The salt-encrusted earth of Death Valley is, quite literally, the hottest place on Earth. It is desolate terrain where even the most rugged life is constantly struggling to survive. Staring out across the dusty landscape, it’s hard to imagine that the entire area sits atop a vast aquifer, with millions of gallons of fresh water hiding below the arid surface. It’s even harder to believe this land was once a lush basin, where spring-fed pools and streams supported an abundance of life. Now, what remains from this fertile time can only be glimpsed where the ground has been torn open by earthquakes—deep, jagged fissures like Devil’s Hole.
The smooth, near-vertical walls of Devil’s Hole are hardly welcoming. Yet year after year, scientists climb the dangerous descent. Their goal? To count the few remaining fish that live on a small shallow shelf in these dark, warm, oxygen-depleted waters. These fish—the Devil’s Hole pupfish—are considered to be some of the most endangered fish in the world. They’re completely cut off from all other pupfish species, having lived in Devil’s Hole for countless generations, unable to reach their nearest cousins. In the spring of 2013, there were only 35 pupfish found during the September count. Only 35 members of this entire species left on Earth. Read More
The 3 Quarks Daily Science Prizes have been announced. Top Quark went to the ever-amazing Eric Michael Johnson for his deeply-researched and thought-engaging post on how Promiscuity Is Pragmatic. The second place slot, The Strange Quark, went to… ME!
I’m honored to be chosen for this award, judged by none other than the esteemed Frans B. M. de Waal. Eric and the third-place winner, Carl Zimmer, are both incredibly talented writers, and I’m truly humbled to be in such good company. For the Strange Quark, Frans picked my essay on Margie Profet and the counter-intuitive idea that allergies might actually be a good thing. Here’s what Frans had to say about the piece:
“My second choice is Christie Wilcox’s piece on the toxin hypothesis of allergies. It is well written and the recent mouse work she describes supports the view that allergies reflect a protective mechanism…
In fact, all three essays explore unusual ideas that seem to go against the mainstream, which makes for exciting reading, leaving one to wonder what other established ideas we may have wrong. As such, these authors promote the healthy skepticism that is the bedrock of science, and show that science is always in flux, always keeping us at the edge of our seat. In a society that sometimes turns away from science, or views it as a boring mass of facts, this is a most important message to convey.”
Shark Week is over, and as the week has progressed, the flood of negative press about Discovery’s favorite time of the year has weakened to a trickle. Instead, news organizations are talking about how well Discovery did this year in spite of the backlash. Shark Week “set records” say the headlines, and it’s no shock: given the increased sponsorship and the two-hour uptick in programming, Shark Week 2014 should have beaten 2013 with its fins tied behind its back. But guess what? It actually didn’t.
Discovery’s done just about all they can to spin the past week positively. “The King of Summer reigned with Discovery earning its highest-rated SHARK WEEK ever in its 27-year history,” begins Discovery’s most recent press release. The statement is so bold and so confident that one might miss the phrase “across several key demos” which immediately follows. A closer examination of the release reveals that the “good news” is riddled with caveats, in stark contrast to 2013′s version, which unabashedly bragged about being “the most-watched SHARK WEEK in the event’s 26 year history across all key demos” (emphasis mine). And even 2013 was trying to trump up the facts—it was only the second most-watched Shark Week ever in terms of total viewers.
The hard numbers are simple. In 2013, Shark Week drew in an average of 2,106,000 viewers during primetime programming. In 2014, Shark Week only garnered 6,000 more, even though they had 2 more hours of new specials and increased PR. In their key age demographic—18 to 49 year olds—there were 68,000 fewer viewers on average during primetime. Even if you look at the entire day, this year didn’t do better. In 2013, the total-day average for Discovery during Shark Week was 1,048,000 viewers—in 2014, that dropped to 1,035,000. Overall, it was only the third best Shark Week to date with 42 million total viewers, behind the 62.1 million viewers that tuned in for 2010 and 51 million viewers that watched in 2013. A 9 million viewer drop is not insignificant, especially when you have 2 more hours of time that you’ve produced to draw them in.
If you compare 2013 and 2014 Shark Weeks by day and time slot, a pattern emerges. Let’s start with Day 1: Sunday night is Discovery’s kick-off evening, and it was the night that Discovery aired the notorious Megalodon mockumentary last year. The fake footage seen round the world reeled in 4.8 million viewers, a good chunk of which then took to Discovery’s Facebook and Twitter to complain. Discovery decided to ignore the strong pushback and began 2014 on a similar note with Shark of Darkness, another 2 hour special focusing on a legendary shark that doesn’t exist using made-up events and fake footage to sell the story. Fool us once, shame on you, Discovery. Try to fool us twice, and you’ll net one million fewer viewers.
