Customer Rating: 
Summary: certainly mankind has never given himself a better magazine
Comment: what really needs to be said . i think anyone who would dissent from that statement is either in denial and/or heartbroken about the fall of us all . who isn't . perhaps through the worlds finest photography alone we can grasp the scope of our illness as a species ? not a bad read either . sad , but true . often uplifting as well . always deeply informative . agenda ? ABSOLUTELY .
Customer Rating: 
Summary: Having a Problem Changing Billing Address
Comment: I ordered this magazine for my son on 6/22/08. He has yet to receive his first issue and now has a new address. I'm having a terrible time trying to correct the shipping address.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Unable to review, has not been recieved yet, was ordered on June 30th, 08
Comment: This magazine was ordered on June 30th, my Son has not recieved it yet???????? So can not comment on a review at this time.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Rising price, declining content
Comment: It can't be argued that National Geographic still features excellent photography of a wide variety of subjects, but the written content of this famous publication has declined to the point of self-parody. NG still commissions a few notable journalists (Alma Guillermoprieto's contributions are invariably excellent), but contributions by the likes of Frank Viviano, William Allard, etc. are characterized by a thoroughly unprofessional (and distinctly American) tendency to express their personal opinions and experiences in their articles, which are typically distinguished by the most nauseatingly saccharine, humanist perspectives. If you're looking for journalistic objectivity, you'll only find it sporadically here, and mostly in articles pertaining to the fundamental sciences or their relation to technology.
Some of the topics that NG explored in 2006 were incredibly mundane. These included extensive cover stories concerning a scientific examination of the nature of love and (I swear to god this is true) the worldwide appeal of soccer. In the latter issue, one of the maps that we readers usually expect was substituted by a fold-out poster featuring photos and drawings of soccer players and fields, and percentage rates indicating the game's popularity in different continents. If you think that I'm lying, check out the June 2006 issue and witness this inanity for yourself. Again: these were cover stories, not articles buried somewhere in their respective issues. The relative lack of variety in the magazine's subject matter is also discouraging. I don't mind NG's preoccupation with environmental topics; while it's colored with a variety of pessimistic fatalism that's obviously tailored to appeal to moderate leftists with an interest in these subjects, these issues are quite important and worthy of discussion in this magazine. But in the course of one year, I was treated to no fewer than three articles on the topic of evolution, none of which conveyed anything that I (a layman on the topic) didn't know or any conclusions whatsoever: puff pieces, essentially. And of course, the season kicked off with an article on the Grand Canyon. Beautifully shot and hastily written, and I know what the Grand Canyon looks like. I know all about it. In my relatively short (shy of three decades) life, I've read no fewer than six National Geographic articles on the Grand Canyon. Thanks so much for yet another, but I already know about the Grand Canyon; this article didn't tell or show me anything that I didn't know about it, for god's sake. The ZipUSA feature is aimless and uninteresting, mostly an exhibit for how commonplace most of the USA is. I don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but it seems as though the correspondence featured in the magazine's letters section is often cherry-picked for the most vapid and (appropriately) leftist commentary of its reader base.
The thing is, I still can't dismiss NG. For every lousy article in an issue, there's one that fascinates: a photographed review of present-day Chernobyl, Prince Charles' conservationist efforts in Cornwall, unearthed Peruvian mummies, and so on. But nothing here is worth the absurd cost of an annual subscription, especially considering that there's a lot of advertising in every issue. If NG wants advice, here it is: trim the fat. Dump some of your ads and all of your trite articles (about half of the content in any given issue). Either halve the length of your issues or move to a bimonthly format, restore the detailed maps that your customers want, and for god's sake, lower the price. My grandmother had a traditional devotion to this now-bloated magazine, but its higher standard of quality justified her custom back then. There's no reason why I can't just drive or walk to my local library and check out the latest issue at no cost.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Why pay more?
Comment: This is a great magazine; however, unless I am missing something, the cost of a year's subscription is only $15 on the National Geographic site.
|
