Do you like National Geographic’s writing style? While I know they are world famous, I fail to understand why when it comes to writing. I have read their science articles only to be greatly disappointed and turned off. As I recall, they over-simplify often making statements which lack the additional information needed to explain. Have others on SD felt the same way?
What’s your take on this? I can’t put my finger on it…
They are famous for photgraphy and maps.
The problem is that the magazine is influenced by the people who make the TV shows. Lots of pretty pictures and vacant narrative.
A similar example of how people get sucked in was the PBS show by Carl Sagan about the “billions and billions” of stars. When seen later on DVD, hoping to enlighten some kids, I discovered that the whole time he never said anything. He hyped everyone up with his own declarations of awe and wonder and awe, but you ended up with less actual information than you get from any half hour planetarium show.
The magazine owes us more. It’s not enough to show us things that are not fully explained. It’s easy to impress with pictures, but if all you can take away is awe and wonder, you are being cheated.
I’ve found that the combination of Discover and Nature magazines more than make up for letting my subscription to NG slide a few years ago- whose articles DO, I agree, more and more seem to resemble overlong caption accompaniments for their photos. I can flip/skim through NG at my library; it’s not a satisfying, in-depth read.
I think a lot of the appeal of NG is that it is very accessible. It was something my parents could (and did) read with me when I was six. NG is a great window on the world for plain ole folks, opening them up to other cultures, experiences and places they may not seek out ordinarily.
That’s not to say that it is bad, just that it’s very general and pitched for people who may not be interested in (or intellectually prepared for) an in-depth article with varying degrees of technicality. Sure, if you are already very aware of deforesation, the Bedouins, and rural Mississippi, it may seem to be too broad of a publication.