Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was looking through storage since it's quarantine and I found some of my grandpa's old National Geographics from the 80s and 90s. In junior high one of my teachers had several from the 60s through the present day (mid 90s at the time). I had a subscription shortly after that in high school. I noticed not long after I graduated high school it seemed the magazine went downhill. The articles seemed shorter and they didn't seem as interesting. Anyone else agree? Any theories as to why that might be if you agree? If you disagree chime in as well.
Personal interest in subject matter is entirely subjective.
But I think such a magazine can't help but have less impact today because the information it imparts is so widely available now. I mean, an article about the Yanamamo or Baffin Island or the speckled rattlesnake? In the days when there were three TV channels and no internet, an article in National Geographic might comprise a person's only real access to such topics. Now? Everyone has a computer in their pocket, and a quick look to Wikipedia will link to all sorts of studies and articles and videos about those very topics. And that's a good thing.
It just makes it harder for a hard-copy magazine to have the impact that it once did.
National Geographic used to cover a wider range of articles with better photography than was available elsewhere. Life could compete in Black and White photos but for color you had to go to Nat Geo. When color TV became common the wonder that Nat Geo held started to fade. Then faster international shipping happened and specialized magazines started becoming more widely available as well as color printing in other magazines. Combine this with a declining market for print magazines overall. Then a new generation of writers and management comes in to 'fix' the problem by bringing the magazine 'up to date' and the death spiral has started.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 6 days ago)
35,626 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50650
We still get national geo, and last month's edition was fabulous. It was written in two parts, with two covers, "How we saved the planet" and "how we ruined the planet". You could read the first half, flip the magazine over and read the opposite opinion.
All I remember of National Geo in the 60's was that there were always bare breasted African women in each edition. Always. Kind of weird.
We still get national geo, and last month's edition was fabulous. It was written in two parts, with two covers, "How we saved the planet" and "how we ruined the planet". You could read the first half, flip the magazine over and read the opposite opinion.
All I remember of National Geo in the 60's was that there were always bare breasted African women in each edition. Always. Kind of weird.
The nudity has decreased a lot it seems. Is it even still present?
The nudity has decreased a lot it seems. Is it even still present?
Is that why it went downhill?
Could be.. there's much easier, more varied access to nudity now via internet. That was a famous aspect of the magazine back in the day.. Young guys @ public/school libraries, ogling the nudity of primitive societies.
Agree w/other posts in here: it's easier, & more expedient now, to access info (in general) from the internet. So print mags are fading. I also think (specifically) the archeology (& science) subject has been dispersed in to other print mags that didn't exist, or were very small 30 years ago. Basically, National Geographic has lost their monopoly over the subject matter they cover (?)
Could be.. there's much easier, more varied access to nudity now via internet. That was a famous aspect of the magazine back in the day.. Young guys @ public/school libraries, ogling the nudity of primitive societies.
Agree w/other posts in here: it's easier, & more expedient now, to access info (in general) from the internet. So print mags are fading. I also think (specifically) the archeology (& science) subject has been dispersed in to other print mags that didn't exist, or were very small 30 years ago. Basically, National Geographic has lost their monopoly over the subject matter they cover (?)
Seems like a legit theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
National Geographic
