San José, Costa Rica, since 1956
Media matters

National Geographic fans worry about partnership with climate change skeptic Rupert Murdoch

Last month, Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to vent his frustration about an upcoming United Nations climate summit in New York.

A week later, he blamed “extreme greenies” for hindering economic growth. “Seems beyond reason,” he wrote.

On Wednesday, Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox paid $725 million for 73 percent control of a partnership with National Geographic’s media arm, giving Murdoch and his media empire sway over the magazine revered for its science coverage.

That has the magazine’s fans worried:

Executives at Fox and National Geographic underscored that the new partnership — which will be governed by a board with an equal number of representatives from each organization — would not affect the magazine’s standards of reporting.

“I don’t think that they would be investing in this brand if it weren’t to keep the quality of what National Geographic stands for,” National Geographic CEO Gary Knell told the New York Times.

National Geographic’s Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg told The Washington Post, “Fox has acknowledged that they have not always represented the National Geographic brand in some of those programs in a way we loved or even they loved,” but added that the partnership was “great news” that would support the magazine’s journalism.

But outside onlookers, pointing to scientists’ criticism of Murdoch’s comments and Fox’s climate change coverage, gloomily speculated about the effect of the partnership on the magazine’s famous science journalism.

Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study arguing that 72 percent of Fox’s climate change coverage was “misleading.”

A few months later, Murdoch gave an interview with Sky News arguing that humans were responsible for “nothing, in the overall picture,” with regard to climate change in Australia.

“Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here,” he said, adding that humans were responsible for only one third of global temperature increases, if anything.

“Wrong,” University of Melbourne atmospheric scientist David Karoly, author of several studies on changes in Australia’s climate, told Bloomberg News. ” … It is hard to know or even guess what Rupert Murdoch’s statements are based on.”

People worried about the future of National Geographic’s climate change coverage might be comforted that James Murdoch, Fox’s chief executive, has argued that “clean energy is a conservative cause.” In an interview with the Guardian published in 2009, he said: “All of the climate-prediction models suggest we’re on the worst-case trajectory, and some cases worse than the worst case. That’s my depressing take on it.”

Speaking to National Geographic staffers Wednesday, James Murdoch said he revered the publication, which he has read since childhood. He told the New York Times he has no plans to change the culture or mission of the magazine.

“It is a creative business we are in, and we are in creative alignment,” he said.

© 2015, The Washington Post

Log in to comment

Meme Mine

What does a lib call an opposing view?
A lie.

Whats another term for climate change denier?

Evolved!

Through the last 34 years of climate action failure not one IPCC warning has ever said “will be” or “proven” or “certain” for their own CO2 Armageddon.

Is this how you “believers” want your children remembering you?

It’s over, no matter how much you hate conservatives; *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

1 0
Rick Drigo

Several decades ago, I with sadness got rid of all my Nat Geo Collection and stopped the subcription, this after it became obvious that more tan science – they were activists for global warming then for climate change and always for evolution. Lost all respect when I read how they ran a story they knew was false about the proof of birds coming from dinos. With just that one seven page lie they messed up millions of children, and made more liberals.

0 0
Mark Kahle

Since the very first Earth Day for which I planted a tree and listened to Dr. Paul Ehrlich speak I have heard global cooling, ice age, global warming, been guaranteed that the Northern polar area would be barren ground, have listened to reports of every natural disaster be blamed on this or that and never just called “weather”.

I have also NOT heard a single provable fact being quoted that backs up this junk science.
Not one single solitary teeny tiny fact.

I have seen the video of the Platform Secretary of the UN say blatantly that this is about changing the worlds economy (speech in Brussels this very year) NOT climate concerns.

I have seen stalwart organizations like NASA and NOAA fake and lie about simple things like temperature readings in order to support the supposed climate model.

I have seen two IPCC research teams stopped dead in their tracks because of sea ice that their models said was 100% impossible. Once in the Antarctic and once this year in the Arctic.

Polar bears were all supposed to be dead by now but their numbers have increased from a counted 700 to over 30,000 since Al Gores book came out.

The sea level was guaranteed to be a foot higher… then the same Al Gore bought a beachfront multi-million dollar home…on the sand…yes, he has proven how much he believes.

And on and on and on ad nausea.

Still waiting for a single fact that proves any little part of what the “believers” say… just a little one. 40 years and still waiting.

0 0
Bobpiazza

Murdoch and the Koch brothers, what more does the US want. These people will not be happy until a full Dictatorship is achieved in the US.
More money at all costs!
Goodbye National Geographic, hello Murdoch Ideology.

0 0
Rick Drigo

Many years ago I tried to get a Masters on Environmental science, when I got my books and read the likes of Paul Ehrlich, I realized this was propaganda and dropped out of that program.

0 0
Suizitico

Really bad news
It’s like having the fox (literally) guarding the henhouse…

0 0