'National Geographic' Sells Soul to Devil

Following the surprising news that The National Geographic magazine had sold its soul to the Devil, TOP spoke to the Devil.

TOP: I would have thought that a healthy non-profit with 6.8 million members and a long history of integrity would have been immune to your blandishments.

The Devil: I know, right? But you know, it's the hard ones where I get all the satisfaction.

TOP: How did you manage it?

The Devil: Super-simple. As always. It's amazing how well it works. Just dangle enough dollars in front of anybody and almost all of them will go for it. Somebody [winks] once said 'the love of money is the root of all evil,' but fortunately for me nobody listened. Very few, anyway. As I keep proving with all those evangelical pastors...little private hobby of mine I keep after for my own enjoyment.

TOP: And yet the money means little to you.

The Devil: Nothing. The money I paid for this one is a rounding error to my minions. Money only impresses people who don't have it.

TOP: Didn't the National Geographic Society have enough money already? I mean, I thought they were healthy enough.

The Devil: That's the beauty. They were. But a magazine's a magazine, and they're all scrambling.

TOP: The National Geographic's mission is scientific education. And yet you are rather famously all about about indirection, misdirection, trickery, false appearances, cant, and dissembling. How are they going to reconcile the disparity?

The Devil: During the negotiations, they told me 'This magazine has had soul for 127 years; we've never had any trouble with our soul; we're not going to have any trouble with our soul.' They just don't think it will be a problem, is all.

TOP: Is that common?

The Devil: Absolutely. Almost universal. Nobody takes it seriously. Until it comes time to pay, that is. They focus on the money they're going to get and allow themselves to gloss over what it might cost them. I just tell them, 'don't worry, you can continue to operate completely independently. You'll never know I'm here.'

TOP: Until one day they want to do another story on climate change, and...

The Devil: Oh, I'll let them do a few more. But they'll gradually come to understand just how evil I am, and how completely powerless they are in the face of my overwhelming dominance...

TOP: And then you'll put your foot down.

The Devil: I won't even have to. I'll just clear my throat. They'll back down... [chortles] 'completely independently.' I think the beauty of it is that so few people are really even aware of their soul.

TOP: Until they no longer own it.

The Devil: ...Until they no longer own it. With institutions it's surprisingly fragile, no matter how robust it seems and how much people take it for granted.

TOP: So will we see big changes right away at the National Geographic's magazines?

The Devil: Not right away. I'm evil, but I'm subtle.

TOP: This is sort of off topic, but I'm curious. Doesn't God have anything to say about any of your shenanigans?

The Devil: You know, He's more powerful than I am, granted, but He's just not as interested. How He works is that He's in everybody. He puts an awareness of His goodness and decency in everyone. And then He backs off. Do you ever hear from the guy directly? Never. He's not a leader. He's all about individuals. It's not like He couldn't fight me, it's that He wants you to fight me.

TOP: So He just lets the chips fall.

The Devil: Well, I now own The National Geographic. You've got to ask yourself, did you see that coming?

TOP: I see your point. Well, we could continue this discussion, Devil, but I'm getting an icky feeling. But thanks for talking to us.

The Devil: My pleasure. Been a great week. Onward!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

emptyspaces: "From one of the comments: 'So as long as NG stays away from anthropology, archeology, astronomy, biology, climatology, geology, geography, paleontology, history, religion (other than Judeo-Christian) they should be okay.' Give the Devil his due, I guess."

Jacques: "This one will be a TOP classic...!"

jim woodard: "Great explanation on how God works, Mike! And yes, so sad to see the beginning of the end for National Geographic!"

Ken Tanaka: "I, too, was discouraged but not surprised by this news. Circulation of their flagship magazine, like most magazines, must be fading, perhaps quickly. Their newer Traveler magazine has probably grown and maintained an audience but it must also be rather frail. (I've seen it offered as a freebie subscription with some museum and PBS subscriptions.) NG recently started a history magazine; I've enjoyed through its first the quarterly issues. (Lively McHistory articles!)

