PDA

View Full Version : National Geographic - Nov 2004 - Charles Darwin



Ron Bose
17-Oct-2004, 22:37
Robert Clark's LF photographs are published with David Quammen's article on Charles Darwin in November's National Geographic.

As NG inches toward digital, it's nice to see some LF photography between the covers !

adrian tyler
18-Oct-2004, 01:17
Let's hear it for National Geographic! traditionaly a conservative magazine it seems that they are now one of the very few now challanging Corporate America, septembers issue "Global Warning Bulletins from a Warmer World" and the june 2004 issue "The End of Cheap Oil" made harrowing reading...

Neal Shields
18-Oct-2004, 10:05
I used to be a big fan of National Geographic. However, several years ago we visited Ambrum Island in the S. Pacific and had a great time climbing the valcano there. A National Geographic expedition visited several years later and did a real hatchet job on the very same natives that were so kind and helpful to us.

While claiming, that you barely got out alive, is great for magazine sales, it doesn't furthar understanding between clutures.

Also as a scuba diver, I have noticed that for National Geographic, all waters (including bathtubs) are "shark infested", even though finding one to photograph is usually very expensive and time consuming.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0011/feature3/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0011/feature3/

If you read the forum, you will notice that I am not the only one that noticed a great deal of difference between reality as "reported" by National Geographic and reality experienced first hand.

My account: http://truckgenerator.com/subdomain/sueandneal/new_page_11.htm

I am from a generation where your view of the world was based on National Geographic magizines which were never thrown away.

However, I think like much of journalism, they went down hill when they quit reporting and became "journalists".

More and more where I have first hand experience, I see National Geographic publishing that which furthars a given political agenda ( or advertising sales) and editing out that, which doesn't.

For someone in my age group it is doubly sad, as it is like watching an old friend that was strong and robust in his youth, sicken and wither.

John Kasaian
18-Oct-2004, 11:15
Neal: Kind of like Kodak?

Its been years (decades really) since I last subscribed to National Geographic but I've always enjoyed the photography---which I suppose puts it in the same league as Playboy;-)

I remember when my Dad was turned down for membership back in the 50s (remember when you had to be a member to get the magazine? You couldn't simply subscribe to National Geographic by sending in a check! When we moved to a better zip (postal) code we got a subscription pronto.

One of my most prized "books" in my modest library is a bound set of the 1926 National Geographics:-) The stuff of dreams.

Anyway I went from National Geographic to The Smithsonian and eventually dropped that subscription as well when I was in college because they struck me as pushing "agendas" rather than, as Adrian mentioned--- reporting. Not that I'm against "agendas" since I'm of the opinion that there are some very serious issues with respect to exploitative global capitalism and globalism which I find very disturbing, but I'd rather they be advanced through logical and scholarly philosophical discussion than through social propaganda, fear and sensationalism.

When they came out with National Geographic Traveler(I think thats what they called it) Great photos---lousy reading(IMHO) I found it appalling. If there ever was a home study course on how to be "An Ugly American" National Geographic wrote the book.

I'll have to check out the June issue next time I'm at the dentist though. Maybe I can reconnect with my other "old yellow" friend from my childhood. It would be nice.