National Geographic: “Join the Indian Army”

by Alan Mairson on February 28, 2011

You can’t make this stuff up:

NatGeo Mission Army India

“After grilling 30,000 enthusiastic and patriotic youth applicants across the country, Nat Geo has selected the final five who will embark on a journey to win themselves a never before opportunity to experience the life of an Indian Army Officer, said Keertan Adyanthaya, Managing Director, Fox International Channel and National Geographic Network India.  ….

“I firmly believe that in the age of scripted reality shows, a docu-reality programme like Mission Army will attract millions of people from different age groups across the country. We firmly believe that this programme will showcase the Grit, the Valour & the Glory of the Indian Army and encourage brave young men & women to join the Indian Army,” added Keertan Adyanthaya.

Using the good name of National Geographic is essential to that recruiting effort:

“We are very happy and proud to partner with National Geographic Channel for Mission Army, as we feel that the values and authenticity the channel brings, will enhance and bring forward the true spirit and grit of the Indian Army.”

—  General Vijay Kumar Singh, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC, Chief of Army Staff

Wow.

The National Geographic Society is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) public charity. Which begs two key questions:

Why are U.S. taxpayers effectively subsidizing
an organization that helps
recruit soldiers for India’s Army?

What prevents National Geographic’s partners in
Russia, China, and the Middle East
from using our Society’s good name
to expand their armed forces?

And just in case you think Mission Army is a one-time aberration, check out:

nat geo mission navy india

_____

JohnFahey balloon v31

Dear John: Let’s Talk.

_____

  • Therese

    How sad that the National Geographic name is associated with this, and other, drivel: the dumbing down of America and trying to make $.

    • http://societymatters.org Alan Mairson

      Hi Therese – This item was a jaw-dropper for me. Just breathtaking. The question is how NGS can manage to hang on to its non-profit 501(c)(3) status when the Channel is producing shows like this one.

  • J Jr.

    vomitous and a darn good question.

    • http://societymatters.org Alan Mairson

      Still waiting for a darn good answer — or any answer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kolcsi Ferenc Szűcs

    Hi,

    Well, this looks interesting to put it politely. :)
    However, the channel has basically not much to do with the NGS as the majority owner is Fox. The other thing is that as far as I know, there are profit oriented parts of the Society like National Geographic Films, which is a taxable company.

    Apart from this, I agree that the National Geographic name should not be associated with such ventures.

    • http://societymatters.org Alan Mairson

      Ferenc – Point taken about News Corp’s ownership of the Channel. But to me, this isn’t a tax or ownership issue; rather, it’s about what John Fahey might call Brand stewardship. It’s about protecting the good name of National Geographic. And while NGS doesn’t financially control the Channel, my understanding is they exercise editorial control. If so, why wasn’t it exercised here?

      (Thanks for stopping by.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/kolcsi Ferenc Szűcs

    Absolutely agree. People won’t differentiate if they watch/read something with the National Geographic logo, because they’re not aware of the ownership structure. (why should they be anyway?)

  • Pingback: In Time, Life Repeats Itself | Society Matters

  • Pingback: Zahi Hawass & The Big Pivot | Society Matters

  • Pingback: Closing the loop | Society Matters

  • Pingback: John Fahey on "brand controls" & the Cengage deal | Society Matters

  • Pingback: Meet Your Society: David Haslingden | Society Matters

Previous post:

Next post: