Is this true ? I haven't seen the magazine in a very long time, so I don't have a way to opine. It would be great to back this statement with facts.

We have subscription to "National Geographic KIDS" , which our kids devour inside out. I really think its great. It would be sad to lose it.

I would recommend the subscription to every parent looking for a non-digital window into learning about the world. Perfect gift for a 5-9 year old, IMO.

I remember getting a subscription and canceling it immediately after getting my first issue, somewhere around 2015. It was about how Detroit is actually a very cool city and had photos and interviews of cool young people with tattoos.

Simply not what I remembered of the magazine as a child. And I have no problem with tattoos, just the strange political agenda that had nothing to do with the environment or animals.

I know they also covered peoples in past issues as well (e.g. iconic photo of woman from Afghanistan with striking eyes). This was clearly quite different from that.

I'm failing to see the political agenda in an article about Detroit that features pictures of people that may or may not have tattoos.

Edit: I'm assuming this is the article and I still don't see the agenda here. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/taking-back-detroit/see-d...

Thanks for finding it.

Style over substance. The people "rebuilding" the city aren't construction workers, they're cool kids with tattoos. The "See Detroit" article (which for whatever reason, Meet Detroit is redirected to as well) is even titled Tough, Cheap, and Real, Detroit Is Cool Again. As I replied to your sibling comment, cool means not Republican.

And that's not to say it's not okay for a majority not Republican city to be the obvious, not Republican. I live in such a city myself, probably publicly derided just about as much as Detroit.

> FROM HIS STUDIO a few blocks from MyLocker, Antonio “Shades” Agee, the graffiti artist who’s painting it, isn’t surprised that Hake only recently discovered Detroit’s gloom. It’s easiest to stay on the city’s bright side.

> Agee grew up in Detroit. His Hispanic mother still lives in his childhood home, now one of the few on the block, in a neighborhood he doesn’t like to visit. It’s not “the new Detroit.” Nor was Black Bottom, Detroit’s vibrant Harlem, where his father played jazz. It was bulldozed in the 1950s for redevelopment and a freeway.

> At 44, he is trim from biking; he rarely drives. His right arm—“my painting arm”—is densely tattooed. From the multi-tinted panes of his loft in a former paintbrush factory, Agee has watched Corktown change. He’s a regular at the Detroit Institute of Bagels, just below his window, built for a cool half million dollars. “It still blows my mind to see a girl running down the street and she’s not being chased,” he says.

> “You can’t save Detroit. You gotta be Detroit.”

Wow, very cool.

The underlying case being made is something about what makes a city worth living in. Some people think it's safety. Some people think it's roads (yuck). Walkability. Small businesses. Good schools. Etc. Etc. Etc. And all of these things are argued over and over again by citizens. This National Geographic article stakes a claim that the single most noteworthy aspect of a city is its coolness. The city has to be cool. Your neighbor should be a "graffiti artist." And, I'll admit, there could be a point here. Culture and community are important to a lot of, perhaps even most, people.

You may not see this as political, but I do. I don't hate it, but I wouldn't pay for it as it wasn't at all what I remember from poring over National Geographic magazines in my childhood. I wanted a window into parts of the natural world that I cannot see myself, not Detroit. The frame itself is a political statement: Detroit is a city worth discussing.

Triggered.

How is "Detroit is actually cool" and "cool young people with tattoos" a political agenda?

The idea presented in the article conveys to people that being cool is important and good. Cool is also code for Democrat or, at least, absolutely not Republican.

This sounds like an internalized problem that you have, and not something the magazine did themselves.

The literal title of the article mentions coolness.

This appears to be a form of projection, where you think you can internet bully me into liking an article about cool tattooed people by telling me it's an "internalized" problem.

But I moved on from it. I canceled my subscription. I'll never give NG money, and you're just going to have to deal with that. Sorry. Maybe you can give them your money.

You're clearly more emotional about the subject than anyone else in this thread. For what it's worth, the "internalized" problem I was referring to was suggesting that National Geographic was some kind of propadanga that pushed "democrat = cool".

Yeah, some people take offense when a stranger attempts an unsolicited psychoanalysis over the internet.

That seems a stretch. I mean, cowboys were cool to 8 year old me and are still pretty cool to 48 year old me, and I'm pretty sure they would be Republicans. Ditto racecar drivers, fighter pilots etc.

Interpreting cool as "absolutely not Republican" seems like a tacit acknowledgement that the Republicans have severely damaged their brand. Perhaps by their embrace of MAGA.

I definitely think the content is dumbed down compared to my issues from ten years ago. Regarding the political stuff, I'd say there's a notable lean in the writing but imo that isn't the worst offender in it's decline.

