I've never heard about about a magazine recieving a Nobel Prize -- even if the svedes are clever people. BUT IF it should happen, then National Geographic is on the top of my list. It might be a handfull to read this astonising accurate world of information, but you KNOW it's facts. This is journalism in mega-class. But the pictures is breathaking .. I've never -- ever -- seen anything as good as in the National Geographic; they are indeed in a class for them self. I've loved the protos here since before I could read -- and I never travel without a copy -- they should be awarded a Nobel Prize .. for .. i don't know .. something.
NG Mag usually holds my attention with mostly interesting articles. Some issues dwell too much on a single subject (that may be near and dear to us, like water). There used to be more short articles (Geographica). The magazine used to have more varied as well as more in-depth articles and pictures. Many articles have environmently "slanted" articles, instead of objective articles.
Nor what it used to be
In my humble opinion National Geographic is just a shadow of the once great magazine it once was. I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with The NG staff trying to turn off the repetitive and Persistent renewal notices and encountered a Bunch of bureaucratic morons. It is a shame There is no longer integrity in the management of the the magazine. Remember, you asked .
I refer to National Georgraphic Mag Jan issue where they featured Singapore. I enjoyed reading the article about my country as I was from Singapore and felt that the writer has captured the essence of Singapore very well. However, I was disappointed with the photos portraying Singapore. The Pictures do not represent the modern, hi-tech and "man-made" beauty of the gardens and the structures of the island as it should. Instead, it has pictures that were just showing Asian faces or of landscape that made Singapore feel like it was back in the 60s.This warped visual view of Singapore does not potray the Singapore of today.
I've read National Geographic since I was a little. I always enjoyed the wonderful photography in the magazine, and I have to admit, that's still the part of the magazine that I enjoy the most. Oh, I read the articles once in a while, but many of them have a liberal slant on them that I don't appreciate. Still despite that, the stories are usally well written and the pictures remain outstanding.
Has this magazine run out of things to write about?
I am 28 years old and I have every issue of this magazine that has been published since I was born (thanks Mom & Dad for the ongoing subscription). It used to be the gold standard of magazines...well, its really a Journal publication.
The photography featured in the magazine is still top notch and beautiful. However, since when did subjects like Cafeine and Stem Cells (both recent cover stories) have anything to do with geography? This magazine used to spin tales of expeditions to far flung lands and interesting tribes and so on. Perhaps its a testament to the fact that we are all becoming more and more globalized and the cultures of the world are becoming more and more homogonized with every passing year, but it seems some of the subject matter as of late is really stretching the scope of the publication.
Second, I recall as a child and adolescent receiving the maps that came with the editions every 3 or 4 months. They would adorn the walls of my bedroom and eventually even my college dorm room. But in the past five years it seems that these fold outs have included things like pictures of dinosaurs, ancient fish, and big elephants.....not so geographical.
I remember reading articles about people summitting mountains and dogsledding to the South Pole and now we get cover stories entitled "Love: The Chemical Reaction"....what?
Not what it used to be. But get it for the kids.
OK it is hard to knock National Geographic, because it is essentially in a league of it's own as it covers environment, geography, cultures, etc. However after 15 years of subscription it was time to move on. The magazine has become very americanized. And the recent overindulgence in 911 and Iraq was a real turn off. It is a big world out there, surely there was more happening. The magazine typically also has a lot of editorial banter in it's articles, rather than relating information. Anyhow the search for an alternative led me to the British CNN Traveler magazine to which I am now subscribed. A little more worldly with a diminished American perspective. Geo is also a good magazine, though not available in english. Geographical magazine didn't quite pique my interest. I still may buy an occasional National Geographic if I see a good issue on the magazine racks.
Too few pictures, too small articles!
I really wanted to give 4 stars to this one, but I can't, nor even 4. I have been repeatedly disappointed by articles being too short on subjects I was esp. interested in (wildlife mostly), too long on others (geography / anthropology), and not technical enough. The latter might be a good thing if you're absolutely allergic to science, but take into account that I am not a scientist. When I say that something is not technical enough, it really means that it's superficial... Other than that, the articles are well written.
The pictures are excellent, and that's what motivates me to give 3 stars. However, I often wish there would be more of them...
Note that nearly each issue includes a large format folded map or some kind of graphic display illustrating the main article. From my point of view, this is quite a waste of money, since I don't use those much. They're probably perfect if you want to discuss the article with teenagers though. Personnally,! I wish there were no maps and more pictures.
I am not going to renew my subscription, but this is more a fit issue than a judgement of the quality of the product. I encourage people to buy a single issue before deciding.
Great photos, Liberal agenda driven contents
I have been a subscriber to National Geographic since mid 1990s when I was back in Iran. I remember receiving this good magazine with pictures being marked or censored by postal authorities in Islamic Iran yet I loved it. However, this magazine has really lost its once proud tradition of presenting fair and true scientific contents and has replaced it with some liberal agenda driven stuff like promoting nonsense like global warming, world peace and getting anti-U.S rhetoric/politics involved when writing about other nations like their past issue that was dedicated to Iran. All in all, this magazine is good in terms of first rate photographies. 3/5
After a 30-year subscription to National Geographic our family decided not to renew for 2002. Though the photos are outstanding and stories worthy, it has become "International" Geographic, with very little content regarding the beauty of the United States. An entire year has passed without an article that contained a homeland flavor.