The rest of the week, Discovery was mostly unable to keep up with 2013′s viewership. Though the Shark After Dark talk show fared slightly better in 2013 (up 3%, according to Discovery), most of the programming lost little or lost big. The one notable exception was Alien Sharks 2, which netted more than 340,000 more viewers than the 2013 program that shared its timeslot, Spawn of Jaws. As the most science-based program of the week, Alien Sharks not only didn’t play into the fear-based hype of programs like Sharkageddon, it was the only show that didn’t focus on big, “scary” sharks (in other words, it was the only show that focused on the sharks that make up the vast majority of shark species).
Discovery’s viewers voted with their TVs, trying to send a clear message that science-heavy programming is what they want. That message is even clearer when you compare how the original Alien Sharks from 2013 did against the program in its time slot: Sharkageddon, arguably the most unscientific, fear-based program that Discovery Shark Week has ever created. Even with the hyperbolic title and promise to explain ‘the recent spike of shark attacks in Hawaii,’ Sharkageddon only drew in 2.4 million viewers, making it one of the least-watched programs of the year—over 700,000 viewer less than the same day and time reeled in last year with Alien Sharks.
But perhaps the most impressive PR spin was Discovery’s packaging of Shark Week’s social media coverage. Discovery was quick to point out that Shark Week “generated 70 primetime Trending Topics on Twitter over 7 days” and that “13 million people had more than 21 million interactions” on Facebook “marking the strongest year ever online”. Never mind that the Twitter buzz they bragged so much about was way down from last year according to Upwell—Discovery also glossed over the fact that the sentiment of this conversation was far from positive. A shocking 40% of social media mentions of Shark Week were negative, while an embarrassing 11% were positive, a recent analysis by the social media monitoring company Sysomos shows.
Discovery claimed their new approach to programming (read: fear-driven and fake) was designed to “appease a different audience”. Instead, they’ve pissed off a large chunk of their current one, and there’s no evidence that this new and different demographic is tuning in.
Not that Discovery is paying attention.
“Everyone is absolutely thrilled,” Michael Sorensen, Discovery’s vice president of development and production, told The LA Times just this week. “It shows you how engaged the ‘Shark Week’ fans are as we keep making it bigger and bigger.” I guess if by “engaged” he meant “outraged”, then perhaps Michael has a point. Shark Week fans are ‘engaging’ more and more through social media, telling Discovery just how little they appreciate the way they are lied to and manipulated. But the more Discovery ignores their comments, tweets, and posts, the less they will ‘engage’ at all.
So what will happen to Shark Week?
It’s hard to say. Discovery’s audience has tried to let them know that science trumps fear, and they’re sick of the same old ‘sharks are scary’ schtick. Yet at the same time, Discovery is going to find it’s hard to make science-based documentaries considering that Discovery has made a habit of betraying scientists’ trust, which means fewer and fewer will be willing to take the risk of working with them in the future. Besides, those scientists will be too busy fighting the array of myths about sharks that Shark Week has created to film incredible TV programs, especially considering that for all their talk of conservation, Shark Week doesn’t increase donations to shark research or conservation efforts (“It’s not easy to get people to rally around a creature that they’re conditioned to be afraid of” explains shark biologist Chris Lowe).
Meanwhile, Discovery seems hellbent on pretending that there’s nothing wrong on either front.
So my prediction? Shark Week 2015 will be even worse than 2014. There will be “more hours!” that will include more faked footage, more actors or waitresses portrayed as scientists, more fear, more hype, and more hyperbole. Discovery will continue to bluster on about how awesome they’re doing while scientists shake their fists and viewers do the only thing they can do to be heard: change the channel. We’ll just have to see if, after next year, Discovery will listen to them.
Thursday night, I sat down with more than 15 scientists to watch Shark Week. Most of them don’t watch the annual spectacle—they’ve become embittered after years of Discovery’s fear mongering, mockumentaries, and lies. But this particular episode was different—it was all about our home, Hawaii. We all wondered how the sharks that roam our islands’ waters would be portrayed, and we joked about how many times we’d hear ominous music or see blood in the water. We wouldn’t have been so jovial if we knew what was in store.
I would argue that Sharkageddon is the worst Shark Week special this year, perhaps even to date. At least with the mockumentaries, there was the expectation that the audience would understand they were fake, even if that expectation was wildly off. Megalodon and Shark of Darkness carry disclaimers saying that the events were dramatized and that there is “debate”. Sharkageddon, on the other hand, is billed as truth. It pretends to lay out the facts and be a documentary. And it isn’t. Almost everything said in the hour-long program is wrong.
