be compromising the National Geographic societies scientific credibility. 1. appeal to a larger "pop" audience through other puplications an t.v. shows. 2. The development of what appears to be a "social conscience." For example they seem to publish more and more articles relating to popular political issues covered in the mass media, they also seem to be trying to call attention to issues in order to raise help for people. For instance people that seem to be oppressed like lobster divers off the mosquito coast and then they give website info for people trying to help them. Not that this is all bad but it seems unobjective to me and is causing the organization to loose some of the unique appeal it once had for me as a person interested in science and geography and anthropology. Recently there have ben articles on ANWAR and wheather or not to drill there and this month an article on Israel and Palestine (how unique is that?) comments?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2002, 04:57 PM	#2
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	You buy National Geographic for the articles ? Strange, when I was 14 no one ever believed me �

10-02-2002, 05:00 PM	#3
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Your dead right about Geographic, But I still think that it's one of the best magazines out there. Besides, it beats reading the Focus on the Family newsletter. Bubba

10-02-2002, 05:03 PM	#4
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Actually I see �pop audience� and �social conscience� as being a long-running feature of NatGeo for as long as I can remember (well that and nudey pics). In fact I�d still base that on journals as early as 1946 , even down to the nudey pics.

10-02-2002, 05:38 PM	#5
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	well, I think they are becoming more obvious about it. There are not saying "Check out this culture/geographic region/scientific phenomena ect." They seem more and more to be saying "Look at this social issue we need to do somthing!" No one can be totally objective I admit, if National Geographic is not the magazine that should strive for this what is? If you are going around examining the globe if you want to understand it you should at least try to withold value judgements. They seem less concerned lately with even having a vaneer of doing this IMO. (Bubba, I agree it is still cool though!)

10-02-2002, 06:06 PM	#6
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Typically NatGeo deals with cultural, environmental and social issues, even political at times, generally from a pictorial and grassroots human perspective, usually left-leaning by common definitions. Given the complexity of these issues though, a truly objective analysis cannot be made even if a single volume dealt with just one microcosm at a time, an even if with dramatically fewer glossy illustrations ! That said I think NatGeo does a pretty good job of providing a human face to places we hardly knew existed. But I don�t see many economists reading it & personally I�d prefer neither did the politicians base their policies on its articles either.

10-03-2002, 10:34 AM	#7
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	It has to be for the articles. Who would want to look at a 35 year old tit that has never had any support? My son completely destroyed my map of the Middle East before I got to check it out. I do think it's funny that it comes in a brown bag.

10-05-2002, 11:31 PM	#8
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	Count me in as a NatGeo geek since early adolescence. I stopped reading them once I became capable of understanding more advanced journals such as Science. Recently, I read a few issues of NatGeo and came to the conclusion that it really does appeal to a lay audience and it does seem to have a social agenda. So I agree with echidna. NatGeo is highly suitable for the doctor's waiting room, water closet and so on and so forth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.