"Teeth of death," "Shark feeding frenzy," "The Worst Shark Attack Ever." It is that time of year again, when the Discovery Channel brings out shows like these as part of its annual "Shark Week" programming. This week of bloody feeding frenzies and vicious shark attacks is part of a larger trend in nature programming. Instead of seeking to educate or to promote environmental conservation, these shows focus only on presenting graphic, sensationalized animal violence. Programs like those in Shark Week -- while they might garner high ratings and attract advertiser dollars -- all too often mislead the audience, exploit animals, and fail to promote conservation.
It is easy to understand why Shark Week or other shows like "Untamed and Uncut", "Man vs. Wild", or "When Animals Attack" would attract viewers. The subject matter is riveting, the editing is flashy, and the shows are thrilling and suspenseful. As nature writer Bill McKibben once quipped, the most popular documentaries consist of "big cats alternatively mating and killing each other." Shows like Animal Planet's "Untamed and Uncut" take this to a new level with footage of a marlin impaling a boy's face, a lion mauling a zookeeper, and a polar bear ripping off a woman's leg. This brand of mayhem and mutilation has an eager audience and has turned the nature film genre into an entertainment juggernaut.
However, even worse than these programs' shameless appeals to viewers' basest instincts is their impact on the wildlife they show. In a time when sharks face increased threat from shark finning, overfishing, and pollution (including the devastating oil spill in the Gulf), programs that depict them as vicious, man-eating killers only make it more difficult to convince the public of the need to protect them. We applaud Discovery Channel's partnership with Senator John Kerry to help end shark finning, but the general effect of the graphic Shark Week programming is not to promote conservation but to instill fear, terror, and hatred in the viewer.
In reality, wild creatures spend most of their time resting or finding food. Obviously, a feeding frenzy makes for more exciting footage, but showing such a disproportionate amount of violence gives a dangerously skewed view of animals. While it would be just as misleading to suggest that animals never hunt and kill, there is a major difference between showing the dispassionate reality of nature, and creating whole programming out of only the most gory and gruesome details.
However, in the rush for ratings and with limited funding, some filmmakers will do almost anything to get these "money shots" - sensationalizing animal behavior, staging or digitally altering scenes to deceive viewers, and frequently getting too close to dangerous creatures. One of the least expensive ways to create content is to send someone like Jeff Corwin or the late Steve Irwin to grab at animals and make them seem menacing and dangerous. These programs not only misrepresent the animals, but also involve the harassment and abuse of animals and suggest that such behavior is acceptable. Responsible filmmakers invest the time and money it takes to film animals over long periods of time without disturbing them. They take pains to keep their distance, to avoid disrupting the environment, and to present a balanced, accurate view of the animals.
Some defenders of the new wave of sensationalized, graphic nature shows argue that by being more exciting, these programs draw in viewers who would otherwise never be interested in nature. Creating interest in wildlife and the environment is a worthy accomplishment, but relying on graphic violence is taking the easy way out. And there is no justification for abusing wildlife or deceiving the audience. Filmmakers must use the story-telling techniques they would employ in any other kind of creative work - powerful visuals, interesting characters, compelling drama, humor - in order to engage viewers and create ethically responsible programming.
Networks, studios, and filmmakers need to improve the quality of their work and invest in nature shows that encourage conservation and entertain without misleading. However, viewers must also take responsibility for the programs they watch. We cannot expect to see more ethical, responsible filmmaking as long as we continue to support those shows that sensationalize and exploit animals.
Chris Palmer is the director of American University's Center for Environmental Filmmaking and author of the new Sierra Club book "Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom." Peter Kimball is an independent filmmaker and graduate student at American University.
Loading comments…
Share your Comment:
Shark finning should be banned through-out the world. The fact that this barbaric practice is allowed by any 'civilised' society is just horrific.
I guess it is just another case of 'selling' the shows that pay.
http://www
When The Discovery Channel started broadcasting in 1985, it was a relatively small operation. "Shark Week" was its equivalent of the "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue: something to give the bottom line a boost once a year. Whether or not the misrepresentation of wildlife was justified (or can ever be justified), it served a purpose for the fledgeling network.
Discovery Networks today is no longer an experiment. It is a multi-media powerhouse with a global presence. It seems impossible to me that "Shark Week" contributes significantly to the network's revenue or its survival. They've done the feeding frenzies, the adventures, and the clever tie-ins with "Mythbusters" and "Dirty Jobs." There's nothing left. "Shark Week" has itself jumped the shark. It no longer serves any purpose besides satisfying the blood lust of its audience and is now doing far more harm than good.
