https://www.vox.

com/22417191/national-geographic-racial-reckoning

National Geographic faced up to its racist past. Did it actually get

better?

Anna North and Kainaz Amaria

36-46 минут

Christina Animashaun/Vox

Inside the reckoning at an American media institution.

By May 6, 2021, 5:00am EDT

National Geographic was ahead of the curve.

While it took last summer‘s uprisings after the police killing of George
Floyd for many media outlets to address bias in their reporting and
newsroom culture, the magazine announced its own racial reckoning
in 2018. That year it dedicated its April issue to the topic of race, and
Susan Goldberg — the first woman to be the magazine‘s editor-in-
chief — publicly acknowledged the publication‘s long history of
racism in its coverage of people of color in the US and abroad.

―Until the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of color
who lived in the United States, rarely acknowledging them beyond
laborers or domestic workers,‖ Goldberg wrote in an editor‘s letter
introducing the issue. ―Meanwhile it pictured ‗natives‘ elsewhere as
exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble
savages—every type of cliche.‖

Goldberg vowed that the magazine would face up to its past and do
better, and the Race Issue was meant to be the beginning of a larger
reexamination for the magazine. While the issue received its fair share
of criticism, especially for a cover story that critics felt made
simplistic assumptions about the idea of a post-racial future, it was a
major statement by a publication that had long seemed to believe
itself beyond reproach. The media industry was watching for what
came next.

In National Geographic‘s 2018 Race Issue, editor-in-chief Susan

Goldberg vowed to ―rise above‖ the magazine‘s racist past.

National Geographic

But change has been slow and difficult over the past three years, and
many current and former staffers deem it inadequate. The magazine is
still struggling to make good on its promise of a new approach to
covering the world.

It‘s a high-profile example of the complicated path to significant and

lasting change, and what happens when a public pronouncement isn‘t
matched by meaningful action. That‘s a risk that a lot of companies,
not just media outlets, run in the months and years following last
summer‘s public reckoning around racism and anti-Blackness — will
they make good on their Instagram posts and supportive statements
with tangible work once public attention is elsewhere?

Vox spoke with nearly 20 current and former National Geographic

staffers, ranging from administrative assistants to editorial
leadership, who described instances in which employees tried to
speak up about racial insensitivities in coverage, only to have their
concerns brushed aside or ignored, even after the magazine had
publicly pledged to do better. Multiple staffers of color also describe a
culture that left them feeling devalued and demeaned.

It has largely been up to junior staffers, many of them people of color,

to push the magazine to deliver on the kinds of promises it made in
the Race Issue, staffers say. They‘ve had an impact, including
producing a list of resources to improve diversity and representation
in the story assignment process. Still, ―it‘s a lot of teaching all the
time,‖ one staffer said. ―Are they really listening?‖

All staffers who spoke to Vox did so on condition of anonymity

because of fear of retribution by a publication that retains social and
economic power in the media industry.

National Geographic did not respond to specific questions for this

story. A spokesperson for the magazine said in a statement that
―National Geographic is unequivocally committed to diversity, equity
and inclusion and has undertaken a wide range of activities to put
that commitment into practice,‖ pointing to initiatives announced in
June 2020, including a new diversity and inclusion council, required
unconscious bias training for employees, and a scholarship program
for Black college students.

Several current and former staffers also say the magazine‘s culture
has improved somewhat since the summer of 2020, when National
Geographic, like many media outlets, announced plans to diversify its
staffing amid nationwide protests against racism and police violence.
They point to improvements like better tracking of contributor
diversity and more events and programs geared toward
representation and inclusion. But they say more work, structurally
and substantially, remains to be done.

Such accounts aren‘t unique in a media landscape where many

companies have vowed to be more inclusive and hired people of
color, only to reportedly neglect their perspectives and career
development. National Geographic was different in that it staked out
its goal early and publicly: to reckon with its racist past and chart a
different future. But in many ways, it serves as a case study for an
industry that has struggled to meet the needs of its workers and its
audience.
Change takes a lot more than a single issue on race, more than a new
residency program or event series — and certainly more than
expecting junior staffers to educate their superiors on matters of race,
observers inside and outside the publication believe. It takes a
sustained commitment to action coming from the highest levels of
senior leadership, and that‘s a commitment some say they have yet to
see.

National Geographic, from 1888 to today

National Geographic was built in the image of its founders.

The magazine was the brainchild of the National Geographic Society,

a nonprofit started by a group of elite white male professionals
including geographers, explorers, teachers, lawyers, cartographers,
military officers, and financiers with an interest in science and
geography. The result was a marriage of science, entertainment,
photography, and advertising that would become the iconic yellow-
bordered magazine recognized for its picture-perfect ―objective‖
window into the world. In the course of a few decades after its 1888
launch, subscriptions soared from 1,000 to 2 million, with a
readership that was predominantly white upper-middle-class
American professionals.

Articles in these early days were largely focused on defining

geography and explaining complex surveying methods, but the
magazine‘s bias toward whiteness as ―civilized‖ was clear from the
beginning and a reflection of the larger ethos of colonialism at the
time. In the conclusion of an April 1889 article titled ―Africa, Its Past
and Future,‖ Gardiner G. Hubbard, the founder and first president of
the National Geographic Society, wrote, ―The Negro has never
developed any high degree of [European] civilization; and even if he
has made considerable progress ... when that contact ceased he has
deteriorated in barbarism.‖
The National Geographic Society was founded in 1888 by a group of
elite white men including inventor Alexander Graham Bell (front row,
far right, with beard and cigar) and explorer Robert Peary (front row,
center, with mustache and cane).

