National Geographic lays off all staff writers; will survive on freelancers

National Geographic laid off the last remaining staff writers in its employ on Wednesday. 19 staff writers were let go and had been told about the decision ‘a while ago’, according to senior editorial members. Along with the staff writers, several photographs also saw their contracts not being renewed. The magazine – known worldwide for […]

Follow us:

National Geographic laid off the last remaining staff writers in its employ on Wednesday. 19 staff writers were let go and had been told about the decision ‘a while ago’, according to senior editorial members.

Along with the staff writers, several photographs also saw their contracts not being renewed. The magazine – known worldwide for its stories related to the scientific and natural world – will now employ freelance writers for its upcoming publications.

These layouts were part of the second round of job cuts that have been adopted by Disney, the parent company of National Geographic. In September 2022, the top six editors of the magazine were laid off as a cost-cutting measure.

The National Geographic magazine, first published in 1888, is also slated to be taken off the US newsstands next year.

National Geographic staff tweet farewell messages

After the news of the lay-offs was confirmed, a number of staff writers who were let go posted farewell messages on Twitter.

National Geographic has assured its readers that the job cuts will not affect the quality of the magazine’s publication.

“National Geographic will continue to publish a monthly magazine that is dedicated to exceptional multi-platform storytelling with cultural impact,” according to National Geographic’s statement to CNN. “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.”