Corporate-takeover artists often do just exactly that.
A fellow Doper recently came to my town to recieve from me my 101+ years collection of the NGS magazine.
I’m glad they got it while it was still the “real” magazine. I’m going to let the subscription lapse, as I won’t want to benefit Murdoch that way.
As Mike Royko once said, “no self-respecting fish would be caught dead wrapped in one of Murdoch’s papers.”
Content change or no, I will never knowingly put a nickel in that fucking asshole’s pocket. He’s on a list that includes people like Dick Cheney, Bill O’Reilly and the like.
Shit! You are correct.
That is something I never expected to type in regard to a post of yours. 
Think about how delusional the average FOX News viewer is. How seething in anger at things that are not true. Murdoch is responsible for that. Wingnuts used to be a sliver, now they drive the GOP. He’s making the country tangibly worse. Fuck him and his pet koala.
I have a subscription; it’s a great rag. In fact, Science News and National Geographic are the only periodicals my household still receives.
Oh well, science should be more fair and balanced.
Of notice, FOX is infamous for their support of moon hoaxers and deniers of human induced climate change.
In any case I do agree with the ones that we should not worry much, we just need to keep an eye open for skewed things; in a similar case the Koch brothers after they began to fund NOVA on PBS then NOVA was seen to put odd disclaimers in the shows that touch on the issue and there are almost no shows dealing directly about the issue in the past 15 years.
Only “Extreme Ice” a few years back did look at the issue but with a title like that it is no wonder that a denier in the SDMB claimed that the issue was a hoax simply because “NOVA never did a show about it”.
(NOVA did in the year 2000 and in the 90’s)
I fucking love reading the old 70’s nat geo mags that TOTALLY PREDICT the upcoming ice age due to human pollutants. The 80’s versions complaining about the acid rain and the complete disappearance of every tree in the world was a hoot as well. The 90’s was a riot with the whole ozone scare and how everyone would have cancer and stuff. The 00’s were about global warming and how all the ice would melt and raise the seas 87 feet by 2010. They’ve dumbed it down a bit with the whole climate change narrative but I’m guessing it’s just a down decade for scare tactic bullshit.
Frankly, if Murdoch keeps the fiction aspect going by adding bigfoots and aliens I’ll be most impressed…
I was totally freaked in the 80’s reading about how the polar bears were on the brink of extinction. In the 90’s I worried myself sick about how the polar bear race was gonna be gone “any day now”. In the 00’s I was actually diagnosed with an ulcer due to the impending doom of the bears that live in the polar region. Last week I cried when I found out that polar bears will cease to exist any day now due to evil humans and their polluting ways…
Thank god they’ve been mass producing magazines using trees and deadly chemicals to keep me informed about this total ecological tragedy that will surely happen any decade now…
Yes, I’ve been a Life Member since 1975 and have received the magazine for “free”. It comes with the life membership for the one time membership fee-I think it was $164-clearly a bargain. We’re downsizing and last week I dumped several dozen editions into the mixed paper recycling dumpster, dating from the '70s thru the '90s, after culling selected issues that have a lingering interest. I’ll recycle them when the storage shed is empty.
Because they did not totally predict that we can dismiss the rest of your gish gallop.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/global-cooling
[QUOTE] Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s. Yes, the decade of disco, kung fu, and watergateBecause in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. Those crazy climate scientists! Why can’t they make up their minds?
But is that really true?
Maybe a little historical perspective is in order.
[/QUOTE]
(The Myth of the 1970’s global warming scientific consensus)
Popular press got it wrong and many sources, specially from the right wing, continue to get it wrong; but National Geographic corrected that a long time ago.
I have a subscription too, and have back issues dating back consistently to 1995 without a break, and probably hundreds more going back to the early 60s.
The photography is still first rate, and there are tons of articles that pique my interest.
Maybe not when deal settles, and the changes begin, but until then…
I always found the magazine to be a colossal bore, anyway.
Colossal Borneo: The Next Major Threat for America?
The 6,000 Year Old Rock. A Peek Into The Dawn of Creation.
Ancient Preserved Leather from Peat Bogs: Dinosaur Saddles? The Debate Rages.
They have an awesome Instagram feed. Love the pics. But no boobies. 
My uncle has a walk-in closet full of yellow magazines. Issues back to . . . who knows. I remember he has the Apollo 11 issue, and ones during WWII. I think he inherited his collection.
He moved recently though, I wonder if he kept them all.
My dad tried to buy me a lifetime subscription when I was a kid, but they had discontinued them by then (he has one of his own). It was probably for the best. Where the hell would I put thirty years’ worth of yellow magazines?
This became especially obvious when they started airing movies based on Bill O’Reilly’s Killing ______ books.