National Geographic Cuts Most Staff Writer Positions

The magazine, part of Disney, says that the reductions ‘will not change our ability’ to provide ‘exceptional multi-platform storytelling with cultural impact.’

Image credit: Pixabay user granagramers

News broke today that most of the staff writers at National Geographic magazine had been let go, save two that covered wildlife crime where grants covered the positions. While there had been advanced coverage of 15 to 20 people who would lose their jobs, the heavy concentration among the writers was unknown at the time.

In the ongoing whirlwind of media layoffs, downsizings, bankruptcies, and shutterings, it has been easy to forget the seemingly smaller announcements that have flowed by like fragile toy boats crossing the River Styx.

Earlier this year, Bob Iger in his first earnings call since his most recent return to Disney as CEO, discussed a reorganization to save $5.5 billion. That included layoffs of 7,000 people. “While this is necessary to address the challenges we're facing today, I do not make this decision lightly. I have enormous respect and appreciation for the talent and dedication of our employees worldwide, and I'm mindful of the personal impact of these changes,” he said.

That was to include the loss of staff at National Geographic, which Disney bought some years ago.

Postings today by a number of former staff writers at the publication made the point that the position was virtually eliminated. One of the group, Craig Welch, wrote, “My new National Geographic just arrived, which includes my latest feature—my 16th, and my last as a senior writer. NatGeo is laying off all of its staff writers. I’ve been so lucky. I got to work w/incredible journalists and tell  important, global stories. It’s been an honor.”

Michael Greshko wrote, “Today is my last day at National Geographic. The magazine is parting ways with its staff writers, including me. I’m so grateful for the opportunities I have had over the past 7 years. To everyone who read my stories, thank you from the bottom of my heart. On to the next!”

And from Nina Strochlic, “It’s been an epic run, @NatGeo. My colleagues and I were unbelievably lucky to be the last-ever class of staff writers—certainly the coolest job I’ll ever have, and possibly among the coolest to ever exist. Now onto the next thing! Open to all weird/fun/interesting ideas.” Accompanying her post was a picture of her National Geographic press card.

In a later tweet, Greshko added, “Two wildlife crime reporters with dedicated nonprofit funding will remain. Everything else will be freelance.”

One of those two reporters, Dina Fine Maron, tweeted, “After latest round of layoffs @natgeo  so very sad to see most of my staff writer colleagues sign off yesterday—their final day on staff. Losing my incredible editor Oliver Payne, a force for important, impactful stories, is also a huge blow. Colleagues, you will be missed.”

The magazine released the following statement:

“National Geographic will continue to publish a monthly magazine that is dedicated to exceptional multi-platform storytelling with cultural impact. Staffing changes will not change our ability to do this work, but rather give us more flexibility to tell different stories and meet our audiences where they are across our many platforms. Any insinuation that the recent changes will negatively impact the magazine, or the quality of our storytelling, is simply incorrect.”

A person there also said that there were still writers and editors left. Which is technically true.

But the amount of work that goes into a feature story at the magazine is intense. To put this into context, here is a 2020 tweet from Greshko discussing his first cover story, Reimagining Dinosaurs.

“Dozens of interviews. A month in the field across three continents. Writing through a pandemic. A massive team effort. It’s all led to this. Enjoy!” he wrote.

This is work that cannot easily be done by freelancers, and I’m speaking from more than 40 years total experience — nearly 30 in my last round — as a freelancer. You don’t receive a regular income. You can’t sacrifice your other workload as well as business activities like marketing to head off for a month or more on a single assignment without extraordinary support from a publication. In this case, a magazine that decided it didn’t need the bulk of its staff writers.

The publication laid off six top editors in September 2022, as the Washington Post reported. Shortly after, new editor-in-chief Nathan Lump, who laid off those editors, said he planned to modernize the publication, that he felt “good about our monthly cadence,” and that he wanted to dominate social media, as Axios reported.

Multi-platform storytelling with cultural impact needs people who can tell the stories. Staffing changes won’t affect their ability to do the work? Of course they will. The capacity people have to do quality work is not infinitely expansive, as companies have proven time and again. As publications have shown.

Talking about brand as something that exists independent of what goes on inside an organization is foolish. Brand is the condensed encapsulation of experience that customers have dealing with an organization. Eventually, the cuts bleed through, soak the bonds with people, and loosen them.

Top executives will receive their bonuses when Wall Street is delighted with financials. Others, including magazine editors, will come and go. Numbers only tell a limited story on a given day. Disney, and National Geographic, are tampering with what has made the magazine great and kept it alive.

As the company wants to focus on numbers, let’s look at some. Granted, during the pandemic, it was hit hard, according to financials data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. It lost almost $2.5 billion in 2020. Profits in 2021 and 2022, as much of the global business world was working to reopen, profits were respectively $1.995 billion and $3.145 billion.

But between 2010 and 2019, the company brought in nearly $78.5 billion in profits. In its most recent balance sheet, ironically released on April 1, 2023, the company had $10.399 billion in cash. Total listed assets of $204.858 billion.

To quote the great and fierce Harlan Ellison, when seething over the treatment of writers and Warner Brothers’ reluctance to pay him for an appearance that would go onto a DVD, “What, is Warner Brothers out with an eye patch and a tin cup on the street? Fuck, no. They always want the writer to work for nothing.”

Thanks for your help, good luck, and here’s the door.