[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: nat geo explorer



Mike Triebold wrote:
> 
> It is most unfortunate that the Nat Geo Explorer episode Roger and
> Fossilnut refer to was presented as non-fiction. This time they didn't even
> try to disguise their (the producer's) agenda, and what a pathetic waste of
> our financial resources.    Slanted?  You're too kind. Self-promotion and
> sensationalism-at-any-cost obviously guided this endeavour.  My respect for
> Nat Geo evaporated with the content of that show.  

I did not see the show in question, and have no way of judging whether
it was accurate.  However, I do want to point out that "National
Geographic" and "National Geographic Explorer" are not the same entity. 
Both are associated with the NGS, but the "Explorer" tag marks endeavors
that are also associated with Ted Turner's TV operation.  Turner's lack
of respect for accuracy is not new.  The "Explorer" shows that I have
seen tend to be much lower in quality than shows produced under the
simple "National Geographic" name.  They ("Explorer") contain less fact
and more opinion, and while I don't recall any instances of outright
falsehood, I wouldn't be surprised if some had occurred.  

It may also be that the current NGS video-production crew is more
political and less interested in fact than past crews.  The recent NGS
special on asteroids didn't seem to be a bastion of rigid accuracy
either.  

Maybe what I'm trying to say is, should you condemn the whole NGS for
this one show?  I don't know.  I do know that I have a lot of respect
for the NGS, and I'd hate to see it criticized for the wrong reasons.

-- JSW