George Rinhart/Corbis via Getty Images

University of Virginia professor John Edwin Mason, the scholar

Goldberg tapped to examine the archives for the magazine‘s Race
Issue, noted to Vox in 2018 that ―the magazine was born at the height
of so-called ‗scientific‘ racism and imperialism,‖ a time when the US
was rapidly developing as a leading global industrial power,
expanding its empire through wars and acquiring new territories like
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. It was also birthing the American
eugenics movement, which believed in the genetic superiority of
Nordic, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon people. It was this culture of
white supremacy, Mason said then, ―that shaped the outlook of the
magazine‘s editors, writers, and photographers, who were always
white and almost always men.‖

You don‘t have to look further than the magazine‘s mea culpa for
evidence of this. As Goldberg pointed out in her editor‘s letter,
National Geographic‘s December 1916 issue on Australia is one
example of the magazine‘s failures to ―push its readers beyond the
stereotypes ingrained in white American culture.‖

In an article titled ―Lonely Australia: The Unique Continent,‖ the

caption that appears below photographs of two Aboriginal natives
reads, ―South Australian Blackfellows: These savages rank lowest in
intelligence of all human beings.‖ These ―primitive ancestors‖ are
only discussed for their hunting prowess, barely considered people
but rather described as ―the Australian native stock.‖

White colonizers, on the other hand, were depicted as adventurous,

relatable, and generous. ―The Australians‘ ideal is a continent of
whites without the ‗taint of color,‘‖ geologist Herbert E. Gregory
wrote. ―They point to America as a horrible example of an
unimaginable mixture of races.‖

National Geographic‘s December 1916 issue is dedicated to ―Lonely

Australia.‖ In the magazine, geologist Herbert E. Gregory writes that
Indigenous Aboriginal people ―rank lowest in intelligence‖; white
colonists, meanwhile, are portrayed as nature-loving adventurers.

National Geographic Archive

National Geographic ―saw the world through the same elite

perspective as American policymakers and politicians based in
Washington, DC,‖ Mason told Vox in his 2018 interview. ―They were
tied to that elite white male perspective. The magazine almost thought
of itself as a branch of government. It believed very much in the
colonial enterprise.‖

In spite of — or because of — that perspective, National Geographic

became known as a measure of cultural sophistication during the
20th century. In their 1993 book Reading National Geographic,
authors Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins wrote, ―Generally
speaking, National Geographic helped white, upwardly mobile
Americans to locate themselves in a changing world.‖ The most
powerful tool in their arsenal was the still photograph.

―If you want to understand how race works at National Geographic,

you have to see beyond the racial epithets,‖ Lutz recently told Vox.
―You have to look at what the people are doing in their images and
what it means when someone smiles versus frowns, when they are
white versus brown, the range of messaging that comes through in an
image and the choices that they are making.‖

Those choices, argued Lutz and Collins in their book, were almost
always made with the comfort of a white audience in mind. The duo
analyzed a large set of photographs published in the magazine from
1950 to 1986 to trace the effects of post-World War II decolonization
and the Vietnam War. What they found was visual messaging that
aligned itself with the white colonizer and all but ignored domestic
racial and political conflicts of the 1960s and ‘70s.

Published photographs instead exoticized far-off lands inhabited by

Black and brown people, who were often seen as technologically
backward and trapped in ancient ritual, and were almost always
photographed looking at the camera with a seemingly natural smile.
Black women were depicted as the most primitive of their subjects,
their nakedness in stark contrast to clothed white women purportedly
exemplifying civilization.

This image contains sensitive or violent content

Tap to display

National Geographic‘s photos often emphasized Native peoples‘

nakedness in contrast to the ―civilized‖ clothing of white Westerners.
In the August 1982 issue, the caption accompanying a portrait of 12-
year-old Fidelis Pukue (left) declares she ―stands as proud as her
fledgling nation.‖ The photo on the right shows a tourist posing with
members of the Maca Indian tribe.

National Geographic Archive

Lutz recalls National Geographic‘s outrage when her scholarship was

published nearly 30 years ago; the magazine characterized her and
Collins‘s work as having no ―merit or relevance,‖ she said. ―I didn‘t
see any evidence of a reckoning after my work,‖ recalled Lutz. ―They
invited us in to watch the process and were offended when we
reported what we saw.‖
Impervious to criticism, the brand expanded beyond its print
publication and grew into a media juggernaut in the modern era,
spinning up nearly 40 local-language editions and a TV channel, and
sponsoring research projects around the world. The magazine has
millions of subscribers, and the company says it does particularly
well with men, readers with postgraduate degrees, and millennials
with household incomes over $200,000. It also remains one of
America‘s 25 most trusted brands, according to the polling firm
Morning Consult.

In 2014, Susan Goldberg — who previously held senior editor

positions at Bloomberg News, the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, and San
Jose Mercury News — was tapped by the brand‘s new CEO to take the
helm as editor-in-chief of National Geographic Magazine. The
following year, the magazine and TV properties were sold to 21st
Century Fox in a deal creating a new joint venture called National
Geographic Partners (and leading to significant layoffs). In December
2017, Disney purchased a majority of 21st Century Fox‘s assets,
including FX, The Simpsons, and National Geographic, to better
compete with content powerhouses Netflix and Amazon.

Amid the turmoil, Goldberg added editorial director of National

Geographic Partners to her title. She is now in charge of the
company‘s digital journalism, magazines, podcasts, maps,
newsletters, and Instagram, which boasts over 150 million followers.

Goldberg‘s ownership of the magazine‘s racist and colonialist history,

just a few years into the role, seemed remarkable. ―I want a future
editor of National Geographic to look back at our coverage with
pride—not only about the stories we decided to tell and how we told
them but about the diverse group of writers, editors, and
photographers behind the work,‖ she wrote in the Race Issue.

Her pledge to usher in a new era of diversity and inclusion, in both

coverage and staffing, was received from the outside as a bold act of
leadership. Now the question was whether the magazine, as a
publication and as a workplace, could deliver.

After a public promise of change, a difficult path forward

Goldberg‘s arrival did bring progress to National Geographic on some

fronts, especially increasing the number of women represented in the
publication. In a 2017 panel discussion at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis
Reporting, for example, she noted that under her leadership, the
percentage of stories in the magazine written by men had dropped
from about 75 percent to 57 percent. ―We are going out and finding
new people,‖ she said.

That was no small feat at a time when many publications were just
beginning to address longstanding gender imbalances — for
example, a 2017 analysis by the group VIDA found that 60 percent of
articles at the New Yorker that year, 64 percent of those in the
Atlantic, and 77 percent of articles in the New York Review of Books
were written by men.

Susan Goldberg attends an event for the magazine‘s ―Gender

Revolution‖ issue in 2017.

Desiree Navarro/WireImage via Getty Images

National Geographic also drew praise for a January 2017 special

issue on the ―Gender Revolution,‖ which featured a cover photograph
of 9-year-old Avery Jackson, the first openly transgender person to be
on the cover of the magazine. ―Given the challenges facing the
LGBTQ community in the years ahead, the timing of this issue
couldn‘t feel more appropriate,‖ Curtis M. Wong wrote at HuffPost
Queer Voices at the time, when Donald Trump was poised to assume
the presidency and institute numerous anti-LGBTQ policies.

