Chris Johns

Is National Geographic “unbiased,” as Editor-in-Chief Chris Johns claims? Is Chris credible when he says: “In a world full of shrill voices and agendas, we at National Geographic are committed to an unbiased presentation of facts. … It’s what we’ve been doing for more than 120 years.”

Let’s examine more evidence.

Here again is Dr. Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, and a National Geographic Society Explorer-in-Residence. (Dr. Hawass is also on the masthead of National Geographic, our Society’s official journal.) In his own words:

Further Remarks on Statements Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Dr. Zahi Hawass, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence

… In an article about Jewish history that I wrote in January for El-Sharq El-Awsat newspaper, I wrote, “It seems that the idea of killing children, old people, and women and ignoring taboos runs in the blood of the Palestinian Jews,” a statement that has been interpreted as anti-Semitic. There are two important points that I want to stress in addressing this criticism. First, I was not speaking of Jews in general. I was speaking only of the “Jews of Palestine” – the modern state of Israel. I deeply disapprove of the policies of the Israeli government with regard to Palestine, and I felt that strong language was necessary to communicate the intensity of my emotions. In addition, I was writing in Arabic for a Middle Eastern audience. The cultural gulf between the West and the Middle East is so deep that I cannot blame people for misinterpreting my statements, but I would like for everyone to know that the tone that I adopted and the words that I chose were tailored to convey my emotions to other Arabic speakers in an idiom that they would appreciate….”

A question for Chris Johns:
_____

Is Dr. Hawass “unbiased”?

Three suggestions for Dr. Hawass:
_____

1. If you have criticisms of the Israeli government, please share them. There’s plenty to criticize, as many Israelis will tell you. But please don’t suggest that “killing children, old people, and women” is something that “runs in the blood of the Palestinian Jews.” That’s not a political critique; it’s racial demagoguery. A man in your position should choose his words much more carefully.
2. You say your racist rhetoric (“runs in the blood”) was used to “convey my emotions to other Arabic speakers in an idiom that they would appreciate.” They may appreciate that idiom, but we don’t. Talking like a demagogue to your Arab audience and then speaking in a more tolerant way in English to Westerners is not a testament to your multicultural fluency; rather, it’s dangerous, and it deepens the cultural divide.
3. 

   Yul Brynner as Ramesses II in "The Ten Commandments"

   As a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence, you’re supposed to support the Society’s mission to “inspire people to care about the planet.” But it’s not very inspirational to say that “killing children, old people, and women… runs in the blood of the Palestinian Jews.” We respectfully suggest that you spend less time castigating “Palestinian Jews” and more time talking about your true area of expertise: the power and the patrimony of the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

__________

A question for John Fahey, CEO of National Geographic:

_____

_____Why is Dr. Hawass still on our Society’s masthead and payroll?

__________

You might pay for the iPad,
but will you pay for an eNGM?

Something's brewing....

*     *     *

UPDATE 13 March 2010: Now it’s gone.

Hmmm.....

__________
≡  images (minus the red arrow) via Apple

]]> http://societymatters.org/2010/03/13/shades-of-things-to-come/feed/ 0 http://societymatters.org/2010/03/13/shades-of-things-to-come/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SocietyMatters/~3/ZL8xthqAWr4/ http://societymatters.org/2010/03/11/objective-nonsense-part-4/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:47:41 +0000 Alan Mairson http://societymatters.org/?p=3816

Zahi Hawass, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence

Remember the claim? That National Geographic isn’t biased. That our Society isn’t politicized or ideological. We report, you decide.

If that claim is true, then what should we make of this disturbing interview with Zahi Hawass? He’s the secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, and he’s also a National Geographic Society Explorer-in-Residence — one of eleven marquee talents who (supposedly) personify the NGS brand.

From Egyptian TV:

Interviewer: “So [the Jews] were dispersed in 133 C.E.?”

Zahi Hawass: “That’s right.”

Interviewer: “And they didn’t reunite until 1900?”

Zahi Hawass: “Exactly.”

Interviewer: “So they were dispersed for 18 centuries?”

Zahi Hawass: “For 18 centuries, they were dispersed throughout the world. They went to America and took control of its economy. They have a plan. Although they are few in number, they control the entire world.”

Hmmm…. aren’t National Geographic Explorers-in-Residence supposed to support our Society’s mission “to inspire people to care about the planet”?

Sounds like Dr. Hawass is a bit off message. And, unfortunately, it’s not the first time.

