[willvarfar]

Tangent: I used to subscribe to the mag for years.

I was getting steadily more frustrated with the shift towards US domestic content and away from nature and the world, but I there was still good stuff in there and I was a big fan of sponsoring the research and exploration.

Then they sold to Murdoch, and so my subscription was no longer fuelling the research and exploration stuff, so I stopped in disgust.

Still miss what I remember of the 'good old days'.

[Fricken]

My Grandmother had a subscription to the mag going back to the mid 1960s, I read all of them, and it enriched my childhood. The online experience has always sucked, but in different ways over the years.

[peanutz454]

20 Yrs ago my brother bought 2 years worth of magazines from the kabadi bazar* in India it was a treasure trove. I was thinking of subscribing a few days back but based on what people are saying here I am wondering if I should buy old stuff from ebay instead.

* You sell old newspaper and magazines by the kilo in India for recycling, sometimes they make their way to a huge market where people are selling old stuff in a huge market called Kabadi bazar think of it like a pawn shops fair every Sunday.

[pomian]

Great idea to find old ones. They were often very interesting and much less political.

[chadcmulligan]

I subscribed to the iPad version for a while, it was beautiful imho, though this was a few years ago.

[andrepd]

What?? I had no idea they were bought by Murdoch.

[ceejayoz]

They're not, at least not now. The TV arm used to be part of 21st Century Fox from 2015-2017, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Partners

Disney owns 73%. The National Geographic Society owns 27%.

[galangalalgol]

I remember it becoming more and more about environmental issues, when Murdoch bought it did they change?

[Loughla]

I've had a subscription for decades - I can't see a shift toward what I genuinely expected when Murdoch bought it. Yes, they focus more on US issues than in the past, but I have to assume that is where their market is. But environmental issues and nature conservation are still very prominent in the publication.

[jfk13]

Agree entirely. I dropped my subscription around the same time as you, by the sound of it.

[LightG]

Thanks for the heads up ... didn't know that and will act accordingly.

[ceejayoz]

Verify the claim first. (It's not true.)

[willvarfar]

Rupert Murdoch owns 21st Century Fox, which brought the magazine in 2015 for $725M.

[ceejayoz]

Disney bought 21st Century Fox from Murdoch two years later.

His ownership was very brief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fo...

No need to cancel a subscription over old news.

[willvarfar]

So the money raised by the sale of magazines now goes to research and exploration again?

[ceejayoz]

The National Geographic Society still exists, yes, and makes money off the partnership with Disney. Their current programs are listed at https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/programs/.

[meragrin_]

Is there any proof it ever stopped?

[acheron]

If you're boycotting something based on false rumors you read on an Internet forum, I'm not sure how you buy anything.

Hey, I heard that Kim Jong-un bought out all the world's watermelon farms, so every time you buy a watermelon you're contributing to the oppression of North Koreans!

[LightG]

That's a lot of words to say: "the OP is incorrect". But I appreciate your concern.

And, so there is some factual outcome or use to this thread, I'd like to add that I'm looking forward to Murdoch rotting in actual, or metaphorical, hell.

You're welcome.

[johncessna]

The OP isn't boycotting anything, he's signalling.

[meragrin_]

> Then they sold to Murdoch, and so my subscription was no longer fuelling the research and exploration stuff, so I stopped in disgust.

Is there any proof of the funding part? I find it hard to believe they would partner with Fox for years before forming the joint venture, not get anything out of the partnership, and then form a joint venture and get even less.