The publication has also become more diverse at its highest level in
recent years, with two women of color joining its executive team.
Debra Adams Simmons, a veteran journalist and former editor at the
Plain Dealer in Cleveland, became the magazine‘s executive editor for
culture in 2017, and has also taken a role in diversity initiatives. In
January 2020, Indira Lakshmanan, a former executive editor at the
Pulitzer Center, became the magazine‘s senior executive editor,
overseeing several subject areas including science and travel.

And while the cover story of the 2018 Race Issue was criticized, many
also praised the frankness with which the issue addressed the
publication‘s racist history. ―The magazine‘s admission is rare, and
vindicates readers who, like me, have always had a visceral reaction
to National Geographic‘s covers and ethos,‖ Doreen St. Felix wrote in
the New Yorker.

―I didn‘t detect any defensiveness in the editors when I spoke with

them about this,‖ John Edwin Mason, the University of Virginia
professor who worked on the Race Issue, told Vox in 2018. ―Instead, I
sensed a genuine willingness to address the magazine‘s past and to
improve the ways it depicts people of color.‖

However, current and former staffers say the publication‘s coverage

and culture have been slow to change, and that subsequent efforts by
junior staffers to raise questions about coverage have been met with
misunderstanding and resistance from the top.

Just a few months after the Race Issue, for example, staffers were
concerned about a cover image, this one illustrating a story about
conflicts over protected lands in Utah. The photograph was a
confounding choice for a magazine that had pledged to be better on
matters of race: a white man seated on horseback, gazing across the
expanse of a prairie as though ready to explore what lay beyond. The
headline: ―Battle for the American West.‖
Staffers felt the image of a lone white cowboy, sunlit against the
backdrop of a Western landscape, reinforced some of the racist
stereotypes — of white people as saviors and rightful stewards of the
land — that the magazine had pledged to put behind it. Some pushed
back on the choice. ―Even the photographer didn‘t want the cowboy
on the cover,‖ a former editor told Vox.

Critics of the white ―cowboy‖ image were overruled by Goldberg, the

editor said. When the cover went out to newsstands in November
2018, it was criticized for many of the same reasons staffers had been
uncomfortable with it. ―The image of the white cowboy reproduces
and romanticizes the mythic iconography of settler colonialism and
white supremacy,‖ Mason told Vox at the time. That was doubly
disappointing coming so soon after the promises put forth in the
Race Issue, a staffer told Vox this year; the reckoning around the
Race Issue was a ―really positive step,‖ the staffer said, ―and then we
just kind of made the ‗Battle for the American West‘ thing in
November.‖

Another internal controversy arose a few months later around an April

2019 story about suicide bombings in Sri Lanka. The story was
written by Robert Draper, a longtime National Geographic contributor
who is white and not from Sri Lanka. For several staffers, the choice
of Draper raised larger questions about how the magazine covers
countries outside the US: They saw it as a missed opportunity to
highlight a voice from Sri Lanka at a time of crisis for the country
when elevating such voices was especially important. Instead, the
magazine was yet again choosing to have a white American writer
cover another country, despite the publication‘s history of outsiders
publishing problematic narratives about other parts of the world —
and its promise to leave that history behind.

―We need to build up our cadre of writers abroad so that when these
crises hit, we have more choices to consider,‖ one staffer said in a
Slack channel that included both junior and senior staffers. Messages
from the conversation, which took place before the story‘s
publication, were obtained by Vox. Staff members were also critical of
an early version of the story‘s headline: ―Sri Lanka‘s latest violence
underscores the need to heal its divisions.‖

―I‘m a bit concerned about saying what Sri Lanka ‗needs‘ to do in a

first-person essay by a writer who is not Sri Lankan,‖ a staffer said in
the same Slack channel.

After staffers brought up the issue, editors did make some changes to
the headline, but the piece retained a distinct outsider‘s perspective,
saying, ―Theirs is a country of sumptuous temples and uncluttered
beaches, elephants and verdant tea plantations.‖

Goldberg defended the choice of Draper for the story. ―I‘m delighted
that Robert Draper — one of our best writers and someone who has
covered the conflict in Sri Lanka for both us and the NYT — was
quickly able to turn this essay,‖ she wrote on Slack in response to
staff criticism. ―I certainly agree that having lots of correspondents all
over the world would give us even more voices and perspectives,‖
she added. However, ―one thing we never want to return to are the
days when only women can write ‗women‘s‘ stories, only men can
cover sports, only African Americans can cover the black community,
and so forth.‖

Vox obtained an annotated screenshot of a private National

Geographic Slack channel, in which staffers expressed their concerns
regarding the magazine‘s approach to a story about Sri Lanka.
Participants‘ names have been redacted.

Yet in Draper, Goldberg was praising a writer whose past work on Sri
Lanka sometimes echoed the condescending, voyeuristic tone the
magazine was trying to put behind it. ―It‘s entirely possible to visit the
country formerly known as Ceylon in a state of blissful ignorance, to
ogle its elephants and leopards roaming about in the national parks,
or to languish on the many beach resorts in coastal Galle and
Batticaloa, and in that way sidestep altogether the scabs of history,‖
he wrote in a travel story for the New York Times in 2015.

In the Race Issue, Goldberg specifically had pledged to move away

from a colonialist past in which American journalists reported on
countries around the world with an exoticizing perspective. In
covering the violence in Sri Lanka, the magazine missed a clear
opportunity to deliver on its promises by choosing a writer from Sri
Lanka who could bring to the story an insider‘s expertise and nuance.

The controversy over the Draper story sparked a discussion on Slack

about larger issues at the magazine. The lack of diversity among
contributors ―is a huge problem they need to fix,‖ one staffer said in a
private Slack room, messages from which were also obtained by Vox.
―If we don‘t have the right person to do a story in a crunch on such a
sensitive topic perhaps we should consider not doing one at all.‖

Though Simmons, now executive editor, is credited internally with

recruiting new writers of color for the magazine, staffers say there has
yet to be a larger systematic effort to diversify the contributor base.
(National Geographic did not respond to Vox‘s questions about
diversity and representation among contributors.)

