Perhaps you might have heard of the amazing discovery of the Homo naledi yesterday. It was literally all over the news and the PR was out of this world. The discovery of the skeleton happened around two years ago, but yesterday’s event unfolded after a well-executed build up, on point live coverage and even made it onto the cover of National Geographic’s October issue.

But what you might have missed was the purchase of above mentioned magazine.

For 127 years the National Geographic Magazine was under the ownership of the not-for-profit National Geographic Society – a group that has been inspiring people to care about our planet since 1888. The Society’s interests include geography, archaeology and natural science, and the promotion of environmental and historical conservation. If you’re an avid reader/collector of the magazine, you’ll know every issue hosts a prolific number of information-rich stories and encounters.

On Wednesday, a day before the revealing of the Homo naledi, 21st Century Fox took ownership of the magazine – housing its channel, NatGeo, and all of its associated media under an umbrella company called National Geographic Partners. Fox now owns 73% of the new umbrella media company and the Nat Geo Society owns the remaining percentage.

The pairing of a magazine that has promoted environmental conservation since the 1800s with a media group that is one of the driving forces behind climate change denial in the US is an interesting – and daring – one.

You see, 21st Century Fox is controlled by the family of climate-change denier Rupert Murdoch. The Fox media empire is considered by some as the world’s primary source of global warming misinformation.

On-air Fox News commentators and guests have called climate change everything from a hoax that denies Americans their freedom to a politically-created fraud.

Interesting, huh? Rupert, 84, is a self-described climate-change denier and has been quoted saying so.

If the sea level rises 6 inches, that’s a big deal … we can’t mitigate that, we can’t stop it. We’ve just got to stop building vast houses on seashores and go back a little bit.

And on Twitter, too.

Although there are many critics who have cried out in fear, there is some hope that the magazine and its brand will be safe.

The deal cost around $725-million or R9,8 billion and, although it is set to separate National Geographic media outlets from the Society, it comes at a time when there is a massive decrease in the popularity of print media and allows the magazine to remain profitable while giving the Society a chance to focus on investing.

In a press release sent out by the new media group, it was stated that the grants that the National Geographic Society gives to researchers, scientists and explorers will remain intact – and no doubt the $1 billion endowment won’t hurt:

The value generated by this transaction, including the consistent and attractive revenue stream that National Geographic Partners will deliver, ensures that we will have greater resources for this work, which includes our grant making programs that support scientists and explorers around the world. As media organisations work to meet the increasing demand for high quality storytelling across multiple platforms, it’s clear that the opportunity to grow by more closely aligning our branded content and licensing assets is the right path. We now will have the scale and reach to continue to fulfill our mission long into the future. The Society’s work will be the engine that feeds our content creation efforts, enabling us to share that work with even larger audiences and achieve more impact. It’s a virtuous cycle.

And there is more good news.

Earlier this year, Rupert stepped down as CEO of Fox and turned over the title to his son, James. Critics applauded the move as James is a lot more kind-hearted to the ways of the environment. James has actively shown support for climate change science and his wife, Kathryn, is an environmentalist.

Together they’ve founded the Quadrivium Foundation, a non-profit that works on sustainable fishing, among other causes. And, not only does James drive a Prius, but he aims to keep the National Geographic brand’s integrity.

The value of [the National Geographic] brand comes from its integrity and, fundamentally, its authenticity with its customers, and you would never do anything with it that presupposed changing any of that.

However, upon further research, not everything looks like sunshine and rainbows. There is evidence of tears in the new partners’ relationship on account of business.

Regular contributor of NatGeo, as both a writer and maker of documentaries, Michael Parfit wrote an Op-Ed in 2013 decrying the proliferation of programs dominated by “ghosts, UFOs, scary cultures, doomsday, booze” on NatGeo channels in the name of “It’s just business.” He goes on to say:

The National Geographic Society, through several channels that are now its primary voice, is using its once-honourable name to produce misleading shows that can cause harm to children.

The National Geographic Society was once a stickler for facts, and National Geographic magazine famously had the most demanding fact-checkers. We writers chafed: “That wasn’t a fact, it was a metaphor!” But we were proud of that rigour. We knew future historians could trust our work. Schools and parents could, too.

And now, back to yesterday’s announcement.

Have you ever witnessed such a massive amount of PR in the unveiling of a theory? Isn’t it a weird coincidence that it occurred in conjunction with such a major deal, a deal that has been struck between two unlikely partners? Although the National Geographic Society has been able to keep its autonomy intact, could a slow change of the editorial stance of a once reliable source of information regarding the world we live in occur?

Bringing on a media partner to create a for-profit outlet definitely has its advantages – for one, there’s more money for people to get paid. But what will happen when the magazine is no longer profitable? Will the chosen media partner hold on to the over-a-century-old print magazine? What decisions will be made in the future to ensure sales are more than ever?

Here are some headlines we might see in the future, given the capitalist nature of Fox:

• There Are Ice Cubes In My Drink, So How Can Global Warming Exist?
• The Weather: Why It’s Been So Normal Lately
• Even More Pictures Of Non-Western Women We’ve Unnecessarily Exorcized Than We Used To Publish
• Water: There’s Plenty Of It, Everywhere
• The Ten Most Reagan-esque Animals
• Deregulating The Environment
• Explaining the Middle East’s Monster Dust Storm: Market Regulation
• Animals: Do We Really Need So Many Of Them
• Regulatory Capture-And-Release
• Fire Ants Don’t Need Trade Unions. What Can We Learn From Fire Ants?
• Searching For The Jungle’s Last Remaining Anti-Statist Neoliberal Capitalist Community
• Market Failure vs. Crop Failure: What’s Really At Stake?