The Murdoch family and 21st Century Fox purchased 73% of National Geographic last week, turning the nonprofit organization into a for-profit joint venture.

On the surface, this seems like an unlikely, and potentially dangerous, pairing and has already stirred a fervent debate in regard to the continued integrity of the brand.

It is easy to see why the acquisition has many up in arms. Just last month, Rupert Murdoch tweeted, “a climate change skeptic not denier. Sept UN meets in NY with endless alarmist nonsense from you know whom! Pessimists always seen as sages.”

The majority of National Geographic’s current readership would fall under the category of people spewing, in Murdoch’s words, “alarmist nonsense.” In other words, National Geographic readers, and staff, believe in human-exacerbated climate change while Rupert Murdoch is not sold.

This direct schism of ideologies is the area to focus on as the magazine progresses forward. If this is purely a business venture, it would be foolish to alter the revered and established National Geographic brand. However, if this is a move with a political underbelly, it stands to be one of the greatest journalistic tragedies on record.

Here’s the flip side. The National Geographic Society, which now owns 27 percent of National Geographic, will remain a nonprofit, as well as retain its chief executive of 20 years and its Editor-in-Chief Susan Goldberg. This retention of leadership within The National Geographic Society elicits hope.

“The integrity of the staff and contributors is above reproach. We aren’t the kind of people to do what we don’t want to do. If things went south, we wouldn’t work here anymore. If we were told to dumb down the science, I don’t think that’s going to fly,” said Brian Skerry, a National Geographic photographer. Skerry’s words are welcome, and highlight the strong, scientifically-based principles that National Geographic was founded upon, and strives to maintain above all else.

“The $725 million from Fox will increase [The National Geographic Society’s] endowment to about $1 billion and allow it to double its investment in science, research and education work,” The New York Times reports.

This increased potential for research at the magazine is the trump card in favor of the acquisition. A doubling in research funding is an exorbitant increase, and is enough to hold off on vilifying this purchase despite the immediate red flags.

Some news outlets have satirically theorized about future stories under the new ownership. An article from The Toast envisions “There Are Ice Cubes In My Drink, So How Can Global Warming Exist?” and “The Ten Most Reaganesque Animals” as two future headlines. Although overt exaggerations, these headlines do signal the overall sentiment of the dangers of the partnership.

National Geographic is a powerful brand that produces a powerful product. Its images and stories alike evoke feelings of environmental responsibility and stewardship, two notions that are now more important than ever and demand unbiased, scientifically-backed coverage. It’s no secret that the Murdoch family, most closely associated with Fox News, at times flies in the face of these sentiments. For this, initial apprehension is appropriate.

This acquisition is about an industry-wide shift. Print magazine sales are in a rapid decline, with more emphasis being placed on ensuring continued profits in a digitalizing world. If nothing else, National Geographic has gained some life insurance. Here’s to hoping that it lives on with the same spirit that it was founded upon, but when there is this much money involved, there are no safe bets.

Azor Cole is a senior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @azor_cole.

Published on September 17, 2015 at 12:33 am