―Indira [Lakshmanan] will, after the fact, count if we have any people
of color on certain stories,‖ one staffer said. ―But in terms of a
structural solution, I don‘t think there has been any change at all.‖

More broadly, ―bringing in a woman of color in leadership is great but

it doesn‘t automatically translate that the publication will be more
inclusive,‖ one former staffer of color said. Nor is it the sole
responsibility of journalists of color, even in upper management, to
ensure diversity within a historically white organization. Indeed,
people of color across industries have described being hired into
high-profile roles only to discover they had little actual power in a
white-dominated workplace. For example, TV writer Sunil Nayar left
his job as executive producer of the CBS show All Rise last year after
finding that, as he put it to the New York Times, ―I was only there
because I‘m the brown guy.‖

National Geographic, for its part, is a rigid, hierarchical organization,

with authority concentrated among a limited number of senior
staffers. ―It‘s a really small group of people that decide what stories
are told, and it happens without a lot of input,‖ one staffer said.

That group includes a handful of senior editors and writers, and, at

the top, Goldberg herself. ―Susan has the power; she‘s the ultimate
decision-maker,‖ the staffer said. ―I don‘t think there is anyone that
can come close to being her equal.‖ (Goldberg answers to the
corporate leadership of National Geographic Partners, a joint venture
between the nonprofit National Geographic Society and Disney.)

That‘s not unusual for the editor-in-chief of a media company,

particularly a legacy media company. Those in this position often take
a highly public role in which their professional identity is linked with
the successes or failures of the publication — think Dean Baquet at
the New York Times or Anna Wintour at Vogue. They typically have
the final say over staffing decisions and, while they may not edit most
stories themselves, often decide the overall direction of coverage and
may request stories they want to see or veto those they don‘t.

At National Geographic, that looks like word trickling down from

senior staff to junior staff about what Goldberg wants — like more
coverage of, say, volcanoes, or the inauguration — or what she
doesn‘t. A lot of conversations end with, ―Susan doesn‘t like to see
things like that,‖ one staffer said. ―It‘s a place where everyone is
walking on eggshells, including editors.‖
Raising concerns — whether that means challenging stories that
might be problematic or pushing for changes to hiring practices — at
National Geographic can feel fraught, staffers said, with employees
fearing that they could easily fall out of favor with Goldberg if they
speak up. There‘s a feeling that if ―you get on her bad side, you‘ll get
fewer assignments and could get caught up in the next round of
layoffs,‖ one former staffer said.

Nor was it necessarily any easier to raise concerns with other

members of the executive team. Simmons ―didn‘t always listen when
we raised flags on sensitive issues,‖ a former editor said, and
Simmons ―at the end of the day still answers to Susan.‖

While many staffers were afraid of speaking up, some white male
photographers seemed to enjoy carte blanche to behave as they
wished, according to several former staffers. ―Photographers are
treated like gods,‖ one former staffer said. ―They can have outbursts,
can be rude to staff; if you are a white male photographer at National
Geographic, you‘d get away with it.‖

A reliance on white male contributors is evident in coverage: The

journalists responsible for the magazine‘s most prestigious
assignments remain overwhelmingly white. According to a Vox
analysis, since the April 2018 Race Issue, more than 75 percent of the
magazine‘s cover stories have been assigned to white male
photographers. Several current and former staffers say they cannot
recall a cover story ever having been assigned to a Black female
photographer. (National Geographic did not respond to questions
about the diversity of photographers for cover stories.)

Multiple staffers and freelance contributors of color who have worked

for the magazine described experiences that left them feeling
tokenized, belittled, or discriminated against. One freelance
photojournalist who was hired to work on the Race Issue said that
while going through images with her editor, she mentioned
understanding why she‘d been hired — her work complemented the
journalist‘s story. The editor, who was also a person of color, had a
different explanation: ―We just needed a Black female photographer.‖

―I just kept quiet,‖ the photojournalist said, adding they thought, ―I

cannot wait to be done with this story so I can move on.‖

The incident came in the wake of what the photojournalist described

as overbearing treatment by the same editor — who, she said, called,
texted, and emailed her to check in so frequently while she was on
assignment that it made it hard to do her job. It showed ―a lack of
trust,‖ she said. ―I‘m fully capable of doing this job; I‘m fully capable
of telling these stories.‖

The same freelancer later did one other assignment for the magazine,
a project for the advertising side that was supposed to be about racial
bias. Editors were concerned that the photographer including a
formerly incarcerated man in the project would promote negative
stereotypes about Black men, even though his incarceration was an
important part of his life story. The freelancer pushed back — ―I had
to fight for that,‖ she said — and editors ultimately agreed. But the
freelancer felt the episode showed the magazine‘s lack of trust in her,
a Black journalist, to tell a story about race and racism.

―You want to control something so much, especially when it comes to

race, and you‘re talking to a Black woman, and you want to push back
and tell me I‘m wrong,‖ the freelancer said. ―You don‘t have the
confidence in me that I know what I‘m doing.‖

Goldberg also got directly involved in editing the freelancer‘s

introduction text for the project, which was to run alongside the
photos, wanting to cut a line stating that ―I document these issues
through engaging the individual lived experiences of Black
Americans.‖ Goldberg‘s reason for the cut: ―This describes
photojournalism.‖

It felt dismissive, the freelancer said. ―I know what photojournalism

is.‖

It was decisions like these, however small they might seem, that made
employees and contributors of color feel that their professional
expertise and experiences weren‘t valued. Such instances of
devaluing can add up over time, leading to anxiety and depression
and holding people back from doing their best work. The fact that
Goldberg, the editorial director of the entire company, got involved at
all made her feel ―that they had no trust in a Black woman‘s work
telling stories of racial bias,‖ the freelancer added.

After these experiences, she says she would never work with National
Geographic again. ―Working for them doesn‘t serve a purpose in my
life or my career,‖ she said.

She was not alone in this feeling. A former staffer, who is Black,
describes having her admiration for National Geographic dispelled by
the reality of the institution.

―I grew up watching all the National Geographic documentaries,‖ the

staffer said, and she and her mother ―would bond over watching their
shows.‖

But when she started working at the magazine on a contract basis,

she said, she repeatedly dealt with ―demeaning and rude‖ treatment
from her superior, an editor on the magazine‘s executive team. In one
2020 email exchange, he chastised her after she asked follow-up
questions about story scheduling. ―I‘m a little frustrated that you
don‘t have a better grasp on what needs to move,‖ he wrote, later
adding, ―These are basic things you need to be able to do.‖

In another exchange, he informed her he was rejecting her timesheet

because she recorded overtime hours without seeking approval from
him first. ―I do find it hard to comprehend that you have worked more
than 40 hours of billable work last week,‖ he wrote. The employee
responded with a breakdown of tasks she completed, including, she
said, a request from him that had to be done after hours since,
according to emails reviewed by Vox, he asked her to do it minutes
before 5 pm. However, he responded, ―You chose to work overtime
without getting prior approval.‖

The employee felt that the editor treated her differently from her
predecessors, who were both white — her immediate predecessor,
who trained her for the role, told her as much — and she wondered if
she was being discriminated against because she is a Black woman.
On the advice of the temp agency that handled her contract, she
asked for a Zoom meeting with her editor last summer. When she
brought up her concerns about his critical tone, she said, ―he got
upset‖ and ―his face turned red.‖ After that, she said, his demeanor
toward her changed — he abandoned all pleasantries and only spoke
about work. In September, she was told her contract would not be
renewed.

