4 ms·

There are precedents. I stopped buying National Geographic magazine when the Society sold it to Fox. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/natio

There are precedents. I stopped buying National Geographic magazine when the Society sold it to Fox. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-magazine-shifts-to-for-profit-status-with-fox-partnership/2015/09/09/7c9f034e-56f0-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geog... > On Wednesday, the iconic yellow-bordered magazine, beset by financial issues, entered its own uncharted territory. In an effort to stave off further decline, the magazine was effectively sold by its nonprofit parent organization to a for-profit venture whose principal shareholder is one of Rupert Murdoch’s global media companies.

realityking 7y ago
Looks like that stake went to Disney when most of Fox was sold to them. Interesting.
- kozhevnikov 7y ago
  It's on all Disney+ ads. https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg
chapium 7y ago
I hear magazine and tv divisions are still very much separate.
- willvarfar 7y ago
  It’s still commercial. I was buying the mag because I was happy that the profits went to the researchers in jungles all over the world etc. I loved the nature and antiquity and exploring stories that used to dominate. Steadily through the 2000s I found more and more stories that I skipped because they felt political and us-centric. And then the sale? That was enough.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Did you ever get a copy of Nat Geo Adventure / Traveler? It was one of the sub-magazines that proliferated (probably as they were trying to keep the print business alive). Grabbed a couple in an airport, but they seemed more interesting and focused than the main one.
tw04 7y ago
I'm not sure that's a valid precedent. National Geographic was facing bankruptcy with a bleak future. Their options were to sell or shut the doors - they took what they believed to be the lesser of two evils. .org prints money - they have almost no overhead, and a basically guaranteed revenue stream. This isn't a public good that has no other options to survive - it's a bunch of shady board members attempting to enrich themselves at the expense of the public good.

realityking 7y ago

Looks like that stake went to Disney when most of Fox was sold to them. Interesting.

kozhevnikov 7y ago
It's on all Disney+ ads. https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg

chapium 7y ago

I hear magazine and tv divisions are still very much separate.

willvarfar 7y ago
It’s still commercial. I was buying the mag because I was happy that the profits went to the researchers in jungles all over the world etc. I loved the nature and antiquity and exploring stories that used to dominate. Steadily through the 2000s I found more and more stories that I skipped because they felt political and us-centric. And then the sale? That was enough.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Did you ever get a copy of Nat Geo Adventure / Traveler? It was one of the sub-magazines that proliferated (probably as they were trying to keep the print business alive). Grabbed a couple in an airport, but they seemed more interesting and focused than the main one.

tw04 7y ago

I'm not sure that's a valid precedent. National Geographic was facing bankruptcy with a bleak future. Their options were to sell or shut the doors - they took what they believed to be the lesser of two evils. .org prints money - they have almost no overhead, and a basically guaranteed revenue stream. This isn't a public good that has no other options to survive - it's a bunch of shady board members attempting to enrich themselves at the expense of the public good.