Copyright laws force me to mention that KMAN said:
"Mags like Canadian Geographic struggle with this contradiction all the
time.
A lot of their subscriber based would be people who are concerned about
the
environment but who are also in middle and upper income territory,
perfect
for shiny ads for big pollution spouting SUVs and the like. You need to
make
money to run the magazine, yet at the same time you don't want to
offend the
readership. A tricky business."

Its not just mags that struggle with this. When I was helping start the
WW Rafting industry in Maine back in the early 80s, the region where we
were boating was quite pristine, with no shops or paved roads, only
rustic campsites and a few fishermen. A part of our business was to
show the clientele this aspect of the Maine woods. But the very act of
creating a booming industry means that the roads were getting paved,
the rustic campgrounds were getting developed, new stores and hotels
sprung up, and the pristine aspect was being destroyed. The fact that
the vast majority of the clients were there specifically because they
LIKED pristine areas was bittersweet consolation for the damage they
were doing by just being there.

I don't know that there was an easy solution to this; after a bunch of
years debating with myself about my own role in the destruction of a
wonderful part of Maine, I had to leave the industry. Those who
remained didn't mind; they accepted the fact that once the genii was
let out of the bottle, there was no turning back. But I'd rather not
have that hanging on me.

I think I would have done the same as you, Melissa; if writing the
article about a place would have irevocably changed that area for the
worse, I agree that not writing the article is the best personal course
of action. Even if the article was going to be inevitably written, and
someone was going to make good money off of it.

--riverman