Her experience working with the editor ―was terrible,‖ the former
employee said. ―It was extremely stressful.‖

When she dropped off her computer after her last day of work in
September, ―I was like, man, I feel so free.‖

The last year has brought improvement, but also frustration

Internal efforts to change the environment at National Geographic
often seemed to come from relatively junior employees, current and
former staffers said.

For example, one group created a Slack channel called ―Do Better,‖ in
which they discussed coverage that they felt was problematic or
concerning (including Draper‘s story on Sri Lanka), and ways to
improve. The group created a memo in 2018, which Vox has reviewed,
calling on the magazine to work to recruit a more diverse staff and
contributor base, and to set goals and track progress toward more
inclusive storytelling.

The memo offered numerous suggestions for how to improve

representation both internally and in coverage, including a checklist
to remind editors to consider diversity and representation when
assigning stories, and a more inclusive process for hearing out
concerns about stories. The group recommended that the magazine
―revisit current editorial print and digital processes to ensure that
when issues are flagged, they‘re addressed. For example, can voices
beyond the executive team be present when stories are pitched and
finalized?‖ The work of the Do Better group led to some changes. For
instance, the group produced a list of resources used by some
staffers to increase diversity in assigning.

Current and former staffers say they‘ve seen more marked

improvements after the racial justice uprisings last year. In June,
National Geographic Partners released a four-point plan to improve
diversity and inclusion at the company. The plan included a residency
program for BIPOC journalists with the goal of placing them in full-
time jobs at National Geographic or elsewhere in the media industry
upon completion. In addition, some parts of the company have
instituted new hiring goals for women and people of color, and the
company has held several virtual events in which employees from
marginalized communities discuss their experiences, such as a
recent event addressing anti-Asian bias.
The changes have been heartening to observers both inside and
outside the publication. ―As frustrating as progress can be, I think the
ball is moving in the right direction,‖ one current staffer said.

Some, however, say the onus remains on junior staff to bring up

problems with coverage — and that they continue to come up. Draper,
the white journalist who wrote the Sri Lanka story, recently pitched
and received the green light to write a story about race in
Washington, DC, a staffer said. That assignment also caused
controversy internally, but the process of complaining about such
stories can be taxing for lower-level editors, especially if they are
journalists of color. (National Geographic did not respond to
questions about this story.)

―Why do you have to put yourself in that position?‖ one staffer asked.

National Geographic‘s headquarters and museum in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

All too many people in the media industry have found themselves in
this position in recent years. With media organizations still often led
by white editors, but with an increasing level of diversity among
junior staff, many have found themselves pushing for change from
the bottom up.

At the food publication Bon Appetit, for example, junior staffers of

color like Jesse Sparks (now an editor at Eater, a Vox Media
publication) and Ryan Walker-Hartshorn began advocating for shifts
like capitalizing the word Black in stories in 2018, according to ―The
Test Kitchen,‖ a series for the podcast Reply All. They put together a
presentation for management, but Adam Rapoport, the editor-in-chief
at the time, ―got on his phone and started scrolling the entire time
that Jesse was speaking,‖ Walker-Hartshorn told Reply All. ―It was the
most disrespectful thing I have ever seen or experienced.‖

It took a very public reckoning to force change at the top of Bon

Appetit; Rapoport resigned in 2020 after writer Tammie Teclemariam
found a 2013 photo of Rapoport in brownface. Nor are newer media
organizations immune to the kinds of inequities staffers reported at
Bon Appetit — the ―Test Kitchen‖ series was canceled after former
Gimlet Media staffers came forward to say that Reply All and its
parent company Gimlet suffered from some of the same problems as
Bon Appetit.

Publications like the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times
have also been forced to reckon with their practices after news
reports and social media posts have revealed employees‘ criticisms
of company culture. The New York Times, in particular, has been the
subject of scrutiny in recent months, with a science journalist
resigning after using a racist slur and a podcast producer leaving the
paper after reports that he behaved inappropriately toward women.
The paper‘s editorial page editor, James Bennet, resigned in June
2020 after a public protest, led by Black staffers, against an opinion
article by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) advocating for the use of the
military against racial justice protesters.

At the Times, Bon Appetit, and elsewhere, public criticism ultimately

led to the ouster of people in leadership. Some current and former
staffers at National Geographic say the company won‘t truly be better
until reform happens at the highest levels. ―We would need a lot of
changes at the top,‖ one staffer said, adding that ―I don‘t know how
you‘d fix‖ the current leadership.

The stories of those who say they‘ve tried to push the company to be
better reveal something else that‘s all too common as organizations
try — and often fail — to reckon with their racism: It can be punishing
to be the person always advocating for things to be different.
―By the time I left the company, I had lost so much weight that my
pants did not fit me and my hair was falling out,‖ one former editor
said. ―The stress made me physically ill.‖

―My grandmother had National Geographic on the bookshelf,‖

another former editor said. She had long aspired to work there. But
now, reflecting on her time inside the publication she said, ―I almost
feel like I was in a toxic relationship with the brand.‖

―You love it, you respect it, you want it to be better,‖ she explained.
But ―I look back and wonder if I perpetuated some harm.‖

Emily Berch contributed reporting and research to this article.

https://www.monsterchildren.com/national-geographic-is-fucked/

National Geographic is Fucked

By Crom -

3-4 минуты

Screen Shot 2015-11-05 at 11.31.13 AM

Everything is going super-well for the world‘s richest gila monster,

Rupert Murdoch. Not only is he prodding shameless uber-skank Jerry
Hall with his stumpy old man penis, he also just acquired National
Geographic magazine. And sacked 180 people. Sucks for them, but
the long-term effects of this buyout is what really blows. The
Fox/NatGeo merger (a for-profit venture that cost Rupert the Lizard
$725m) effectively hands complete control of The National
Geographic Society over to Fox. For the last sixty or so years,
National Geographic magazine (first published in 1888) has been very
outspoken about environmental issues like deforestation, pollution,
global warming, and all that other bad stuff Murdoch‘s news outlets
have been deliberately playing down or–in the case of global
warming–flatly denying for years. Here‘s something Rupert said the
other day:

‗Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here, and
there will always be a little bit of it. At the moment the North Pole is
melting, but the South Pole is getting bigger.‘

Here‘s another thing he said:

‗If the sea level rises 6 inches, that‘s a big deal … we can‘t mitigate
that, we can‘t stop it. We‘ve just got to stop building vast houses on
seashores and go back a little bit.‘
He also said this:

‗We should approach climate change with great skepticism.‘

And now this guy controls a magazine dedicated to reporting what‘s

happening in our environment. National Geographic is issued in 40
languages and publishes 6.8 million copies every month. That‘s a lot
of readers, but National Geographic is only one of many Nat Geo
publications. There‘s also National Geographic Kids, National
Geographic Little Kids (a magazine for ages 3–6), National
Geographic Traveller, National Geographic History (that‘ll come in
handy, Roop), National Geographic Research (a scientific journal),
National Geographic Daily News, and then of course there‘s The
National Geographic Channel, National Geographic Films… well, to be
fair, Fox has owned The National Geographic Channel since 2001;
that‘s why we have educational shows like Highway Thru Hell (a
reality show featuring a heavy vehicle rescue and recovery towing
company), Amish: Out of Order (like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo but
Amish), Family Guns (reality show about guns), Rocket City Rednecks
(who cares), and Ancient Aliens (so dumb).

The Polar Bears Have No One to Blame But Themselves is the title of
a National Geographic cover story I‘m predicting we‘ll see very soon,
as is Carbon Schmarbon, Jungle Fever: The Amazon‘s Horniest Sluts,
and Look At This Guy With The Plate In His Mouth!
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/nationalgeographic.com

Overview

National Geographic has a consumer rating of 2.78 stars from 37

reviews indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with
their purchases. National Geographic ranks 16th among Magazines
sites.

Very bad consumer services. It doesn't arrive for three months now

May 26th, 2022

Very bad consumer services. It doesn't arrive for three months now.
They renew the subscription automatically you cannot reach them or
access the account.

Wonderful magazines!

November 9th, 2019

I buy these magazines because of 2 reasons: their BEAUTIFUL

pictures and great articles about stunning places around the world.
This modern world gives us the opportunity to choose what we want
to see or read, but I also like that an important entity like NATGEO
shares/tells you about the amazing things our world has :)

Don't subscribe, they'll harass you forever!

January 13th, 2022

Be careful about getting a NG membership and magazine. They will

harass you forever. I tried to cancel my father's membership when his
Alzheimers progressed to a point where he could no longer read.
Every other subscription promptly cancelled and refunded. Not NG, I
had to let the whole subscription run out. And meanwhile they sent
demand after demand for renewal. I politely asked at least a dozen
times over 4 years for them to leave us alone. Now my Dad is DEAD
and they are still sending renewal notices. They are heartless
monsters.

Content is great, but marketing solicitations are out of control

June 10th, 2022

The content of the NatGeo digital is wonderful, but once they (i. E.
Disney) get your email, you'll never get rid of them. I've opted out
multiple times. Most times I get the message below and have to
contact Guest Services. So I email and also communicated via online
chat. Had to screenshot the chat because the request to email was
never processed. The chat rep confirmed it was done, and yet the
very next day more marketing emails. Even after cancelling the
subscription, I still can't get them off my back.

Just Another Socially Politically Motivated Rag

March 29th, 2021

Been a NatGeo subscriber for many years. However since Covid

epidemic and George Floyd incident NatGeo and many other iconic,
non-socio biased US publications have focused almost exclusively on
social and political events. I fear the editorial management staff have
gone off reservation. Its a shame but I'm not renewing my
subscription

One of the worst spammers in the world

October 2nd, 2021

I have been receiving spam emails from National Geographic for
years.

National Geographic does not verify email addresses. Anyone can

sign up with email addresses that do not belong to them.

Once they have your email, they send you 3 emails a day.

Their unsubscribe function does not work, the spam simply

continues.

You can contact NG to have your email removed manually but as

soon as someone else plugs in your email the flood of spam resumes.

Downhill Slide for National Geographic

June 1st, 2020

The National Geographic of old is gone for good. I recently signed up

for a $12 digital subscription and they charged me 3 times. $36 gone
from my bank account. Multiple calls and emails to their foreign
Customer Service department (not based in America, shame on you)
have not resulted in a refund. I found multiple complaints and reviews
across the internet from people who had similar experiences. This
same thing happened to me a few years ago from National
Geographic. All I can do is warn other people. It pains me to say,
National Geographic is now a scam. Save your money and your bank
account information.

The best!
April 1st, 2019

I absolutely love this magazine since I was in high school. NatGeo is

one of these "old but gold" things. I definitely recommend everyone
to make this magazine a part of your life, too. It is educational and
entertaining at the same time.

Great information for learning

January 31st, 2014

Great information for learning. There is even a teachers section. I

used to love watching their videos, and high expectations for their
video section. However, I found this area of their website
disappointing.

Never been treated so poorly.

December 10th, 2021

Verified purchase

If I could give a zero star, I would. I have traveled with Abercrombie

and Kent, Micato, UCLA Travel, and others and by far, this was the
worst trip I have ever been on. Maybe it was due to the recent sale of
Nat Geo to Disney. Maybe they were good before they sold out. I
traveled with another couple who agreed. Cellophane wrapped cold
sandwiches from gas stations for lunch, no bottled water, missed
meals, rude tour guide, and forced masknig in private transportaion
despite being fully vaccinated and only among other vaccinated
friends. I thought maybe it was a one off, but the way Nat Geo treated
me after the trip, I don't think so. This was a $6,250 per person trip
and they offered me a $250 refund even after acknowledgeing the
mistakes that were made. Don't use National Geographic. Use
Abercrombie and Kent or any other high end guide service.
A Great Non-Profit Scam

March 9th, 2021

As a little girl, I would pick up a whole pile of my parents' National

Geographic Magazines and thumb through them for hours. They were
amazing. I could visit people all over the world. I could see art and
culture, history and archaeology, not to mention advertisements for
Cadillacs or was that Oldsmobiles? These magazines amazed me.
They opened my eyes to many interesting things that I would not have
otherwise known existed.