I won’t go into how the shark “danger scale” is ridiculous at best (cookie cutter sharks a “5″? Not unless that’s the lowest number!). I’m even going to gloss over the poor reenactments full of threatening music that make it look like sharks magically sneak up on their victims in crystal clear water (hint: that’s not what it looks like during shark attacks). Instead, I’m going to focus on false statements that were delivered as if they were cold, hard facts, and how Discovery used shady filming tactics to try and convince the world that Hawaii is in the midst of a Sharkageddon.
Let’s start with the premise. The program is based on the notion that shark attacks in Hawaii are increasing; a “sharkageddon”, as they define it. The entire show is based on this notion—trouble is, there’s no evidence for it. Period.
Look closely at the graph Discovery places near the beginning of the episode. The gridlines aren’t consistent, such that the distance between 1 and 10 is only half the distance between 10 and 20. This is data distortion 101—a clear attempt to skew the data visually to make you think shark attacks are increasing more than they actually are. And that’s even if the data were accurate, which they’re not. I’m not sure where they got their shark attack numbers from, but the Division of Aquatic Resources in Hawaii has more than 20 years worth of shark attack data freely available on their website. There were 14 unprovoked shark attacks in 2013 and 10 in 2012. Note: even Discovery’s map only has 12 shark bite points on it. While the number of attacks was higher than in other years, the simple fact is shark attacks vary greatly from year to year. Here’s the real graph of shark attacks by year over the past decade:
If Discovery had dared to run some statistics, they would have found that there’s no mathematical support for the supposed increase. A Mann-Kendall trend analysis of the data from 1993-2014 finds no trend despite the high numbers in 2012 and 2013. To be fair, the notion that shark attacks are increasing isn’t out of the question. Right now, we are unable to detect a positive trend given the data. Maybe in years to come, that will change. But so far this year, attacks are down—in 2014 there has been one shark attack. It’s not looking like the ‘trend’ is continuing.
But even if there is an increase, the various hypotheses (not “theories”—theories are well substantiated explanations) presented in the show are complete crap. What were those hypotheses?
At least they have the courtesy to dismiss #1 off the bat, noting that white sharks were not suspected in any of the attacks. They go on to test the others with “experiments” performed by local “experts”. But everything, from the supposed experts to the experiments conducted, is not as it seems. I’ll address each of these hypotheses as they appear in the show (the last two together, since they focus on the same species and general science).
“Shark expert” Photographer and surfer Juan Oliphant proposes to Kala Alexander—surfer on a mission for truth—that protections on green sea turtles in Hawaii are to blame for increased tiger shark attacks. The hypothesis, as it was stated in Sharkageddon:
“One possible conclusion lies in the population of Hawaiian green sea turtles. In 1978, they were added to the Endangered Species Act, and since then, their numbers have increased dramatically. This turtle buffet attracts more sharks to the shores where turtles feed, and more run-ins with humans at the water’s surface”
The notion surfaced last year when Rep. Joe Souki placed the blame for shark attacks on turtles in a news piece. “What we need to do is to lift the ban on turtles as a protected species, and maybe it could start with the Native Hawaiians as they do in Alaska where they allow the natives to go and hunt the whales during the whale season,” said Souki in an interview with Hawaii News Now.
Scientists were quick to respond. “The timelines of the turtle recovery and this increase in incidents, those timelines don’t match,” said researcher Kim Holland of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology in the same article. He’s right—sea turtle populations have increased steadily since 1980, while shark attacks have only “spiked” in the past two years. If the two variables were related, you would expect to see steady shark increases, too, not a random jump. Holland also pointed out that turtles aren’t the main prey of tiger sharks. In fact, they only make up ~5% of the sharks’ diet. Around 70% of their diet is fish. So what of that dramatic scene in Sharkageddon of the tiger shark choosing the turtle over Oliphant?
Look a little closer.
While it was billed as the shark choosing between a man and a turtle, in reality, it was at best between man and dead fish. That’s some seriously dishonest filming tactics, even for Discovery. And what a surprise? The shark bites right where the fish are attached. You can even see a piece of fish falling off in this shot:
It wasn’t a “strategic bite”—it was where the food was hiding. And what about when the shark comes back to “finish it off”? Watch it again. It just takes the attached fish and leaves.
— Christie Wilcox (@NerdyChristie) August 15, 2014
Alexander was right about one thing, though: “When it had a choice between its normal prey and you, it went for its normal prey.” It just wasn’t a turtle dummy that it went for, but rather the chum Discovery attached to it. This test doesn’t “prove that it’s a case of mistaken identity,” and it certainly doesn’t answer any questions about why sharks are attacking surfers (unless surfers have started lashing dead fish to their feet—which I don’t recommend). What it does do, however, is perpetuate the myth that turtle abundance is linked to shark attack increases, a myth that is being used to attack sea turtle conservation efforts that are still very much needed. Don’t blame the turtles. Even if attacks on surfers do occur because of mistaken identity—like is presumed with great whites and surfers off the California coast—there’s no connection between attack frequencies and turtle populations, and culling turtles isn’t going to protect surfers from future attacks.