Terry Garcia: Call your office.

__________
≡ screenshot of Zahi Hawass & transcript via Memri.org

The Onion weighs in on the future of print journalism… and on the state of TV news.

Zahi Hawass

The claim: National Geographic isn’t biased. That our Society isn’t politicized or ideological. We report, you decide.

The quote: Zahi Hawass is the secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities. He’s also one of our Society’s Explorers-in-Residence — one of 11 marquee talents who (supposedly) personify the NGS brand. Here’s Dr. Hawass in an interview with Channel 1 on February 21, 2010:

Interviewer: Do you continue to maintain the position you declared in the past – that you will not open a museum for Jewish antiquities in Egypt?

Zahi Hawass: I am adamant about this. I carry out restoration of Jewish antiquities because they are Egyptian, but I will not open a Jewish museum. I will open such a museum only when the Palestinians get their rights, and Israel…. Under no circumstances will I open a Jewish museum. This is impossible. Politically, I cannot do this, because all the people would hold me accountable. I am Egyptian, and I would like to see the Palestinian issue resolved. Until that happens, I will not open such a museum. I will build the museum only when there is peace.

The questions:

1. Does Zahi Hawass have a political agenda?
2. To maintain access to Egyptian antiquities (a bread-and-butter subject for National Geographic), does NGS need to maintain cordial relations with Zahi Hawass?
3. Does National Geographic have a political agenda?

__________
≡  photo of Zahi Hawass by Kenneth Garrett via National Geographic

Remember this guy? Ed Wardle of National Geographic’s Alone in the Wild?

Well, his spiritual cousin on the Discovery Channel — Les Stroud of Survivorman — evidently was the inspiration for Richard Code (below left), who was just found dead in the Canadian wilderness.

Richard Code and his father, Mel Code

“TV abstracts the real ugliness of survival,” said [wilderness instructor Gino] Ferri, who runs a school called Survival in the Bush and trained Stroud back in the day. “They make the wilderness look like it’s a romantic place. Well, it’s romantic, as long as you have all your gear and you’re camping and enjoying it. In a survival situation, it’s a nightmare.”

Do TV programs like Survivorman and Alone in the Wild bear any responsibility for the death of Richard Code?

__________
≡  photo of Richard & Mel Code via thestar.com

Ha Jin

We’re still wondering.

]]> http://societymatters.org/2010/03/01/follow-up-why-did-chris-johns-kill-ha-jins-story/feed/ 0 http://societymatters.org/2010/03/01/follow-up-why-did-chris-johns-kill-ha-jins-story/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SocietyMatters/~3/a6f4U22srmw/ http://societymatters.org/2010/02/27/dog-of-a-picture/#comments Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:40:11 +0000 Alan Mairson http://societymatters.org/?p=3747

February 1982: NGM's digitally altered cover

In 1982, National Geographic published a photograph that became a major source of embarrassment for our Society.

The Geographic’s editors digitally altered a photo of the Great Pyramid of Giza, moving it closer to a nearby pyramid so the image could be framed as a vertical and fit on the Magazine’s front cover.

But when readers discovered NGM’s manipulation, the sh*t hit the fan. Why would our Society — a trusted source of information — intentionally mislead its members? And: If the editors messed with this photo, then how can we trust anything else they publish?

NGS needed to convince its members and the public that this altered reality wasn’t a representative picture of National Geographic itself. One official response was a solemn pledge that NGM would never make that mistake again.

But apparently they have — albeit unintentionally. Take a look at this image, which NGM just published (February 2010) in Your Shot, and showcased as an Editor’s Choice. Anything look wrong?

Many readers saw the problem, and argued that this Editor’s Choice wasn’t choice at all. In a letter to NGM, one of them wrote:

“In ‘Your Shot’ in the February issue of the magazine you presented a photo by William Lascelles (Editors’ Choice). I’m absolutely disappointed that you printed this obviously faked shot in your magazine. Even people not experienced in digital photography can recognize that this is a fake. The dog is sharp, the house in the background (about some 30 yards away) is not sharp and the jets in the infinite range should be also not sharp, but they are. So undoubtedly the photography is the result of manipulation using software.”

Chris Johns

We’re told that 33 people have already written to NGM to point out that the image was photoshopped. In response, National Geographic posted this explanation and apology, which we hope will soon be published in NGM’s print edition.