In my teenage years, I ordered Smithsonian Magazine and enjoyed all

that it brought to me. It was similar to National Geographic yet a little
more upscale, something that I wanted at that time. Smithsonian
Magazine somehow seemed better. Although National Geographic
Magazine had wonderful pictures, Smithsonian images seemed more
artistic while still capturing the impact of any particular subject
matter.

I have ordered both magazines on and off for many years. And so it
was that I, EVIDENTLY, ordered National Geographic Magazine last
year. I was unaware that I had done so until I received my renewal
notice in my email. It was automatic. I'm really glad that I was notified.
Otherwise, I would not have known that I was a subscriber. You see,
my subscription was digital, something that I was completely unaware
of. The renewal was also $19.99 per month which is $239.88 per year.
And for that I didn't even get a paper copy, just digital.

Naturally, I called National Geographic Customer Service and told

them that I had never received a paper magazine. Their answer was
that I had only chosen the digital version and that the paper version
would cost an additional $34. I took that to mean per month. They
never offered to allow me to subscribe to the print magazine alone. At
that time, I cancelled my subscription.

I went online to see how much National Geographic cost for an initial
subscription. It appeared that I had to order the digital format then
add the print edition on top of that. You can even see in the initial
subscription offer that you can order digital but only one type,
"National Geographic Magazine", "Nat Geo History", or "Nat Geo
Kids". I can understand that the kids magazine is something that
would be ordered separately. After you choose the magazine that you
want, your choices are a monthly digital subscription, a yearly digital
subscription, or a yearly digital and print edition. What happened to
the old concept of just paper magazines? What if I didn't have a
computer? Would I not be able to order National Geographic?

On top of that when you initially order a National Geographic

Magazine, you will enter your billing details. Then you will see the
subscribe button. The subscribe button is before the fine print that
you would just think is the legal print and contacts. What you actually
see is that the fine print for the annual subscription states "Annual
Subscriptions Your subscription will automatically be renewed each
year. Before the start of each renewal, you will be sent a reminder
notice stating the current rate. If you do nothing, your credit card will
automatically be charged for another membership year at the renewal
rate then in effect." My renewal rate was $19.99 per month for the
digital edition which was emailed to me. That was their "renewal rate
in effect". You would have to be an academic researcher or really,
really love National Geographic to pay $239.88 annually for a digital
only magazine subscription. Of course, academics are given free
access to academic journals and other publications. That just leaves
people who really love National Geographic Magazine or maybe
people who don't realize how much the renewal costs.

When I called back after cancelling, I asked how much for the print
edition alone. The CS rep told me that I would need to start a new
subscription. That was good because at least I could receive a better
deal. She told me that the print edition would be $39 per year. I told
her that it was less for the digital and print magazine together at
National Geographic online. I pulled up the page with the "offer" and
found that it was $24 per year for the digital and print editions
together. So, she offered me the print edition for $24. I told her that
both together were offered for $24. She asked if I wanted both. I said
no I just wanted the print edition. She told that would be $24. I asked
whether I could subscribe to the print edition for less than $24 since I
only wanted the print edition. She told me no. I have done as I always
do when dealing with a difficult company. I used Audacity to record
the conversation. At least some things are still free in this world of
greedy businesses. If anyone wants to hear it, just let me know.

So, the price for National Geographic Magazine is somewhat

negotiable unless you simply renew. If I do subscribe to National
Geographic in the future, I will ensure that I subscribe from
Publisher's Clearing House or another inexpensive vendor. I always
see magazine deals from these vendors. And I will ensure that it tells
me that I will receive the print edition. That is where I went wrong the
last time.

Meanwhile, I just subscribed to Smithsonian Magazine. They gave me

an offer that I could not refuse. 11 issues for $8 or 22 issues for $16
for a senior discount membership. The online price for younger
people is almost the same. 11 issues for $12. They tell you "Your first
issue will arrive in six to eight weeks." So, you know that you are
receiving an actual physical magazine just like the old days. And they
don't mandate automatic renewal. They just send you the magazine.
When it is time to renew there is a renewal tab to choose at the top of
the account page. It might cost a little more next year but I bet it will
cost less than National Geographic. Additionally, Smithsonian gives
you many membership discounts while National Geographic tries to
sell you books and other items.

Smithsonian Magazine also states "Ninety-nine percent of

membership dues are allocated for Smithsonian magazine." I think
that means that the money doesn't go into an executive's pocket.
National Geographic doesn't say where their money goes. That could
get into a whole kettle of fish though. National Geographic is
considered a non-profit organization. They have had three different
CEOs in the last three years. Their annual revenue was $5.5 billion as
of 2020.

Save yourself some trouble and order Smithsonian Magazine instead

of National Geographic.

Magazine sucks

May 12th, 2022

So to start with I ordered this for my daughter, she never even got half
the magazines. So they extended it. Still didn't get them! So I get the
email for the renewal, I cancel it right away. Well some not so smart
people reactivated it and took the $29.99 out of my account. Leaving it
negative. Got hit with$35 over draft charge thank you I have so much
money I can afford that jerks. So I call they *re cancel * it and say
they'll refund the $29.99... im like well ok not that, that will bring my
account current. Got a f*cking refund of $4, not the full amount so will
have to call them yet again. Worst ever magazine to cancel. Will never
subscribe to them again

Long time customer, who will no longer be renewing subscription,

June 28th, 2021

The left wing political spin on Ever topic, has gotten almost cult like in
its Ideological fervor for Globalist, left wing Politics. National
Geographic, is meant to be Geography, Archaeology, and
Anthropology. Not another platform ruined by biased politics.
National Politographic

October 22nd, 2021

I have never before been a subscriber, but has always been interested
in traveling, nature, animal kingdom and cultured, so I finally decided
to subscribe thinking I will be getting a magazine about all those. Boy,
was I wrong. The first issue I received in the mail had absolutely
nothing in it that interested me. It was mostly political nonsense that
we've been bombarded by on social media and news. I was so
disappointed, but thought it might get better in the next issue. The
second issue I got was a bit better. Or at least I thought so looking at
the cover. When I opened it, I had to turn many pages dedicated to
political propaganda to get to the good stuff. And while there was
some good stuff, there wasn't enough good stuff. In two issues, there
was 90% political propaganda and 10% good stuff. I will absolutely
not be renewing the subscription. This magazine is complete garbage.
If I wanted to waste my time with politics, I'd be watching the news.