But it's clear that National Geographic's future is not going to be in magazines. Its days with a primarily educational research mission are also over. In an age offering few real mysteries about the Earth 'NatGeo,' as it now calls itself, has been slowly edging its way into thrill-o-tainment via its cable channels and other programs featuring Woo-Hoo event coverage.

"I also suspect that they're very concerned about attracting a younger audience. I've had season tickets to the 'NatGeo Live!' lecture series for several years. It's clearly a hit and seems to be growing each year. The good news: it's a quick sell-out here in Chicago every year. The bad: more than half the audience appears to be my age (61) or older.

"So National Geographic has big challenges ahead. I can only imagine the blood on the conference room carpet after their senior management debated this majority sale to Fox. I wish them well."

MikeInMKE: "And with that ignorant, misinformed and hateful rant, you've lost me as a reader."

Mike replies: I take it the intended humor did not make it through?

GKFroehlich: "OMG! I have been a lifetime subscriber to National Geographic magazine, literally—a childless great-aunt gave me a subscription when I was born, and it has continued for ~65 years. The article at the link indicates circulation was dropping. Well, this move just caused it to drop by at least one more! I will be cancelling my membership.

"One has only to survey the unmitigated crap offered by the Fox-controlled National Geographic TV channels to see the future, just as the Devil described it to you in his interview! There's a damned good reason the we used to have laws preventing a majority of media outlets being owned by only a few individuals. It seems most of the people I deal with already get their 'news' from Fox; now we face the prospect of those people getting their 'science' from Fox as well. This news ruined my week."

Mike replies: I'm very much in favor of the traditional U.S. laws—now gone—that once encouraged freedom of speech, healthy competition, and freedom from monopoly by sensibly preventing the centralization of media ownership.

Ed Grossman: "How long before Disney buys the Smithsonian?"

John Bohn: "I also, am a lifetime reader of National Geographic Magazine. That being stated, NG has been dead to me for over fifteen years. NG were among the first major publications to demand that freelance and contract photographers relinquish copyright ownership of work published in NG. Many very well known long time NG contractors separated from the Society over this rights grab.

"The last time that I read the NG masthead, only a single staff photographer was listed. To be sure of this, moments ago I picked up the current issue only to discover that NG no longer has a masthead! Enough said...."

Comments

[Markus]

*That* piece might become a T.O.P. classic. It would deserve it. And for the sad fact: Probably it's good to prepare the usual obituaries, for the beginning of a wonderful friendship...

[Laura Pugniacci]

"I am incredibly proud of what [media enterprise] has been able to accomplish. But media is a business, and being an independent content producer in a time of increasing consolidation is a challenge."

Al Gore, on selling Current TV, his media enterprise, to Al Jazeera

I'm sure you also felt that Al Gore sold his soul when he announced that. And wrote a similar post for TOP. Right?

[The National Geographic has been world famous as a showcase for photography for more than a century. What does "Current TV," whatever that is, have to do with photography? --Mike]

[Randy Cole]

Thank you, Beelzebub! I won't feel guilty when I toss the renewal form in the trash. Like many other people, I kept renewing my subscription out of sentiment, even though the photography and the subjects are not what they used to be. And the National Geographic Channel? Ugh...

The swimsuit issue could be interesting, though.

[C. Kurmann]

I wish I still had my NG subscription so I could demonstrate my offence by canceling a renewal.
That fact that I no longer have one I assume makes me partially responsible.
But at least some of the blame must be carried by the magazines sales department. My growing mountains of yellow magazines disturbed me and I was never enticed by any electronic alternative offered. Basically I don't know if there is a good electronic alternative. I did once purchase a iPad app from them but all it ever showed was some nice pictures. So they had my home address AND apple account details but still didn't manage to let me know how I can spend more money with them.
Sad.

[Craig]

This is one of your satirical masterpieces -- easily as good as, possibly better than, the one you did years ago about what would have happened if classic photographers like Irving Penn and Cartier-Bresson had been able to submit their images to Internet photo forums for comments.

[Sal Santamaura]

"National Geographic" now has as much value as "Kodak" selfie sticks.