Give it a rest, people.
No more!
As you well know, this sort of filmmaking --sensationalist pit fights, etc-- dates back over 100 years to the earliest days of wildlife filmmaking. It is popular and brings in the money. At a panel at the 2010 International Wildlife Film Festival, the Senior Interactive Producer for Discovery & Animal Planet defended "River Monsters" as having value because it "...teache
Thanks again,
Jeremy R. Roberts
MFA Science & Natural History FIlmmaking
www.Conser
I agree that edu-tainment programming is a disservice and rehashes a lot of information with footage or actions designed to keep the viewer hooked without sharing a lot of educational content.
This trend has increased partly in response to the reality driven model that is so popular these days.
I'd love to see more programming like the Eagles of Mull (Nature) that aired earlier this year. It was not too invasive and was an interesting documentary.
Personally, I'd love to help leverage and influence another trend--let me know when you find a solution to catalyze change.
Look at it from another point of view: Imagine there was a documentary that talked about how dangerous and ferocious the tiger is, where people recounted how they survived tiger attacks and offered tips on how to keep yourself safe from tigers when you go in the jungle and what to do if a tiger attacks you. Now imagine a channel spending a whole week devoted specifically to tiger documentaries like that. And none of the shows discussed how threatened or endangered tigers are. None of them discussed how devastating tiger poaching was. None of them talked about the fascinating things we've learned about tigers, or their role in the ecosystem, or the work of people trying to protect them, or discussed anything that made them fascinating except for their teeth and claws... And it wasn't just one week one time, but an annual event, one of their biggest money-makers: "Tiger Week" filled with programming that said, in essence, "tigers deserve our fear", not "tigers deserve our protection".
You'd consider that pretty irresponsible programming, I'd hope.
It can be done, but it cannot be accomplished unless all operations see the bigger picture and not just the few $$$'s right in front of them.
Cheers,
Patric Douglas CEO
www.sharkd
www.sharkd
www.sharkd
www.guadal
www.sharkf
Thanks again for another engaging article. I think we need more articles and stories like this in the press. In fact, I just sent you an email regarding something very close to this but as this is a Huffington Post blog, I'm happy to share here.
Last night (Tuesday, July 27th) I was appalled to see the Jason Yeoh hosted show called TASTE WITH JASON 2 on the Asian Food Channel which clearly promoted Shark's Fin Soup without any consideration of the widely condemned and environmentally and ecologically negative practice of shark finning in Asia and around the world.
The host happily went on about how expensive the shark's fin was and, even though it didn't have any taste, and how it was a major component of a dish called "The Buddha leapt Over The Wall" as if it was the coolest thing he'd ever seen. Lots of happy "old" chinese people also expounded on "how much shark's fin there was in the soup!" showing either complete ignorance to the subject or blatant disrespect and lack of concern for the senseless and inhumane slaughter of the ocean's top predator, the ecological impact to the ocean's already tenuous food chain, and the people who've devoted their lives and continue to risk their lives to stop this insane practice.
As I said, more of this needs to be in the press and I'm happy to see the Huffington Post publishing on the subject.
Well done Chris.
Joe
Need proof? In the descriptions for the programs, they use the word attack" 11 times, "bite" 6 times and "deadly", "scary" and "blood" 2 times each.
On the other hand, the words "conservation", "endanged", "finning", "education" and, astonishingly, "science" don't appear at all.
I was planning on boycotting Shark Week this year if they didn't improve their programming. But I decided that's useless. Instead, I've decided to boycott The Discovery Channel, and all its subsidiaries, entirely. It won't affect their bottom line at all, but that's not the point. The point is why should I bother watching a science channel that has no science?
However I think you are looking at alot of this through the ideas of an adult. The discovery channel programming not the more graphic ones can truly spark alot of interest in nature by the young. I know they fascinated my son on it and he now has a library of much more authoritative works on all kinds of animals. The interest sparked in large predators has translated to an interest in animals and nature in general. And I'm sorry showing 30 minutes in the life of if it was the average 30 minutes wouldn't do it. If it takes the red asphalt variety of show to keep other content up it's worth it.
I don't let him watch the random idiot messing with nature ones because well, thats a good way to get hurt as a human and I don't want to encourage foolish behavior.
Many of the shows spark an interest which you can then feed with better and much more detailed information. And in our Urban seperated from nature lives thats important.