The kids content they put out is great, we don't get the magazine (probably should) but have 3 or 4 of the big encyclopedia's and they're fantastic.

somewhat true. My cousin unsubscribed after 9/11 due what he saw as the magazine's forced moral equivalency of all cultures. "Cannibals, they're just like us!" not exactly his words, but the general sentiment.

That being said, NG is nowhere near the train-wreck that Scientific "Feelings" American has become. Sometimes it seems like one big op-ed piece, but it's re-centered itself a bit over the last 12 months.

The woke ideology of coerced political correctness is a cancer that has destroyed much, and will likely destroy much more, until it can be reformed into a more balanced approach. It's a form of extremism not much unlike right wing extremism. While I'm sad for National Geographic's accelerated decadence, it's the price for, unfortunately, "going woke".

Reminds me of Scientific American...

Trying really hard to not be mean/offensive really is the same thing as putting people in camps for criticizing those in power.

There’s a huge difference between not being mean and actively pushing a view point (be it cultural, emotional or political).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "pushing a view point." Any form of communication qualifies as pushing a view point. Criticizing people for "pushing a view point" is basically criticizing them for speaking at all.

There is a difference between pushing and sharing or discussing.

Stop with this garbage already.

They dumbed down long before that, that was just when you noticed. It was that success in the 80s that largely killed them, because they realized that their brand pushed product. The business turned to commercial branding or retail stores and selling random stuff, culminating in becoming one of the random logos on a bland Korean fashion brand. My guess is that many who were turned off because they "went woke" loved it when it was cranking out low quality tat or opening retail stores in tourist areas.

There's still plenty of room for high-quality writing about the world and its inhabitants; although the US is up its own ass there's the internet now. It's not a business where hundreds of millions of dollars should be involved.

> There's still plenty of room for high-quality writing about the world and its inhabitants;

Where can this be found?

I don't know of a single place where you can consistently can find "high-quality writing about the world and its inhabitants" as on former NG. There are quality articles but they are scattered against the vast deserts of the Internet.

All over. the hard part is finding it. Some of it gets linked here. A lot of blogs are in depth writing about some niche in the world. (the vast majority are of course low effort drivel, but there is still more high quality content out there than you have time to read)

High Country News, Adventure Journal, Hakai magazine all carry the torch in some form or another.

Do you have specific examples of what you mean by “concentrated on political correctness”? I absolutely agree that they dumbed down their content, but I think that’s more of a misguided push to appeal to a more general audience which just alienates their original core base. I remember seeing stuff like Doomsday Preppers being advertised several years ago which seemed antithetical to the magazines I remember my dad getting when I was a kid. It’s all quite sad…

Same here.

I'm especially confused given how Fox - not particularly known for its (left-leaning) political correctness - bought National Geographic in 2015, and partnered with Nat Geo back in 1997 to start the National Geographic Channel.

I think it was more about generating headlines and causing a stir so they could stay relevant. The politics part was just a tool.

It's so sad. NatGeo started stumbling in the late 1990's/early 2000's. I had the same experience as the author... stacks of magazines in the basement... getting lost exploring the world. In elementary school we had extra stacks we could use to cut out pictures for projects.

How much of this is due to not having the internet during the time NatGeo's heyday? During that time, the only way accessible to see that kind of content was with their magazine. That was also a time before 24/7 channels of content. Today, there are so many documentaries, TV shows, TV channels, YouTube channels, streaming platforms, websites all offering some form of content similar to NatGeo (if some of it wasn't directly lifted from NatGeo I'd be amazed). Now, we have scanners and printers, so cutting magazine pages is no longer necessary. Times have changed, and the nostalgia lingers hard

They used to send full fledged expeditions, with authors, science experts and world renowned photographers on board. To most extreme and dramatic places: deserts, jungle, active warzones, mountaintops, the Arctic and so on. Which produced really in-depth reports with great penmanship often accompanied by masterpieces of photography. And while the world is much better traveled now it's rarely done by well funded teams collected for the purpose.

These other content producers are doing the same things with perhaps the exception of writers. Look at the expeditions BBC has done to have an excuse to use Attenborough. Netflix has a few series doing similar. These expeditions haven't gone away, just their presentation in this format has.

> In elementary school we had extra stacks we could use to cut out pictures for projects.

I remember teachers would solicit old magazines from parents for this purpose. I would never allow them to give away National Geographic though... they were definitely a magazine worth saving.

My favorite type of article from NG was when they did stories on things like Rodeo life, earthquake aftermath, shipwreck, New Orleans, etc., usually with an interesting angle but not much of politics, more about the thole, plight, dreams, realities of life, etc., sometimes punctuated by a momentary gleam. But it’s not been like that for a while.