While we’re at it: you can’t say that tiger sharks actively pursue turtles and in the same segment call them “indiscriminate feeding machines.” Do they specifically hunt turtles? Or are they indiscriminate?
Of course, tiger sharks aren’t indiscriminate. They eat a diversity of prey, but they don’t simply eat “anything”.
Alexander next talks to Michael Jutt, a spearfisherman from Maui. Jutt claims that though there have been “a lot of attacks”, with “a lot of them end up going unreported.” Why wouldn’t a shark attack be reported? “Because they are considered provoked attacks.”
“Even if I was out today and shot this fish and a shark attacked me, it wouldn’t have been reported,” he said to Alexander.
Jutt’s only half right. It is true that spearfishing and fishing related attacks are often (though not always) considered “provoked” attacks, which means they don’t factor into certain statistics. But that doesn’t mean they’re not reported. The only way an attack goes unreported is if the person attacked doesn’t report it. On the DAR website, you can see a graph of shark attack by activity type for all attacks since 1950, including provoked ones. The orange and dark green bars represent those provoked attacks. Provoked attacks make up a small portion of the total attacks, and overall, spearfishing related attacks are less than ten percent of the total attacks in Hawaii.
It is possible that spearfishermen aren’t reporting their interactions with sharks, but if that’s true, that’s on them. Clearly, some spearfishermen have reported shark attacks, or DAR wouldn’t have these numbers to begin with. But perhaps more importantly, if the spearfishing attacks that have occurred recently “weren’t reported” (as Jutt claims) then why is Alexander looking into them as the source of the “spike” in attacks? The “spike” is in reported attacks.
Meanwhile, to prove some kind of point, Jutt and Alexander go off in search of sharks that will come to the smell of blood in the water—I mean, the sound of a speargun. Jutt manages to shoot two fish, and the pair seem surprised when a few (looks like 5? Maybe 6?) Galapagos sharks arrive on the scene. “We have to get out of here, Mike!” Alexander tells Jutt.
Of all the sharks that Sharkageddon focuses on, I’m most familiar with the Galapagos. And yes, they will say a friendly hello if you are spearfishing in an area where they’re found. But there’s no reason those sharks should have scared Alexander and Jutt out of the water. I would know—I’ve been in their position.
— Christie Wilcox (@NerdyChristie) August 15, 2014
But more to the point, Discovery concludes that because a few Galapagos sharks showed up when fish were speared, this “proved that sharks are becoming conditioned to the sound of spearfishermen, especially the snap of the gun.” Then they go even further. “But there’s a more terrifying prospect: these sharks may also be associating the expelling of bubbles and the kicking of fins as a sign food is near.” Come again, Discovery?
The “test” in no way examined whether sharks are attracted to the sounds of spearguns, scuba or freediving activity. To test that, you’d want to see if they show up and act aggressive when there aren’t bleeding animals around. In this case, the sharks reacted to one thing: dying fish. Or, in their minds, food. There’s no evidence that they associated any other aspect of the situation with that food.
Sharkageddon is spreading a dangerous message by saying that sharks are learning to associate water activities with mealtime. Not only is there no evidence that sharks are conditioned to associate food with the sounds of diving, there’s more evidence to the contrary. Divers are almost never harassed by sharks. I cannot even count the number of sharks I have seen on dives, even while spearfishing, and I have never been attacked. But perhaps images speak louder than words: if Galapagos are so terrifying, then why weren’t divers on a research cruise in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument afraid of this many Galapagos sharks?
“The next case in Hawaii’s Sharkageddon” is a bizarre one. “An unprovoked night attack,” the narrator describes, “from a rare and unusual shark.” Sharkageddon then goes onto describe the attack of Mike Spaulding, who was bitten by a cookie cutter shark ten miles from the coast while attempting the open ocean swim between the big island and Maui.
Sharkageddon very quickly glazes over the fact that this particular attack is the only bite that has ever occurred from a cookie cutter shark. And it isn’t a part of the supposed “Sharkageddon”—Spaulding was bitten in 2009, four years before the “spike” in attacks. Discovery isn’t unaware of this detail; they are careful to list the date on the reenactment correctly. Yet, the show implies this bite is related to the “increase” in shark attacks, and Alexander brings in marine biologist Jeff Milisen to track down “deep water killers.”
Your biggest threat, according to Sharkageddon? “The cookie cutter shark—the piranha of the open ocean.”