[Vince]

The Devil is fond of mis-quoting … "somebody" … and he does so here. What was said is that the love of money is the root of all evil. Discerning the difference is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Fixed. Thanks. --Mike]

[Zack S]

Here are some future cover stories that we look forward to from the new National Geographic.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/09/10/best-reactions-rupert-murdoch-buying-national-geographic/

[Dave Stewart]

Are you sure he didn't sign off saying,"I'll catch you later..."

[Robert]

As an Australian, the devil has made me ashamed for a very long time. All Aussies are very quick to point out that the devil became a US citizen back in the 80's, but the smell of brimstone remains.

[Bruce K]

The Apocalypse is upon us...

[Harold Merklinger]

Top: Excellent photography has long been an important part of National Geographic Magazine. Many great photographers have been in the employ of the Magazine. How do you see the future of photography in National Geographic.

Devil: Photography will continue to be a big part of the Magazine. We have given notice to all our staff photographers and their support staff. In their place we will be establishing a new on-line photo sharing service. All camera and phone owners will be invited to share their exotic location images with us and we will use our exclusive rights to these images to bring a new vitality to the Magazine.

Top: Are you not worried that the majority of images shared will be selfies?

Devil: We think this will bring a new and vital relationship with our audience. Of course we do have some concerns that faces will occupy rather more of image space than we believe appropriate. In order to counter this, the sharing agreement states that if the photographer's face occupies more than 25% of the frame (after we crop the photo), then then my face will be substituted for that of the photographer and the contributing photographer automatically forfeits his soul.

Top: I noticed you used the term "our exclusive rights" in relation to shared images. Could you please explain?

Devil: Yes, the sharing agreement specifies that by sharing any image on our site, the photographer assigns all rights of use to us. He specifically acknowledges that he/she will not use any images shared with us for any commercial or personal purpose. It is entirely our responsibility to maximize any revenue generation opportunities from these images.

Top: And the photographer receives no compensation.

Devil: Quite the contrary. The contributing photographer receives world-wide recognition for his work through the inclusion of his image in the scene. We believe that all of our contributors will be delighted with this arrangement.

[Richard Parkin]

Brilliant! Love the bit about god but you'll probably get some stick for that. It will be interesting to see if the Murdoch defenders outnumber the god defenders. Now go and wash your brain out.

[John]

That piece is spot on ... terrifyingly so

[Severian]

And that's why I keep coming back to check out TOP. Mike has a way of writing that makes whatever point so cleverly. A joy to read, whether I agree with him or not.

[Jon]

Mike, this is brilliant and hilarious. Are they changing the magazine title to "Irrational Geographic" now?

[Dick Barbour]

Well done, Mike; it's amazing how you reflect my thinking on the world's issues, a tribute to your good sense. ;-)
I wonder if the devil isn't also secretly in cahoots with Sony? How else could they get those big sensors into those little cameras?

[Rob]

I have been a subscriber to "National Geographic" for many years, mainly for the photography but also for some of the accompanying articles. Recently, I have been viewing NG's digital version on my iPad, and it is a greatly enhanced experience that I highly recommend. This takeover by FOX has me worried. I will be surprised if the slant of the magazine does not change. How can a Murdoch run enterprise refrain from pushing for the highest return on its investment? And how can it countenance NG's longstanding concern for the environment, when all of Murdoch's other publications are devoted to the exact opposite? I will continue my subscription to see how things play out, but I am not optimistic.

[Ctein]

Dear Mike,

Aw hell (so to speak). I'm letting my subscription lapse at the end of the year.

pax / Ctein

[Marcelo Guarini]

Love it, what a great interview, the highlight of my week.

[Michael]

I can not tell you how sad, shocked, and angered when I heard the news, on Public Radio no less!

There is a growing cancer in the world of legitimate, unbiased information dissemination. This is but another tumor that will ultimately lead to the death of unblemished truth.

Trump's countenance on the cover of Time two weeks ago with the caption of "deal with it". Says it all.

How can we combat the disease of greed?

[Keith B]

If Nat Geo Mag changes for the worse, it will be my great pleasure to not renew, and tell them why. We'll see.....

