Nat Geo’s mea culpa
One hundred million — that’s the number of people National Geographic’s latest issue reached on the magazine’s social media platforms in four days. That’s according to its editor-in-chief, Susan Goldberg, as told to the Chicago Tribune in an article about the magazine’s April edition, titled the Race Issue.
Race as a subject isn’t new, of course, but it’s also never old. Race — and by extension racism — is not a trend that makes a comeback once every 20 years, although media coverage of it could lead one to think that. It’s always there — we just pretend it isn’t.
In 130 years, Nat Geo has helped shape conversations around and perceptions of race. Their coverage has often been cultural imperialism masquerading as enlightenment: Africa as the Dark Continent, black and brown people gawked at as though they are a different species (exotic at best, savages at worst), photographed and written about in the same way as fauna and flora.
Heck, you can read many of their articles in David Attenborough’s voice.
Now the publication wants to enlighten us
(well, Americans, in particular) about race as a social construct (“while science tells us that there is no such thing as race, society uses racial distinctions to divide us,” they write) — while also looking back at their own racism in past coverage. The headline of their editor’s note in the edition is: “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It”.
“How we present race matters,” Goldberg writes. “I hear from readers that National Geographic provided their first look at the world. Our explorers, scientists, photographers and writers have taken people to places they’d never even imagined . . . [I]t means we have a duty, in every story, to present accurate and authentic depictions — a duty heightened when we cover fraught issues such as race.”
It’s a bold move to make — to not only look at your mistakes, but publicly own up to them, too. Is it because the folks at Nat Geo are anxious that, in the era of calling out powerful people and publications for their past (and sometimes present) actions, their turn will come soon? Is this a case of drinking poison rather than waiting for execution by firing squad?
The publication asked a professor who specialises in photographic and African history to examine their archives, and he found that “until the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of colour who lived in the United States, rarely acknowledging them beyond labourers or domestic workers. Meanwhile it pictured ‘natives’ elsewhere as exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble savages — every type of cliché.”
The main story features biracial twin girls — one who looks white, the other who looks black — as they talk about what race means to them and how skin colour shouldn’t determine who they are.
This is great, except the girls are 11 years old. While their lived experience is valid, it’s unrealistic to expect children to comment profoundly on racism.
The issue has generally been well received, but some are pointing out that Nat Geo shouldn’t get a pat on the back for doing what publications should be doing (that is, responsible journalism). Others have also criticised the mag’s post-racial vibes, saying it’s an ineffective way to tackle racism.
Agreed, but at least they are trying something. I wonder when we, as South African media, will hop on that train.