I’ll admit that cookie cutter jaws are a little nightmare-inducing up close. But these sharks are most definitely not piranha-like in any way. Theodore Roosevelt once called the piranha “the most ferocious fish in the world.” Piranha’s swarm and feed in a frenzy, while cookie cutters are solitary fish which take single bites out of large prey. You’re never going to get attacked by several hundred cookie cutter sharks at once and torn to shreds. You’re probably never going to get attacked by a single cookie cutter shark, no matter how much night swimming you do. I can say that because Discovery pointed out the only person in all of recorded history who ever has been bitten by one. Ever. EVER.
But Milisen and Alexander dove down anyway searching for one, and while protected by a cage (Really? How exactly would the cage keep out a fish that’s less than a foot long?), the two spotted their first animal—a hydrozoan. Which, by the way, is not “a fancy term for jellyfish.” Jellyfish are in the class Scyphozoa, while hydrozoans—not including the salps spotted by the divers (which are an entirely different phylum!)—are class Hydrozoa. I know it’s a little detail, but it’s exactly the kind of fact that Discovery shouldn’t let slip through. Then the divers saw other sharks—a tiger, a great hammerhead, and an oceanic white tip. Which lead to the new hypothesis: “Kala realizes that it’s Hawaii’s unique geology that brings deep water sharks near the shore.”
There are plenty of deep water sharks in the world, few of which have ever attacked a human being. While Sharkageddon makes them sound like man-eaters, the stunning diversity of deep water sharks was beautifully revealed in Alien Sharks 2: Return to the Abyss, which aired on Tuesday night. The special was rare form for Shark Week in that it accurately portrayed shark science without ‘near-death’ shark encounters or “dramatization”. Fear mongering aside, it would have been really cool to see some deep water sharks in Sharkaggedon. Unfortunately, none of the sharks seen by the divers were “deep water” sharks.
Perhaps the production crew simply confused “deep water” with pelagic or open ocean sharks. In that case, the oceanic white tip is a pelagic shark, and tiger sharks are known to cruise large stretches of open ocean. Hammerheads, though, are semi-pelagic at best, and preferring coastal areas. There’s nothing unique about Hawaii’s coastline that draws these sharks in. Steep drops in depth are found in many places around the world—the coast of California, for example. And if it was geology, how would that explain a recent increase? How exactly has Hawaii’s geology changed in the past five years? And if it were pelagic sharks to blame, you’d expect there to have been attacks from the most notorious of the bunch: the great white shark. The geologic hypothesis simply doesn’t make sense.
Jeff Milisen isn’t studying tiger shark movements in Hawaii. Milisen is a technician for Kampachi Farms, an innovative aquaculture business based on the big island. According to his LinkedIn, he is “currently working with novel aquaculture species, feed trials and the next phase of offshore cage trial.” He does, however, have a photography project on the tiger sharks of Honokohau harbor. The goals and methods of this project aren’t clear from the site.
Side note: if Milisen really does photograph these sharks daily or even frequently, then it seems especially surprising that he was intimidated out of the water by the regular crowd. Yet that’s exactly what happened in the show—the pair are forced to leave “while they still can”. (Now that I think of it, every time Alexander enters the water in this program, he “narrowly escapes.” How is it that hundreds of millions of scientists, surfers, swimmers, snorkelers and divers survive their day-to-day ocean activities, yet Alexander is almost attacked every time he gets in? With how sharks seem to be drawn to him, it’s a miracle he’s survived as a surfer this long!)
So has Milisen’s photo project shown there are “repeat offenders”? Not yet. On the other hand, Milisen has noted that sharks presumed to be repeat customers are simply mis-IDs. In his “Story of Laverne“, he says:
“To date, ten sharks have been photographically identified near the mouth of the harbor, many of which fit Laverne’s description down to their dorsal fins. So “Laverne” is not one, but many tiger sharks intermingling with a variety of ocean users without a single adverse incident.”
Not only does he say he’s only photographed a small number of sharks (in three years?!), he readily admits that locals have been misidentifying the animals they presume return frequently.
Even if the two returning IDs seen by Alexander and Milisen solid, spotting two sharks that have been seen before doesn’t “prove” anything, except that these two sharks have returned this once. Have they returned, as Milisen says, “year after year after year”? What does the rest of Milisen’s data say? And what evidence does he have that it has to do with the fishing boat scraps, as opposed to any other factor (temperature, depth, habitat type, abundance of living prey fish, etc)? Milisen doesn’t have any answers. But other scientists in Hawaii do.
There are scientists studying the movement patterns of Hawaiian tiger sharks, but Milisen isn’t among them. Nor is Kori Garza—or, as she otherwise goes by, Kori Michelle or Kori McClanahan—a 23 year old model from Kaneohe who currently works as a “pirate” for Captain Bob’s Picnic Sail. In 2013, she was a Pacific Islands Fishery Center Young Scientist with a project on corals, but she has no affiliation with shark research in Hawaii. And it was very clear to the shark scientists that watched Sharkageddon with me that she has no idea how to tag a tiger shark (my profile of Mark Royer from last year shows what real shark tagging looks like).
