Nat Geo

[elsa hoffmann]

Most of us grew up with National Geographic as THE ultimate in exotic photography. My perception is that to make NatGeo -  you would have to be darn special. (the stats for getting into NatGeo is scary - ordinary people just dont.....)

In light of the above - I am sad to see whats happening. Perhaps Murdoch knows something we don't

https://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/rupert-murdoch-cuts-award-winning-staff-shortly-after-buying-national-geographic

[pluton]

Slashing costs at the mag is credible as a move by NewsCorp.
Labor is the #1 cost.
I have heard for years that the magazine was a money loser, or at least not a money maker, and that the Nat Geo organization has considered folding it many times.
They make more return on their TV cable channel, which features mostly junk programming that has 21 minutes of commercials per hour.
To me the "photography" has been overrated, but the coverage of global environment issues has been excellent.  "Excellent" environment coverage is, necessarily, mostly bad news...and that's what I'll be watching for:  a change to that editorial policy.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

For me, any early fascination of what NatGeo could deliver faded quickly when I read articles about places I knew of first-hand.

Still, observing iconic sources getting the death knell is unpleasant.