'Our job is to tell the truth'
These days National Geographic is more likely to feature articles about
acid rain or stem cells than pretty pictures of the Kalahari. Its editor
explains why to Stephen Armstrong
Stephen Armstrong
http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5183839-105337,00.html
National Geographic magazine has a certain reputation placing it
somewhere between Health and Efficiency and Look and Learn. In the
pre-internet era, porn-starved adolescents could scour the pages of
dusty writing for the occasional picture of barebreasted tribal peoples.
In The Bridges of Madison County, Clint Eastwood's photographer was
snapping covered wooden bridges for the magazine before he was tempted
by Meryl Streep's charms. In other words, even grandma might find it a
little dry. As a result, it is something of a surprise to find this
esteemed journal developing into a bulwark of reason against the rise of
the religious right and President Bush's anti-environment agenda. Recent
cover stories have shouted down the teaching of creationism in schools
and trumpeted the threat of global warming. National Geographic has
lambasted US obesity rates, investigated cocaine's supply chain behind
guerrilla lines in Colombia and given a detailed breakdown of exactly
when the US is going to run out of oil if it keeps on consuming at
current rates.
"A few years ago we took a policy decision that we weren't just going to
document the world, we were going to try and conserve it," says Declan
Moore, National Geographic's general manager. In January this year the
magazine appointed a new editor, Chris Johns, who sees the job as being
as much about campaigning as reporting.
"We were one of the first magazines to talk about acid rain," he
explains. "We were one of the first magazines to address the cutting
down of the rainforests in the Amazon basin. In our next issue, we'll
have a story on stem cells. Increasingly we have found our voice by
doing those kinds of stories. So we're doing more of them. After all, if
you look at the world right now, the challenges are greater for us as
human beings than they were 20 years ago."
When I ask if that means that the magazine is entering the murky world
of politics, he steps very carefully. "When you get to politics there's
propaganda, and issues can become foggy. Our job is to add clarity and
tell you the truth. The truth of course is an elusive thing. But we will
be accurate and fair. Will we always be balanced? Well, if 98 highly
respected scientists say global warming's an issue for the United States
and two respected scientists who are paid by oil companies say its not,
then how will we treat those two scientists' voice? With very great care."
Despite Johns' tact, the new stance is already ruffling feathers. The
recent cover story Was Darwin Wrong? (the answer was pretty close to
"no, he wasn't") produced a slew of complaining letters and cancelled
subscriptions from pro-creationist readers who would have been expecting
pretty pictures of the Kalahari. At the same time, one woman sent the
mag a congratulatory letter and a $500 cheque "to cover any
subscriptions you might have lost".
Johns himself is a dyed-in-the-wool National Geographic hand, contracted
as a photographer in 1985, joining the staff in 1995 and making
associate editor in 2003. He seems to have spent much of his time on the
road, going into rhapsodies about "the field". "One of the places that
most influenced me over the years was South Africa," he explains.
"Certainly they have many challenges ahead of them, but there was a time
in the final stages of apartheid when many of us felt this was going to
come unglued. Then to see the power of leadership in the case of Mr
Mandela and the power of forgiveness, that just changed the way I see
the world."
For Brits, it is hard to realise the significance of the title's new
stance because National Geographic is a curious magazine. Launched in
the US in 1888, it began life as a scholarly, scientific journal for the
small professional readership at the National Geographic Society.
Between its dull-brown covers there were studious articles discussing
"Geographic Methods in Geologic Investigation" and "The Great Storm of
March 11-14, 1888". One founding principle read "Only what is of a
kindly nature is printed about any country or people, everything
unpleasant or unduly critical being avoided." In other words, this new
policy is rather like the journal of the Royal Society calling for Blair
to be impeached over Iraq.
Of course, National Geographic has changed since launch. Over time, it
embraced some spectacular photography. It has also expanded overseas, so
that it now boasts 27 different language editions with a circulation of
more than 6 million and a combined total of some 42 million readers. The
British Isles edition "including the Republic of Ireland" sells 343,797
copies, split roughly between 300,000 subscription and 40-odd thousand
newsstand sales.
The new, boisterous cover policy seems to be working in the newsagents,
as the magazine's non-subscription ABC has shown a steady increase over
the past five issues. But is there not a risk of a hostile response from
the powers that be?
"Yeah, there's going to be times when seemingly what we say is
courageous," Johns admits cautiously, "but it's the truth and we can't
be overly concerned about what a handful of politicians think. We can't
be influenced by political powers. Look, we're an unbiased magazine," he
adds.
"I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a citizen of the world. I put
that ahead of everything else. We're based in Washington DC, just a few
blocks away from the Bush White House, but you've got to expect me to be
a responsible journalist and make no comment about the Bush
administration."
And then he chuckles, loud and long.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
"Fred is replacing Clinton's penis as the rightard's fixation" - mordacpreventor
.
|
