What's more amazing about this is they are also the ones producing Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson and clearly that is an amazingly popular show where people actually want to learn about science. Yet when it comes to the "soft" sciences, our discipline is presented by conspiracists and inbreds. 

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 4:45 AM, Alasdair Brooks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> In terms of the relationship between the Society and the channel...
> 
> The channel is a joint venture between the Society and Fox Entertainment, with the latter the dominant partner.
> 
> The US television channel is majority owned by Fox Cable Networks (67% of the US channel).  In the UK and Europe the operating partner is Fox subsidiary BSkyB.  Here in the United Arab Emirates, the local National Geographic channel has a discreet "Fox Networks" logo at the bottom of the page (this week the 'top shows' are 'Doomsday Preppers', 'Monkey Thieves', and 'Banged-Up Abroad'; clearly can't-miss appointment TV).
> 
> In theory, the Society is supposed to provide the programming expertise, while Fox provides the the distribution and marketing expertise.
> 
> However, recent evidence suggests that marketing is paramount over programming; and Fox is, after all, the majority shareholder.
> 
> What remains unclear here is A) the decision-making process that led NatGeo to partner with a profit-driven entity like Fox, B) the extent to which the Society financially benefits from the channel and is influenced in its current decision making by those financial benefits and C) the extent to which the Society retains influence over the programming.
> 
> The process through which Nazi War Diggers was pulled suggests - though this is speculation - that the Society does retain some influence over programming, but is largely hands-off unless there's a PR disaster.
> 
> If this fiasco causes the Society to perhaps exercise greater oversight over the programming in its role as minority partner - it's likely naive to hope it'll end its commercial relationship with Fox - that might well be a good thing.  If.
> 
> Alasdair Brooks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This situation is becoming worrisome.  It's particularly galling that many archaeologists (including myself) attended a meeting about all this at National Geographic a couple of years ago, when "Diggers" had been aired.  There were some improvements to that program as a consequence of that meeting. It seems to me however that National Geographic Channel has little interest in educational television when presumably they can get a larger audience and more revenue from this type of programming.  Given economic realities it's not surprising that NGC behaves this way.  What is murky to me, and much more important, is the exact relationship between the National Geographic Society and the Channel.  If the Society is separate from the Channel, why do they allow the Channel to use their logo?  If they are one and the same, how can the Society reconcile its mission (To "Inspire People to Protect the Planet") with the unethical destruction of the past that this program appears to typify
> ?
> 
> This is very disappointing.  Even though this program has been pulled, how long until the next one shows up?  "Concentration Camp Capers" and "Down and Dirty in Dachau" anyone?  How about supporting some Holocaust Skeptics in such a project?  Lots of possibilities.
> 
> 
> Ian Burrow