But the incident raises some troubling questions for Editor Chris Johns:

David Griffin

1.  If 33 readers (at minimum) recognized this digital manipulation, why didn’t you? Or why didn’t David Griffin, your Director of Photography, who says: “We look at every photo to see if it’s authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we’ll disqualify it.”

2.  Why was the photographer’s near frame — which you asked to see, but which he manipulated in the same way — considered adequate proof of authenticity? Aren’t there better ways to be a digital detective, such as using digital forensics to examine the original image file?

3.  How do you plan to prevent this from happening again?

4.  As digitally enhanced and manipulated images become more common, and visual expectations rise, how do you intend to compete? Do you think the general public will become so accustomed to amazing photoshopped images that NGM’s photography won’t seem as compelling? More to the point: Do you worry that you are beginning to find reality less interesting than the photoshopped version? We ask because…

5.  In the online apology, you (or a staffer) write:

“… So go on out into the world and capture what you see. It’ll be better than anything you can make up and paste together on a computer screen.”

That’s a noble sentiment, and we believe it to be true. But after this episode, you can’t make that claim in a credible way. You and your photo team see thousands of authentic, unretouched images every month — of people capturing what they see — yet you decided to publish one that was “paste[d] together on a computer screen.”

See the disconnect? Any thoughts?

We look forward to hearing from you.

*     *     *

P.S. to Chris: This depressing dynamic — of the way pictures, any pictures, can sap Reality of its magic — is something you and the high priests of Photography should address someday soon. Here’s one of my attempts:

_____
Image credits
≡  NGM pyramid cover via Photo Tampering Throughout History
≡  Dog & jets via National Geographic
≡  David Griffin via ngm.com

Here’s the latest (behind-the-firewall) blog offering from John Fahey, CEO of the National Geographic Society:

Internal Values

Published: February 24, 2010

I had time over those interminable, but fun, snow days to think about “Internal Values” at NGS.  Yes, yes, I promise that this space won’t always be devoted to values, culture, and communication.   There will be many, many things to talk about over time. That being said, I feel strongly that the message sent to management through the staff survey and Culture Group recommendations is critical to NGS. Defining and holding ourselves accountable to meaningful internal values is good for morale, good for business, and simply a requirement for our future success.

John Fahey

Internal Values are different than overall institutional values or principles.  Think of them as guidelines to help create a workplace that’s productive, positive, fun, exciting, goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying, rewarding, and ultimately fulfilling.  An environment which will help the organization accomplish its mission more fully.

Toward this end, I’ve given a shot at articulating a set of NGS internal values.  I understand that as words alone this is simply an exercise with little likelihood of impact — except to engender appropriate cynicism.  I’m determined  to have these values become part of the fabric of this place.  Managers and staff will succeed or not, in large part, based on how well their actions reflect these values.

Some of you might interpret these as fairly generic —  ideas that any organization worth its salt would espouse. I’ve tried, to the extent possible, to make them reflect the situation at NGS and those things we feel uniquely.

So here they are!  I hope you’ll share any thoughts you may have regarding these and how we can ensure that they become meaningful.

NGS Internal Values

• Personal Integrity– Be straightforward, honest and clear in our interaction with colleagues, partners and customers.
• Collaboration– Reach across the organization to magnify and enrich our best ideas to best serve the mission and our customers.
• Dialog and Debate– Engage in the open exchange of ideas and differing perspectives; there should be no penalty, explicit or subtle, for constructive disagreement.
• Trust and Respect– Treat our colleagues, partners and customers with respect and with the presumption of positive intentions on their part.
• Curiosity– Inquire, innovate and explore: Inquisitiveness has been the building block of this institution since its founding. Let’s bring that rich curiosity to all we do.
• Think Mission– Frame all decisions and actions within the context of our mission to promote understanding of the world and to inspire people to care about the planet.
• Embrace the Future, Honor the Past– Change is the one thing we can count on—let’s make it our ally. It is vital that we separate those things that represent overarching principles from the things that simply hold us back.

I look forward to your feedback and appreciate your support.

10 Comments

1. kgardine

   Posted February 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM

   I recently heard Martha Stewart say something that really drove home the point that to stay the same is not an option. She said “When you are through changing…you’re through”.

2. econn

   Posted February 24, 2010 at 5:39 PM

   I would like to add a line to the Last of the NGS Internal Values: Embrace the Future, Honor the Past, and Live the Present.

3. Nancy Correll

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 12:19 PM

   John,

   Thank you for carrying through with this.

