National Geographic or Smithsonian? Which one is better?

Question

I'm interested in anthropology/archeology/global society, civilizations and biology/sciences/medicine.

Answer 1

smithsonian

Answer 2

"I'm interested in anthropology/archeology/global society, civilizations and biology/sciences/medicine."

But in what capacity? At an academia level, Smithsonian is definitely more respected than National Geographic. Actually, National Geographic has been the joke of many anthropologists pointing out this society's egocentrism and sensational seeking (for commercial aims)

Answer 3

National Geographic!!! I would say Smithsonian, but for what you're interested in, I think NG would be better for you. Plus it's AWESOME!!!!!! ^_^

Answer 4

I would say, it depends on what you are looking for.  National Geographic is more in the process of collecting a record of what is in the world, capturing it before and as it changes.  To an extent, it leaves its subject untouched (relatively speaking).   Sometimes, this can be biased by its contributors, and it certainly does try to cater to an audience.  Nevertheless, it serves a purpose.

The Smithsonian is a bit more respected, but it is more into preserving it all for people of present and future to witness and study.  This allows for more study and less conjecture, but has come under fire for ethics from time to time.  For example, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) had a much greater affect on the Smithsonian than it did on National Geographic.

Answer 5

I always enjoyed Smithsonian publications better than National Geographic but that's not a reflection of their greater work.

Answer 6

Any so called museum which does not have Archie Bunker's chair is much better than the Smithsonian.

Answer 7

I subscribe to both publications.  Each are the product of a different format.  For an indepth presentation, NG is the best.  For a synopsis that inspires me to seek more data on the internet, Smithsonian is.