• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Really disappointed in National Geographic

albertagirl

albertagirl

Sharan
This is a show about "taboo" pets. They start talking about snakes at 35 minutes, and my jaw just dropped. I'm only up to 40 minutes so far, so about 5 minutes of snake talk, and I haven't stopped shaking my head yet. They're talking about ball pythons, and then start talking about all the "pythons" that have killed people, without mentioning that they're not talking about balls anymore. Then they're talking about common pet snakes and how we are just now "discovering" that all these snakes that were thought to be non-venomous are actually venomous after all. "The vast majority of snakes commonly kept as pets are poisonous." And yes, a corn snake is one of the ones they show while saying this. They keep referring to them as deadly. I'm just so disappointed. Disgusted actually. I always thought National Geographic was more factual and less sensational. They might as well change their name to National Inquirer.

Here is the link for the show I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKyhLE0GcY
 
I learned not to believe them blindly when I went on an international exchange. A Chinese girl was in my class and she was totally pissed at NG for how they pictured China: according to her, all NG said was the opposite to the true situation in there (I work with Asian cultures, so I know a bit of the Chinese one, as well).
NG might have been a reputable documentary source but I believe it's not anymore. They just sell what most people want to hear or what the majority thinks, like any media you come across, it just sounds a bit more learned.
We had a similar one in the Catalonia (Barcelona region) regional TV. I didn't even finish it because I was so pissed. Corn snakes were also involved, comparing their risk with burmese pythons. Yes, yes, the pure same thing!
These documentaries exploit the fact that people don't know much about some or some other topic, so the ones who do know actually find them inaccurate.
 
I lost respect for them once they started promoting Cesar Millan, instead of a competent, positive, certified, trainer. Pure garbage on that channel now. It's no longer about education, it's all just sensationalized because learning about something is "boring". Like the above poster said, they only sell what people want to hear.
 
hypnoctopus said:
That is really unfortunate. I always thought National Geographic was a reputable company.
Click to expand...

So did I. :(

I do subscribe to their printed magazine, and it's still informative, and full of wonderful photos. But more people watch TV than read, I guess, so they've resorted to the same crappy programming for ratings.

Too bad, because they used to have great shows. I'll stick with the magazine.

Kathy
 
Yeah I lost faith in them a long time ago also with Cesar...
My best friend who's chinese also said that they made it a lot worse.
They are sensationalists. They might have been good but they aren't anymore haven't been for many years.. it broke my heart as I loved reading the magazine.
 
I love how Mr. Snake Expert on Nat Geo refers to snakes as poisonous animals.... they're venomous. You would think they would at least get that part right.
 
My guess is that NG the magazine (and the National Geographic Society that publishes it) and NG the channel are two different entities at this point that just have the same name and logo. NG the channel has gone the same route as the Discovery family, being more entertainment with maybe a tiny bit of science (which is likely to be inaccurate).

Which really scares me. I know a LOT of homeschoolers who "Netflix School" and watch a lot of shows from these providers to supplement or actually provide their history and science. 10 years ago, that might have been reasonable. But now, so much of it is just plain wrong, and you can't trust it. And a lot of the older documentary stuff is vanishing from Netflix and from Amazon Prime instant video, leaving only the newer, less well-done content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top