If you want to understand shark movements in Hawaii, you have to ask the experts, the Shark Lab at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology. They have extensive experience with Hawaii’s tiger sharks, and have employed a diverse set of tags and cameras to understand the movement, ecology and behavior of several shark species.
Their work over the past few decades has revealed that tiger shark movements are complicated. The sharks have large home ranges, and while they might return to a site within days or years, their movements can be erratic. Males and females behave differently. So do individuals—some stay in one area near the coast while others will venture far into open ocean. Movement patterns observed in Hawaiian tiger sharks might be related to mating, or pupping, or feeding, but no one is entirely sure. Camera data are revealing when, where and on what they feed. This work is ongoing—you can even see how tagged tiger sharks are moving around the islands this week, but so far, there’s no evidence that sharks from Kahoolawe are particularly fond of Maui, or vice versa.
The underlying premise for all of this Sharkageddon “theorizing” is much more sinister: by implying the same sharks are being habituated to people and hanging around to feed, Discovery is implying that there are certain sharks that bite people and others—the ones that live their daily lives in less populated areas—that don’t. This line of thinking is what leads to shark culling efforts like the current one in Western Australia. We tried culling in Hawaii, for the record, in the 1990s (you know, the last time someone claimed there was an “increase” in attacks). It had no effect, and was discontinued when research showed that tiger sharks don’t hang in one place.
Finally, on a cultural note, there’s no evidence that native Hawaiians would “purposefully change their fishing spots so they would not habituate the sharks.” Native Hawaiians respected sharks, and some were revered as `aumakua (the manifestation of ancestral spirits). Hawaiians had a special relationship with their shark `aumakua, and would feed and pet sharks believed to be the embodiment of relatives, trusting that those sharks would protect them. Such ancient traditions are why there is a cultural exception to the legislation that bans shark feeding in Hawaii today. Furthermore, Hawaiians were well-versed fishermen, and knew when and where to find their catch. They extensively used fishponds and a diverse set of fishing gear. Seasonal changes in fishing location were more likely designed to maintain catch and rest resources, not keep sharks from coming around.
Not only is there no support for the show’s entire premise, each of the hypotheses presented are factually wrong or illogical. Sharkageddon’s pointless pontificating doesn’t leave us any closer to explaining why shark attacks occur—or where, or when. Alexander ends on a conservation message, which Discovery, of course, ensures is brief and buried with credits. But this final thought is what Discovery should have focused on all along. Sharks are vital to Hawaiian ecosystems. We don’t need another “documentary” villifying these ecological and culturally important animals—we need one that explains why they matter, what they do for us, and why we should be fighting to save them.
— Ocean Conservancy (@OurOcean) August 15, 2014
While Sharkageddon featured many people with different ideas, none of them are current shark researchers in Hawaii. While there is no doubt that they all care deeply for Hawaii’s sharks, Discovery should have known that they were not experts on the topics being discussed. The constant manipulation of information regarding these ‘experts’ backgrounds shows that Discovery intentionally misled viewers to make their show appear more credible. Here are the key players in the show, their background and relationship to sharks.
Kala Alexander: Alexander is a professional waterman and actor. He has appeared in Hawaii-based movies and TV shows including Blue Crush, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Hawaii 5-0. He is most notorious for being the ‘enforcer’ of the Wolfpak, a ‘surf gang‘ that enforces the unwritten rules of the North Shore. You can read his perspective on the Wolfpak and the events in his past that made him infamous in his 2008 Outside Magazine article.
Juan Oliphant: Oliphant received his Bachelor’s in fine art photography and sculpture from BYU Hawaii in 2000, and has been photographing marine animals since 1992. He worked from 200o – 2003 as a captain and divemaster for Sea Shepherd Global and from 2000 – 2008 as a senior captain and media manager for Hawaii Shark Encounters. He is the co-owner of Water Inspired, a team of photographers that support shark conservation.
Mike Jutt: Jutt is a spearfisherman from Haleiwa, Maui. His YouTube contains a video of an encounter with a tiger shark while spearfishing as well as other spearfishing videos, and he worked in the past as a lifeguard on Oahu’s North Shore.
Jeff Milisen: Milisen obtained an M.S. in Molecular Biochemistry from UH Manoa in 2012 studying the captive husbandry of venomous cone snails. He obtained his BS in Biology from the same institution in 2009. He began work at Kampachi Farms while still a student, and has since become a research technician for the aquaculture group. Prior to his work at Kampachi Farms, Milisen spent 2 seasons aiding NOAA’s Marine Debris Project in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. He volunteered for the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology Shark Lab when he was a student, but he has not worked with them since.
