SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the acquisition-followed-by-gutting-of-the-workforce dept.
It's as bad as many of us feared. In spite of the "happy talk" of "oh, his son will be running it and he's different", "Rupert wouldn't destroy an asset like Nat Geo", etc., the axe fell on [November 3].
The memo went out, and November 3rd 2015 came to the National Geographic office. This was the day in which Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox took over National Geographic. The management of National Geographic sent out an email telling its staff—all of its staff—all to report to their headquarters, and wait by their phones. This pulled back every person who was in the field, every photographer, every reporter, even those on vacation had to show up on this fateful day.
As these phones rang, one by one National Geographic let go the award-winning staff, and the venerable institution was no more.
[...] The National Geographic Society of Washington will lay off about 180 of its 2,000-member workforce in a cost-cutting move that follows the sale of its famous magazine and other assets to a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch.
The reduction, the largest in the organization's 127-year history, appears to affect almost every department of the nonprofit organization, including the magazine, which the society has published since just after its founding in 1888. It also will affect people who work for the National Geographic Channel, the most profitable part of the organization. Several people in the channel's fact-checking department, for example, were terminated on Tuesday, employees said...
In addition to the layoffs and buyouts, National Geographic Society said it would freeze its pension plan for eligible employees, eliminate medical coverage for future retirees and change its contributions to an employee 401(k) plan so that all employees receive the same percentage contribution.
[...] Other articles hint that this may just be the beginning of the layoffs.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @01:30AM
venerable institution was no more....
Then you read on...
will lay off about 180 of its 2,000-member workforce in a cost-cutting
So 9% of an organization that hasn't been pruned in decades.
Ya know, it might be just a tad early to start singing the blues.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Friday November 06 2015, @10:31AM
Speaking of retardification of TV and cost cutting.
Compare, 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9A-oxUMAy8 [youtube.com]
vs 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA8zQw6gDNI [youtube.com]
So which narrator should they sack? I prefer the 2006 one but I might be in the minority. Perhaps it's an acquired taste but just like many kids and some adults might prefer juvenile humour it's good to teach them to appreciate other stuff...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 06 2015, @02:20PM
Thanks for the data point. This reinforces my reasons for not having a telly for the last 15 years.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @08:12PM
The 2006 version was obviously from a show for very young kids - Elementary School age.
The 2007 version was for NatGeo Wild [wikipedia.org], intended to be educational but aimed at general audiences.
So I have no problem with either of the narration tracts.
I do have a problem with someone taking two clips out of context without reference to the target audiance and trying to make some kind of point out of them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:36AM
The 2006 version was obviously from a show for very young kids - Elementary School age.
The 2007 version was for NatGeo Wild, intended to be educational but aimed at general audiences.
Really? I thought the 2007 one was more retarded and annoying. Based on my memory the 2006 version came first but now the 2007 version is the only one on their website: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/octopus_giant_kills_shark [nationalgeographic.com]
I do have a problem with someone taking two clips out of context without reference to the target audiance and trying to make some kind of point out of them.
I did say:
just like many kids and some adults might prefer juvenile humour it's good to teach them to appreciate other stuff...
Maybe you've just been watching too much retarded TV and it has affected you more than you realize.