An independent assessment of National Geographic’s 'Indigenous Futures' special issue

National Geographic’s “Indigenous Futures” issue cannot erase its history of more than a century of arguably voyeuristic and racist storytelling built on problematic imagery, a lack of diverse contributors, and the execution of narratives that have reinforced colonial perspectives on the people and places the magazine has covered. However, this special edition does its best.

While this issue is aimed at deepening the collective knowledge and understanding of Indigenous peoples and perspectives, the institution continues to follow practices that leave it open to unconscious bias and prejudice that we would like to see addressed. As Indigenous peoples move into a new era of storytelling, it is our hope that previously extractive forms of reporting practiced by National Geographic can be replaced with truly consensual, collaborative projects—ones that involve not just Indigenous peoples but Indigenous leadership and vision. This report is aimed at illuminating issues with the magazine’s processing of Indigenous stories and offers recommendations that could provide pathways to a more just, and more Indigenous, future. However, due to edits made by National Geographic in accordance with its editorial guidelines, which were not shared with the board, and word count limits, this report omits certain content in the original version submitted.

It is crucial for Indigenous peoples to see ourselves reflected in all forms of media, and freely determine, shape, and control how we are represented without external interference. It is a fundamental human right to see our cultural diversity accurately reflected in non-Indigenous media. It is with these ideas in mind that this special edition falters, avoiding some of the most pressing topics and creative ideas in the Indigenous world by relying on mostly non-Indigenous editors to create and direct stories. This narrowing of oversight ignores major conversations happening among Indigenous peoples that reveal pressing social, cultural, and political structures and realities of our communities.

This board was given the opportunity to sit in on department meetings to better understand the process in building the issue, and allowed to see the issue in full once it was ready in order to produce this report. However, it should be noted that as a result of business policies, this board was denied access to examine rates paid to Indigenous peoples in comparison to non-Indigenous contributors in this issue. We were also not provided the ability to compare first drafts of text to final copy, access to full photo selections to better understand decisions by photo editors, or the ability to communicate directly with contributors to assess experience. In all cases, access to information, although it would have been an exception to standard company practices, would have helped us better evaluate consent, fairness, financial parity, and overall treatment of people in the production of this issue, raising questions about what role this board was expected to play in writing this report.

The board also believes that all contributors that claim to be Indigenous should have direct and acknowledged ties to the communities they claim. This standard is commonly practiced, even at many mainstream outlets, and was applied inconsistently among the writers and photographers in the “Indigenous Futures” issue. Moreover, while some stories were assigned to Indigenous writers and photographers from related communities, these assignments were made by National Geographic’s almost entirely non-Indigenous editorial staff. This process raises multiple questions about power dynamics at the magazine—perhaps most specifically, what kind of opportunities contributors were given to determine what stories should be told from their own communities as opposed to being assigned stories by editors from outside those communities.

It is important to note that this question should not be viewed as a critique of the work produced by the many Indigenous peoples whose creative energies appear in this issue’s pages. In fact, the hiring of so many Indigenous creators to carry out the work needed to publish this special edition is laudable. Instead, we hope to direct attention to a fundamental feature of non-Indigenous media when it focuses on Indigenous stories: Consulting with us on stories is not the same as us giving consent to tell those stories and comes nowhere near the standard of seeing ourselves accurately reflected in media.

One way to transform this practice is to turn future magazines over to guest editors, art and creative directors, and photo editors from communities that will be featured. When individuals are able to utilize their networks to better develop issues and understand the importance of being in conversation with their communities, they can produce work that is truly collaborative and representative. We should point out that this was attempted in this issue by allowing Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland the opportunity to write about her work with the Biden administration. An admirable idea in theory, but the board finds the approach chosen by National Geographic of inviting a government official to describe and advocate for policy decisions to be unethical, since National Geographic did not also include reporting on the matter or allow for critical viewpoints.

Some of this issue’s finest moments come in its design. Use of typography and color is thoughtful and attentive with a clear eye toward the integration of Indigenous languages in the magazine’s design elements. A recommendation for the magazine in the future is to build more time into the design side in order to build reciprocal relationships that are critical to accurate representation of Indigenous knowledge and ideas, and respectful of Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles.

Finally, this board recommends that National Geographic immediately institute policies for the hiring and vetting of Indigenous-specific roles and positions, including the hiring of Explorers as contributors. This applies to all organizations interested in culturally competent reporting, but especially National Geographic, which, in our opinion, has been unable to understand, or simply been unmoved by, the concept. If the magazine is truly interested in being a leader in Indigenous storytelling, individuals claiming Indigenous ancestry must undergo a verification process to substantiate their claims—something that is already common at Indigenous affairs desks and at Indigenous-led outlets as well as mainstream news outlets. While we recognize that this is by no means an easy task when working with Indigenous contributors across the globe who live in countries that refuse to recognize their existence, or in places where a formal recognition process of tribes and communities is not implemented, we do stress that contributors must have a tangible connection: An individual can claim to be part of a community, but National Geographic must work to confirm that that community also claims that individual. In other words, claims to ancestry are not enough; reciprocal community connection is. That the magazine has not consistently prioritized this kind of assessment raises multiple concerns not just about this issue but past issues regarding pay equity, narrative, and power.

We recommend that National Geographic establish a uniform process for vetting the authenticity of its staff and contributors with an eye to Canada for university practices in the hiring of Indigenous peoples, including Queen’s University in Ontario, which has created an interim process that offers additional guidance providing for two separate pathways to verification: government documentation or self-declaration with supporting documentation from the communities an individual claims to be a part of. This latter pathway is one that could be developed to better handle issues with status in other countries that we mention above. 

While National Geographic’s leadership has made efforts to apologize for its offensive coverage of Indigenous stories over the years, the board feels that such actions haven’t resulted in a larger effort to examine this legacy and make reparations in a manner that could match harm done; work that would likely take decades if taken seriously. This problem has been compounded by coverage that has perpetuated harmful Indigenous stereotypes repeatedly in recent years including in feature stories focused on Indigenous peoples.

It is the opinion of this board that “Indigenous Futures” offers National Geographic an opportunity: Stay the course, or find its way into the 21st century. With a stellar mix of design, color, photography, art, and most especially Indigenous creators, this could be the beginning of 100 issues that do real service to the communities they cover. The Indigenous world is wide, diverse, and brimming with inspiration and creative potential. This issue hints at that possibility, and our review should not be taken as discouragement, but an opportunity to create work that is a true capsule that can travel across time. The possibilities are endless.