[Paul De Zan]

The international tolerance of this gangster is one of the best indications that we live in an essentially lawless age.

[Mike R]

Well scripted, Mike!

[Stan B.]

Same exact 'tude and MO currently on display on NARCOS (Netflix series portraying the life and times of Pedro Escobar).

Next on Nat Geo: How Monsanto GMO trumps so called "Organic."

[Roberto Macedo]

They sold their soul to the devil in 1997 when they went into the TV business with Fox. "Doomsday Preppers", "Redneck Rockets" and other 'scholarly' entertainment. I turned my back forever when they made a hero out of the Dog Abuser Cesar Milan. They have continued to promote his dangerous, abusive and thoroughly discredited 'training' nonsense, despite the formal objections of even the most reticent veterinary societies. I curse Nat Geo five times a day as I see people abusing their dogs to 'teach' them who is the 'pack leader'.

[Dennis]

Mike, you could write for the Twilight Zone.

[Nigel]

"And with that ignorant, misinformed and hateful rant, you've lost me as a reader."

Did he take offence on behalf of Murdoch, or the Devil ?

Guess we'll never know.

[FrankB]

Great article Mike. I thought something was weird when I got National Geographic channel on my cable and I tried to watch some shows. I was expecting National Geographic shows like I was used to watching on public TV many eons ago but no they were more trashy. I quit watching. I then found out subsequently they were tied in with FOX and it made sense. I have let my 30 plus year subscription to Nat Geo magazine expire a couple of years ago. Now I do not regret that move

[Stevan Latkovic]

Marvellous! It was a pure pleasure to read. One of the best pieces you have written. You are obviously at peace with yourself.
An aside: How did you get Him to sit for the interview? Was it on or off the record?

[Mark Kinsman]

Photography will never be the same....

[Ed Hawco]

The only remaining question is this: has that enormous stack of pre-devil National Geographics in the basement gone up in value or down?

[John Camp]

My mother-in-law gave me and my late wife a subscription when I was in college, 50 years ago, and we still get it.

However, just because it's a non-profit educational society doesn't mean that nobody profited from it. The society and the magazine have essentially been a family business since the beginning...sort of like the Murdoch's family business.

[Bahi]

Best piece I've read on this news—thanks.

[Dave Stewart]

This Banksy collaboration project may appeal to some of the readership:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/08/dismaland/

[mani]

Subscription cancelled.

[Timo]

Wow. One of the GREAT TOP posts. Cheers!

[Steve D]

Regarding Disney Owning the Smithsonian. Take a moment to google how many movie studios Disney actually owns/controls. Hint: almost all of them of any significance. The term "independent" film maker makes me chortle. Those folks make movies for only a few million dollars! SMH

[john]

I'm amazed once again that a publication that was bound to survive the current onslaught decides to give in to an outfit that will most likely do more damage than the Internet revolution could ever have done.

First the WSJ, now NatGeo. What's next?

It's the trusted brands that could capitalize on the turmoil, but instead they sink themselves by selling out the very foundation of their strength.

[Dave in NM]

Been reading the "Screwtape Letters" recently, Mike?

[Michael Cytrynowicz]

So will the border now be red?

[Ilkka]

When I got my first NG subscription at age 10 or 11, I believed it was a non-profit society for the advancement of science and geographical knowledge.
Then I grew up.

[Will]

To give the devil his due, Fox and the Fox-controlled NatGeo TV channel did create the Neil deGrasse Tyson-hosted Cosmos reboot/continuation, and that was both excellent and free of the sort of Newscorp neutering you might have expected.

To your point about God wanting individuals to fight the devil for him, Fox cash cow Seth McFarlane was the driving force behind revisiting Cosmos and getting it made, as improbable as that might seem.

Finally, it is worth noting that while Murdoch is unquestionably conservative in his own politics, he's also not very politically motivated. Fox News isn't a mouthpiece for him, it's a very profitable business filling a market gap that was previously there (and a mouthpiece for an entire conservative machine, to be fair). My point being that if there's money to be made in National Geographic magazine, that'll be the goal, and the outcome might not be so dire as you might assume, content-wise.