   Could your internal values be part of new-employee orientation or added to the policies and practices guide?

   I especially like the concept of making change our ally. It is truly a source of never ending new opportunities for NGS.

   We are not a company like Microsoft, so we won’t necessarily be coming out with the next nifty tech toy, such as the Kindle (although the Crittercam shows that we can if we want to)…but we are the kind of company that can be on whatever media the rest of the world latches onto. We have continually adapted our products over the past 122 years to bring our readers, viewers, and listeners the world. Change has been the catalyst for us to not just survive but to also thrive.

   Life will always give NGS reasons and ways to connect with our planet.

4. dsprague

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

   It’s great to see these and hear the commitment behind holding all of us accountable for them. To that end, could Collaboration (which feels inspirational but vague) be framed more concretely, with specific expectations, so you know it when you see it (or don’t)? Collaboration: Achieve the best possible results for our organization – our mission and our customers — by openly sharing information and resources across divisions and tapping into the contributions of talented people throughout the organization.

   On ideas for making these become meaningful, how about each EMC member gathering their troops, reaffirming their commitment to these values, and soliciting ideas on concrete steps he or she can take in the coming year to better live the values. Put them in writing, and be evaluated on them at year’s end (how specifically did you foster dialog, collaborate, encourage innovation…?). Each of their direct reports does the same, and so on down the line, until every person is consciously striving to embody these values via relevant goals.

5. jfahey

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 5:41 PM

   Thank you Donna. I think we’ll be able to recognize collaboration when we see it — or the absence of it. I like your idea about moving these principles in a meaningful way through the organization. We may use some hybrid of your suggestion.

6. jfahey

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM

   Thanks Nancy. I obviously agree entirely. J

7. jfahey

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM

   Thanks Edwin. I would like to keep it as is but your admonition to “live the present” is good advice for everyone.

8. jfahey

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 5:45 PM

   Someone once told me; “when you’re not growing you’re dying!”

9. davidcassidy

   Posted February 25, 2010 at 6:24 PM

   sounds great to me. TY J “mission forward” : )

10. kmantsch
Posted February 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Libraries and Information Services, as a division whose central purpose is collaboration though information sharing, has created a number of tools to encourage communication and collaboration. While these tools may need enhancing to be truly useful across divisions, the Future Events database, NGS Conference Central, the Trends Analysis Blog and NGS Purchased Research file are solid first steps in enhancing information sharing across the Society. However, it is only when management integrates such tools into their workflow that they will they become useful. A clear statement of values is a necessary step, but without management support for concrete initiatives that support the values, they may remain, as Donna suggests, inspirational but vague.

We emailed this note to Editor Chris Johns (with a cc to the entire NGM staff) almost a week ago, but still no response. Hmmm…. Maybe we should follow up with a phone call?

Hi Chris,

Before NGM’s March issue hits the newsstand, I wanted to share this Letter to the Editor with you & the staff.

It’s about your Editor’s Note in the February issue, in which you claim that you’re upholding NGM’s 120-year tradition of publishing “an unbiased presentation of facts.”

My letter is actually a two-part blog post, which you can read here and here. If you’d consider publishing a version of this in NGM, I’d be happy to edit it down to a more appropriate length.

In any case, I’d welcome your comments, especially in response to the compelling arguments made by Chris Hedges, David Weinberger, and Steve Buttry. They seem profoundly skeptical of any journalist who claims to be “unbiased.”

• Chris Hedges (former reporter for The New York Times and a winner of the Pulitzer Prize):  “…This vaunted lack of bias, enforced by bloodless hierarchies of bureaucrats, is the disease of American journalism.”

• David Weinberger (a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University): “… Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?….”

• Steve Buttry (veteran newspaper editor & reporter, and the Director of Community Engagement for a new digital news operation here in Washington): “One of journalism’s favorite notions is that we don’t become part of the story. We are supposed to be some sort of object (you know, objective) that doesn’t feel, that stays aloof and writes from an omniscient perch above it all. It is a lie, and we need to stop repeating it….”

On a related note: John Fahey is blogging now, which is a great thing. Have you considered starting a blog that’s more than a straight reposting of what’s already in the Magazine? Something that gives us more insight on who you are, how you work, and what you value? For if “transparency is the new objectivity,” then it seems critical to our Society’s future that you begin to pull back the curtain a bit — don’t you think?

Thanks for considering this.

all the best,
Alan