# Rupert Murdoch Takes Over National Geographic, Then Lays Off Award-Winning Staff



## jcdeboever (Nov 4, 2015)

Rupert Murdoch Takes Over National Geographic, Then Lays Off Award-Winning Staff

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## JDB1911 (Nov 4, 2015)

Well, here's to being optimistic that some good can come from this. Maybe this will be his next STAR


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 4, 2015)

He's all about making money.

Most mgt that says there will be no change are essentially stating that for "this instant" and one can expect change.   I've seen it happen all the time.  There are very few companies that actually mean what they say during a takeover.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2015)

what's the point of an award winning staff if they cant make your business stay afloat?








you can't erode something that's already died, decomposed, and been eaten by grubs.


 I'm just joking around, not serious here.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 4, 2015)

Another battle lost.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 4, 2015)

National Geographic has their TV Channel too - NatGeo
That article talks about how they've had some misses in programming.  
so while people continue to not buy printed magazines, they move to online articles and TV.
The TV I would think would make most revenue as it's advertising that pays the bills.

I don't know what the subscription on nationalgeographic.com gives from the free stuff, but that revenue is based on advertizer clicks.

Selling paper anything has been a dwindling proposition for years now.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2015)

They are still one of the highest circulated magazines, so who knows.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 4, 2015)

So no more photos for NatGeo? Or will he be using the Craigslist professionals from now on?


----------



## Designer (Nov 4, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Another battle lost.


I don't get it.


----------



## Designer (Nov 4, 2015)

ronlane said:


> So no more photos for NatGeo? Or will he be using the Craigslist professionals from now on?


Whether he gets them from CL or the local tavern, who cares?  He will be saving the magazine money.  

I subscribed many years ago, but lately have been seeing it mainly in waiting rooms.  It is not seen in as many waiting rooms these days.


----------



## cgw (Nov 4, 2015)

A bit more here:

National Geographic Society sets biggest layoff in its history

BTW, how many posting here are subscribers? Just asking...


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 4, 2015)

I don't like it when graphs lie a bit for initial visual impact


----------



## KmH (Nov 4, 2015)

National Geographic hasn't had staff photographers for a long time.
They've been using freelance photographers ever since.


----------



## Designer (Nov 4, 2015)

I think I found the big deal:

"The _National Geographic Society_ has long stood for science, research, and investigation. Murdoch’s companies have *long stood against all three*. The two positions would be in conflict, save Murdoch’s company is firmly in control. The editorial changes will therefore be severe, and erode the 127 years of publication excellence. For the men and women who brought National Geographic to worldwide prominence, the termination of employment is a tragic end both for hard-working people, and for National Geographic itself."

I disagree with the first premise, am uninformed as to the second premise, am neutral about the third premise, simply accept the first conclusion, and am neutral about the second conclusion.

How this move affects the photography we have become accustomed to is why this article was linked, and my guess is that there will not be any perceived difference in the photography.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2015)

According to the NG representatives, the takeover is bringing with it a staff reduction of about nine percent, quoted as about 180 people being let go from a staff of 2,000. I dunno...that doesn't seem all that draconian. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Rupert Murdoch the man is slime, and that he has done more to harm American culture than almost any foreigner since Joseph Stalin. For many decades, *foreign nationals were barred from owning American media outlets*, but one political party back in the 1990's got those long-time prohibitions reversed, and Murdoch and the FOX network were formed, as he bought up many smaller, independent TV and radio outlets across the USA, and brought his insidious views and policies into this country.


----------



## Overread (Nov 4, 2015)

I must admit that whilst the magazine is always top rate the Nat Geo Tv that I've seen has always been very substandard in content. Always seeming to be designed by the person who really believes that TV should aim at the lowest IQ possible for its presentations. 

Sadly these days money talks and downsizing is something I'm seeing everywhere. Which makes sense as most companies grew up in times of more affluence and now times are harder they are forced to downsize. With advertising also being almost a lifeblood of many publications and internet websites things are getting lighter in content and heavier in adverts. Heck some magazines in the UK are almost half adverts. 


Nat Geo doesn't sound like the sort of thing that will thrive under Murdock unless "he" and his industry keeps it hands off. That said chances are they either got offered so much money that they could not resist or were in hard times and needed a bail-out (companies and indeed individuals are very good at hiding such information from general knowledge so it can be surprising when we assume they are doing well and suddenly it turns out - no - nothey are not doing well)


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 6, 2015)

Designer said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Another battle lost.
> ...



Fox News


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 13, 2015)

Murdock will add lots of T&A and vapid celebrity gossip and the great unwashed will love it. Have you seen the New York Daily News lately?


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 14, 2015)

Derrel said:


> According to the NG representatives, the takeover is bringing with it a staff reduction of about nine percent, quoted as about 180 people being let go from a staff of 2,000. I dunno...that doesn't seem all that draconian. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Rupert Murdoch the man is slime, and that he has done more to harm American culture than almost any foreigner since Joseph Stalin. For many decades, *foreign nationals were barred from owning American media outlets*, but one political party back in the 1990's got those long-time prohibitions reversed, and Murdoch and the FOX network were formed, as he bought up many smaller, independent TV and radio outlets across the USA, and brought his insidious views and policies into this country.



Murdock became an American in 1985 forgoing his Australian citizenship.  This allowed him to own TV stations.  He's one of the few who's brought conservative views to traditional liberal biased media.  Conservative viewpoints and policies are not insidious.  This country does allow free speech, you know.  Should we all think and act alike?


----------