[toto]

May the Devil stay away from TOP!

[Michael Perini]

You shouldn't talk to the Devil
He's Bad.

[Bryce Lee]

As Kodak went, so does National Geographic and The Saturday Evening Post and countless other publications our grandparents, our parents and perhaps we as children enjoyed. As with time itself, evolution is the keyword. What thrives encourages others to die, and maybe that is the solution. Not what we leave for those who follow,rather what we don't leave..

[Ernest Theiseb]

I think it is great! I am a long time subscriber to NG and I am glad that they will continue. I am a big Fox news fan as you can guess. I watch it every night. It is a bit lonely here on this blog. Where are the rest of the center right folks? Guess I will go spray some weeds with my GMO. Love that stuff...

[Auntipode]

The past repeats itself: "Scientific American".

'Nough said?

[Hanna Becker]

May I respectfully suggest if you wish to address political or social issues that you create a new blog for that. I would like to enjoy your writings on photographic issues, and I enjoy the hobby as an escape from partisanship and to share a common interest with people.

[Doug]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by some writers reminds me of when the great automotive satan, Volkswagen AG, bought Bentley and Lamborghini. Heresy!! Doom!! Golfs will be disguised at Bentley's! Lambo's with VW engines! Except that VW, by virtue of good German discipline and fiscal management, saved both companies and both companies are now prosperous and producing their best cars ever.

Let's not be too hasty to rend our garments over 21st Century Fox buying NatGeo. Just because some people hate Fox News does not mean 21st Century Fox won't do right by Nat Geo Magazine.

[richardplondon]

MikeInMKE has helped nicely demonstrate here, that an exact inverse exists for Poe's Law: on the Internet, no satire can ever be made so obviously absurd and comical, that nobody will mistake it for something to be taken seriously!

Anyone disputing the very acceptability of this conceit, by the way, is requested to include CS Lewis's 'Screwtape Letters' in the indictment (fiendish grin).

[Marcell Nikolausz]

I've lost my fate in NG magazine long time ago due to some photography scandals they didn't address well. Lots of link don't work anymore, but they happened and NG tried to subside the topics into silence.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/naturart/a-statement-of-the-hungarian-nature-photographers-on-j%C3%B3zsef-szentp%C3%A9teris-joe-pet/10150581311918319/

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature4/special.html

I don't care anymore.
Cheers

Marcell (fiberstrobe)

[David Boyce]

Mike, I'm sorry, but I am very, very disappointed in this vile and slanderous bit of tactless writing. Equating Murdoch with Satan? Really? Satan I understand is currently instructing his lawyers.

:-)

[Dennis]

I'll try again, you have makings of a great Twilight Zone script here.

Further MikeinMKE can cancel his subscription at any time.

[Will]

That really was perfectly written.

[Paul Amyes]

The name of other Devil is not Satan, nor Lucifer, it is in fact Rupert. Won't be long now before Nat Geo advocates clear felling of the Amozan, dredging of the Barrier Reef and mass extinction.

[Eric Brody]

Were you channeling Donald Trump, or the Devil, or can any of us tell the difference.

[ctein]

Dear Hanna,

May I respectfully suggest that before you tell an editor what sort of magazine he should be running, you familiarize yourself with it? Because, clearly, you have not made even a minimal effort to do so in this case.

Mike frequently (VERY frequently) addresses social, legal and political topics as they affect photography, viewing photography in a broad context. And vice-versa. TOP is not a gearhead publication that exists in a sociopolitical vacuum. It never has been.

You would not have to read these columns for very long to become aware of that. A slightly less casual perusal of past columns would show that this is how it has been for something like eight (?) years and that it has become a successful and popular enterprise.

Telling Mike how he should run his SUCCESSFUL business differently... well... really? Your qualifications, please?

May I also suggest, most respectfully of course, that your definition of "partisanship" seems to be "someone said something on the net I disagree with."

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[Rob]

It's fine with me if Mike continues to address political and social issues, as long as his opinions are consistent with mine.