Kori Garza: also known as Kori Michelle or Kori McClanahan. She was a 2013 Pacific Islands Fishery Center Young Scientist with a project on corals while attending the Marine Biology program at Hawaii Pacific University. Currently, she is a 23 year old model from Kaneohe that works as a “pirate” for Captain Bob’s Picnic Sail.
Some might question why I have bothered to detail the shady filmmaking practices and overall inaccuracies in Sharkageddon. My answer is this:
The truth matters. Discovery has made their reputation off of being “the world’s #1 non-fiction media company.” As anyone who reads this blog knows, I’ve come down hard on them in the past for their mockumentaries and for unethical PR tactics. But this special goes above and beyond what I considered their worst offenses. Sharkageddon didn’t just contain an accidental slip of the tongue or the errant incorrect factoid. The production team systematically sought to prove that Hawaii is becoming more dangerous because of shark attacks—a “fact” which isn’t true—and through over-dramatized reenactments, staged “experiments” and unreliable “experts”, they deliberately deceived their viewers into believing them. All of the producers and movie makers involved in the editing and final production of this special should be held accountable. This wasn’t about ‘taking the audience on a different journey‘—it was about selling a lie, plain and simple. It’s disingenuous; it’s dishonest; it’s deplorable—in other words, it’s the worst of what Discovery Shark Week has become.
In an ideal world, Sharkageddon would get pulled from the channel. They would issue an apology to the 2.4 million viewers that watched the special when it aired and explain how they went wrong. They would not just vow to do better, they really would do it, and truly earn the trust of their viewers. But we all know that this is not an ideal world, and so long as Discovery makes money off of their special breed of bullshit, they will continue to seek ratings by any means necessary.
There is a glimmer of hope: Discovery’s fear-based tactics appear to be backfiring. Their ratings and viewership are down, and their stock is stumbling. I wrote this post because all of this tells me that Discovery’s audience is listening. They are tired of the lies. Someone has to #FactCheckSharkWeek, and since Discovery seems unwilling or unable to do so, it’s the least I can do.
The clash between police and protestors in Ferguson, Missouri has escalated significantly over the past few days. Police dogs and handguns have been swapped out for tanks and assault rifles. The protestors are being shot at with rubber bullets and wooden baton rounds, but perhaps the most disturbing images surfacing are those of police suppressing peaceful assembly with tear gas. Currently banned for use in international warfare, tear gas is still legal to use domestically, and has become a go-to for riot control. To understand what the use of tear gas means for the citizens, members of the press, and government officials currently in Ferguson, here is a scientific explainer of what tear gas is, what it does, and what scientists and medical professionals think of its use.
— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 12, 2014
It’s the third day of Shark Week, and Discovery has already come under fire for their programming choices. Their big special on kick-off night—Shark of Darkness: The Wrath of Submarine—turned out to be another fake documentary, making up people and events to perpetuate the idea that a 30+ ft long great white patrols the coast of South Africa. The legend of Submarine is a particularly fishy topic choice, as its origin can be traced to the 1970s when some journalists decided to make up a story to see how gullible their readers were. Yet again, the all-too-quick disclaimer failed to let a good chunk of the audience in on the charade, resulting in a spike in tweets like this:
Don’t understand why I watch shark week because it just makes me 10x more scared of the water than I already am — Danielle (@daniellejene) August 12, 2014
Shark week always makes me more scared of sharks — Christian Villalon (@christianv2328) August 11, 2014
This submarine shark got me all sorts of scared about going into the ocean again. — Samantha Kramer (@SamanthaKramer1) August 11, 2014
Tonight kicks off Shark Week, the longest-running television event in history. As readers of this blog know, many scientists (myself included) have become critical of Discovery’s beloved television event, criticizing their PR tactics, shark attack fearmongering, and overall lack of facts, science and conservation throughout the week.
Though the concerns have been brewing for the past decade or so, last year’s ‘documentary’ on C. megalodon shoved the Shark Week science—or lack thereof—into the national media spotlight. Discovery believes they did nothing wrong with presenting “one of the most debated shark discussions of all time“, however, scientists and viewers alike protested loudly about the special on and offline to the point that CNN and other major news stations covered the controversy. Supporting the notion that ‘any press is good press’, last year’s Shark Week was the most viewed of all time.
@WhySharksMatter we have more hours than ever before and most are the factual ones you enjoy.
