4 ms·

As of 2015, NatGeo is majority-controlled by Fox News' parent company. Just something to think about. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150909-21st-c

by _bxg1 7y ago

As of 2015, NatGeo is majority-controlled by Fox News' parent company. Just something to think about. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150909-21st-century-fox-media-partnership/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150909-21st-cent...

throwaway8879 7y ago
This piece is more likely an ad for the recent Lion King movie.
fastball 7y ago
And that is relevant how...?
- _bxg1 7y ago
  The whole thing is a vague, fluffy argument against the value of conservation. It tries to argue that nature isn't static and that we therefore shouldn't worry about screwing it up. What's left out is the fact that nature's time scale of change is so slow compared to our own time scales, that it may as well be static from our perspective. We change things exponentially faster than natural systems have time to adapt to.
  - fastball 7y ago
    That’s not what the article is arguing at all. It came across to me as arguing for stronger conservation efforts, because even if we manage to stop human-led global warming, that doesn’t mean ecologies will just stick around.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  <tinfoil_hat> My best guess — if one considers that Fox News is quite the poster child of climate change denial/dismissal/minimization, and that they have quite a strong observable record of promoting attacks on just about any mention of human-influenced climate change/warming with snowballs in Congress and other seemingly silly arguments about how the earth has had ice ages and warm periods and everything that's happening now is natural, one might find reason to suspect a piece published by an entity controlled by the same entity that controls Fox News that seems to push a similar narrative—nature isn't static, climate change is natural, systems change over time, it never stays the same, the present state of change is not our fault ... ergo, don't worry about it! </tinfoil_hat> Again, that's my best guess at what the parent was attempting to imply. I'd imagine they see it's a bit like how Sinclair Media forces these opinion pieces to be delivered by "trusted" local news anchors/personalities, all obviously engineered to manufacture and spread a certain political POV to a local audience, even though it's not actually local opinion in any way—it's simply a piece forced down on subsidiaries by a controlling parent company.

by _bxg1 7y ago

throwaway8879 7y ago

This piece is more likely an ad for the recent Lion King movie.

fastball 7y ago

And that is relevant how...?

_bxg1 7y ago
The whole thing is a vague, fluffy argument against the value of conservation. It tries to argue that nature isn't static and that we therefore shouldn't worry about screwing it up. What's left out is the fact that nature's time scale of change is so slow compared to our own time scales, that it may as well be static from our perspective. We change things exponentially faster than natural systems have time to adapt to.
- fastball 7y ago
  That’s not what the article is arguing at all. It came across to me as arguing for stronger conservation efforts, because even if we manage to stop human-led global warming, that doesn’t mean ecologies will just stick around.
bobwaycott 7y ago
<tinfoil_hat> My best guess — if one considers that Fox News is quite the poster child of climate change denial/dismissal/minimization, and that they have quite a strong observable record of promoting attacks on just about any mention of human-influenced climate change/warming with snowballs in Congress and other seemingly silly arguments about how the earth has had ice ages and warm periods and everything that's happening now is natural, one might find reason to suspect a piece published by an entity controlled by the same entity that controls Fox News that seems to push a similar narrative—nature isn't static, climate change is natural, systems change over time, it never stays the same, the present state of change is not our fault ... ergo, don't worry about it! </tinfoil_hat> Again, that's my best guess at what the parent was attempting to imply. I'd imagine they see it's a bit like how Sinclair Media forces these opinion pieces to be delivered by "trusted" local news anchors/personalities, all obviously engineered to manufacture and spread a certain political POV to a local audience, even though it's not actually local opinion in any way—it's simply a piece forced down on subsidiaries by a controlling parent company.