Unhappy with customer service

December 14th, 2020

I used to really enjoy National Geographic and gave my daughter a

subscription in 2018. Unknown to me they automatically enrolled me
for renewal and I didn't find out until 2020 that I already paid for a
subscription for 2019. She had moved half way through 2018 so I've
paid for for an extra year. Called customer service and they did
nothing for me. I feel like it is very underhanded to automatically
renew with a gift subscription. Very disappointed in this company!

I'm sick of having to sign-up for subscriptions etc. just for the
privilege of reading an article.

November 25th, 2021

I got into a discussion with a friend and we were uncertain if Mantis
Shrimp had compound eyes or not. I typed a simple query into my
preferred search engine and was referred to National Geographic's
web page which would not let me read the article until I provided an
email address and signed-up for... whatever.

Now, I get it. They are providing a service and providing an email
address is hardly a burden. I'm just sick of feeling that I can't sneeze,
at a time where internet security experts are reminding us to be more
discriminate while online, with having to provide anybody and
everybody that asks with all the details.

Incidentally, Mantis Shrimp have compound eyes.

Unresponsive

October 23rd, 2020

I have been a NG subscriber for ever. My favorite magazine by far.

Recently I wanted to gift a NG Kids subscription to my grand kid, so
had a question about payment method. I sent several emails
regarding that. All you get is an email back saying that your email has
been received and customer service will respond to it soon. That
doesn't happen ever. Another comment I have is the NG subscription
rate has gone up tremendously. I am not sure if I will renew my
subscription anymore.

H. G

Do not trust what Nat Geo says on cost

August 6th, 2020

We have been a valued member since 1965 according to our last
notice in July of this year. We no longer have a subscription to
ourselves but send it to our son. The notice says the price is 27.00. I
called and charged the amt to our credit card as I have always done
for years and years. Our acct came in and we were charged in USD
not Canadian funds. We have never paid in US funds. They tell me
that I am charged because I used a credit card but if I send in a
cheque it would be Canadian funds as written on the notice. No where
does it state this on their notice. They even provide a section where
one is to write the credit card numbers.

We have cancelled our subscription and they tell me I will receive a

refund.

Shame on the National Geographic for the underhanded way of

treating a long term client.

Pulled money from my bank for 20 hours straight

October 9th, 2020

I only purchased this bull crap because Geico told me I could save
money every month on my car insurance. I was told the 1 year
subscription cost 12.01 so I decided of course I want to save money.
When I went online the price stated 12.01 so I signed up, after
checking my account today Geographic has 13 Pending charges at
13.01 each on my account. That's 169.00 dollars and being that they
did this. Each of those charges is costing me 38.50 that's 500.000
dollars IN FEES because I only had my bill money in my account for
the month and that's not even on top of the 169.00 they charged me
for the subscription WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN 13.01 A YEAR that's
almost 700.00 that I have to try to pay my bank back I'm pissed! I only
had enough money in my account to pay my bills now everything is
gonna bounce and I have to pay all those fees back. When I called
geographic I was told they only see one charge it's nothing they can
do, I don't care what you see I'm looking at my back account and You
or someone working for this place continued to pull money from my
account for almost 20 hours straight! Every hour they pulled money
FROM MY ACCOUNT thank god I looked before banks closed so I
could drag myself to the bank and I don't even feel good today and
put a hold on my account so they can't keep pulling money otherwise
who knows what would have happened. I called Geico and I'm waiting
on a supervisor to call me back to make them aware of this type of
fraudulent activities geographic is practicing. Instead of saving
money geographic has put me in a financial disaster. I recently loss
my 15 year job due to COVID-19 like soo many others so I was excited
that I would save a little money but instead of saving they have cost
me hundreds of dollars in fees. THANK YOU! They charged my
account OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AND OVER! That's 13 OVERS THE EXACT AMOUNT OF TIMES
THEY CHARGED MY CARD AND THEY WONT DO ANYTHING TO
HELP ME. This is my second review I've posted today and I'm gonna
continue to post on every site I can to make innocent people aware of
this. I'll also be contacting the BBB to show them exactly what
geographic has done to me, I'm single I don't get any help from
anyone if I had the money in the bank I probably wouldn't care that
much BUT I don't, I'm flat broke and the money they took from me
was for my car note and rent so now my next 2 unemployment checks
are gonna go to bank fees thanks to these SCAMMERS! PLEASE
DONT BUY FROM THIS COMPANY BUT IF YOU DO MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE EXTRA MONEY in the bank so you won't be in the same
situation as me. GOD BLESS US ALL. You would think being that the
world is in a pandemic companies wouldn't do sh** like this but they
are so just beware. Thank you National Geo. SCAMMERS that's a dam
shame they would do something like this. When I talk to Geico I'm
gonna suggest they don't do business with this company. There are
other companies such as People Magazine Us Weekly etc. that they
can do this exact same thing with ( save people money) that WONT
DO THIS TO THERE CUSTOMERS BEWARE PEOPLE!

Tip for consumers:

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC OR SOMEONE WORKING FOR THE

COMPANY REPEATEDLY WITHDREW MONEY OUT OF MY ACCOUNT
FOR ALMOST 20 hours straight. They continued to pull and pull and
pull now all of my bills are gonna bounce because I had just enough
for my bills and these idiots won‘t do sh** to fix the situation I had to
go dispute this with my bank and get new account numbers that I‘ve
had for years and years and use only to pay my bills.. you really
screwed me over. Scammers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Products used:

I couldn‘t add ALL THE OTHER 13.01 pending charges..there‘s a lot

more besides the ones you see here....National Geographic yearly
subscription for 12.01 BUT THEY CHARGED ME 169.00 and
repeatedly withdrew 13.01 13 times out of my account. I have 13
pending charges for 13.01 from this place which should have been
12.01 for the year. Now i have to pay 38.50 for EACH of these pending
charges that‘s 500.00 in overdraft fees You have caused me a
financial disaster.. I‘m unemployed and only signed up to save money
with Geico. I don‘t even read this shi* DONT BUY FROM THIS PLACE
THEY ARE SCAMMERS!!

National Geographic has lost it's way

July 4th, 2021

I have been a National Geographic member for 55 years, from the age
of 10. In the past several years I have found the magazine has lost
focus to it's mission and is is now trying to compete with Vogue or
the New Yorker. For most of the past year I have looked briefly
through the magazine a have thrown them into the trash without
reading a full article I will not renew the magazine and will not go on
any trips organized by National Geographic.