— Laurie Goldberg (@LaurieGoldberg) July 14, 2014
This year, Discovery claims they have responded to the strong public and media backlash. Laurie Goldberg, executive vice president of public relations for Discovery, tweeted to explain that concerns over the scientific content of this year’s Shark Week are unfounded, as “most” of the programming is fact-based. Curious if that is true, I pulled up Discovery’s day-by-day plan and examined the shows’ descriptions. I categorized them as ‘science-based’ or ‘fear-based’ using the wording in the description and whether it mentioned scientists or research (particularly as the ‘host’ or focus). I then tweeted my predictions (Storify below). Here’s the summary table:Read More
Over the past month, the story of Lauren Arrington’s sixth-grade science project on lionfish salinity tolerance has exploded. In the past week, however, questions have arisen as to the validity of her study and the events that led to her project, particularly the involvement of scientist Zachary Jud, who was rarely mentioned in early reports on Lauren’s work. Some are saying Zack is trying to “steal the spotlight” from a 13 yr old girl, while others are saying Lauren “hijacked” her project from Zack and referring to it as “plagiarism”.
Given the conflicting media coverage of Lauren’s project and Zack’s research, it seemed prudent to have a complete timeline of the events, both prior to and after Lauren’s project. Here is that timeline, which has been confirmed through emails, blog posts (including one by Craig Layman), and my personal communication with Zachary Jud. I contacted Albrey Arrington on July 23, 2014. Albrey did not respond.
In 1842, the infamous showman P.T. Barnum unveiled a truly bizarre creature. In his autobiography, Barnum described it as “an ugly, dried-up, black-looking, and diminutive specimen… its arms thrown up, giving it the appearance of having died in great agony.” The Feejee mermaid, as the mummified remains were called, possessed the torso of a monkey with the tail of a fish. Naturalists from around the world came to examine the specimen, enticed by letters explaining how a Dr. J. Griffin had hooked the strange creature while fishing in the South Pacific. At first Griffin was reluctant to share his find, but somehow, Barnum convinced him to reveal the mermaid to the public. Huge crowds swarmed the Concert Hall on Broadway just to get a glimpse.
Things were not, however, as they appeared: The letters were written by Barnum himself. “Dr. J. Griffin” was only a character portrayed by Barnum’s close friend, Levi Lyman. The so-called mermaid was purchased from Japanese sailors in 1822 and leased to Barnum by Moses Kimball. Barnum even asked for a professional opinion, and was assured by a naturalist that the mermaid was a fake. The tale of the mermaid’s capture, Griffin, and his reluctance to unveil the animal was a publicity stunt. The Feejee mermaid, in all its grotesque glory, was P.T. Barnum’s first major hoax. His knack for trickery, manipulation and showmanship proved highly profitable, and over the years, his circus became known as “The Greatest Show On Earth”.
In his autobiography, Barnum explained how he manipulated so many into believing in the Feejee mermaid. “How to modify general incredulity in the existence of mermaids, so far as to awaken curiosity to see and examine the specimen, was now the all-important question,” Barnum wrote. “I saw no better method than to “start the ball a-rolling” at some distance from the centre of attraction.” So he wrote letters, which appeared in New York papers, from Alabama, South Carolina, and Washington DC. “I may as well confess that those three communications from the South were written by myself, and forwarded to friends of mine, with instructions respectively to mail them, each on the day of its date. This fact and the corresponding post-marks did much to prevent suspicion of a hoax, and the New-York editors thus unconsciously contributed to my arrangements for bringing the mermaid into public notice.”
You might expect such deception and fraud from P.T. Barnum, one of the most notorious showmen of all time. But it seems the executives at Discovery Channel are cut from the same cloth.
This past week was supposed to be a happy week for Rosie O’Donnell. She was ecstatic to announce that she’s re-hooked her old job on The View, and will be joining its cast next year. But instead, Rosie is being scrutinized for a different catch—one made two years ago.
In early 2012, photos began circulating of Rosie with Mark the Shark, a notorious fisherman who pompously claims he has killed over 100,000 sharks. Dangling in the foreground is a great hammerhead, the largest of the hammerhead species and one listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List since 2007 (prior to that they were ‘data deficient’). Rosie was immediately and loudly criticized for the act, as the species had newly become protected under Florida law.
Rosie did not respond well to the critique. “chill people – really – my family fishes” she tweeted to those calling for an apology for her actions. In response to one tweeter, she classily replied “it was years ago asswipe – b4 they were on the endangered list”. After the recent resurgence of the story due to a Slate article by widely acclaimed shark scientist and conservationist David Shiffman, Rosie stuck to her guns. “before hammerheads were illegal – my daughter caught one – end of story” she tweeted.
Or, to phrase her argument simply: the animals weren’t “endangered” when her family caught them, so back off.
@alexbvollmer – Alex when we caught the shark – hammerheads were not endangered – r u against fishing of all kinds
— Rosie (@Rosie) July 11, 2014