Q&As with Chris Palmer
!
!
Author of Confessions of a Wildlife Filmmaker
Q: Is there evidence that environmental and wildlife networks are deliberately peddling
false scientific information to audiences in the pursuit of ratings?
!
A: Yes, and the extent of the lies is appalling. For example, Animal Planet broadcast Mermaids:
The Body Found in 2012 and Mermaids: The New Evidence in 2013. The network and its producers fabricated evidence, cast actors to play scientists, and seamlessly staged both programs so
that viewers would think they were real. Both mermaid programs presented “scientific evidence”
that mermaids exist. The programs did their best to convince viewers that aquatic humanoids are
roaming the oceans and that the U.S. government is involved in a massive cover-up to hide proof
of their existence. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has stated unequivocally, “No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.” But that’s not a problem for Animal Planet—or its high ratings.
!
Q: Why does it matter if networks produce and air programs with fake science?
!
A: Forgoing science entirely miscommunicates and fails to inform viewers about issues that
these wildlife and environmental programs could be educating the public about. For example,
Animal Planet’s fake programming on Mermaids misleads audiences about the actual important
issues facing the world’s oceans. Animal Planet could be doing tremendous good by educating
and raising awareness about the dire problems poisoning and depopulating our oceans, like the
fact that “marine resources are being overexploited and mismanaged, leaving us in serious danger of losing them forever,” as marine scientist David Shiffman points out. Instead, viewers are
distracted by creatures that don’t exist.
!
Q: Is there a danger that viewers of deceptive wildlife and environmental programming
will believe and perpetuate the false information they see in the programming?
!
A: Yes, and it has already been observed. In the summer of 2013, the Discovery Channel
launched its popular Shark Week with a two-hour “documentary” titled Megalodon: The Monster
Shark Lives. Like the Mermaids specials, the program featured interviews with “scientists,”
“archival footage,” and “scientific evidence” to convince viewers that a sixty-foot prehistoric
shark thought to be extinct was still roaming the oceans and leaving a blood-soaked trail of havoc in its wake. Unfortunately, the entirety of the program — from the science to the interviewees
— was fabricated. Indeed, polling after the broadcast showed that 73 percent of those watching
believed that an enormous prehistoric shark roams the oceans, even though this is untrue.
!
Q: Is it ethically incorrect to pass off staged animal interactions such as using captive animals, even in the interest of not disturbing animals in their natural environments?
1 of 4
!
A: Yes, it is ethically incorrect. In documentaries, staged footage should be labeled to maintain
strong trust between filmmakers and their audiences. Some programs are starting to include
“making of” vignettes or additional information on their website to let viewers in on why and
how they used staging or captive animals for certain scenes. This can engage viewers even further, and provide conservation insights.
!
Q: Can wildlife films and programming be both entertaining and educational?
!
A: Yes. Wildlife and environmental media can be truthful, entertaining, and can inspire audiences. The grimmest material can be palatable if it’s paired with dramatic story elements and offers solutions to the problems it documents.
!
Q: How can environmental filmmakers and networks engage the public on the issues in
their programming?
!
A: Savvy strategies, like linking televised programming to online campaigns for action, are a
powerful way to involve and empower viewers— and, of course, to work ultimately toward real
change. Without hope, there is no incentive to act. But when specific courses of action are available and revealed by wildlife programs, viewers can be turned into informed, motivated, and
committed activists.
!
Q: Are quantifiable actions and donations the only measures of success for an environmental film or program?
!
A: Ideally, films will spur audiences to some action, such as boycotting a product, voting differently, volunteering for a campaign, signing a petition, convincing a friend, or giving a donation.
But a conservation film does not necessarily have to provoke immediate action. Films can work
in subtle ways to create the basis for long-term change by introducing viewers to novel ideas,
fresh perspectives, and inspirational people. Although change can be quick, it can also be slow
and nearly imperceptible. Films can plant seeds that will someday grow into full-fledged forests.
That kind of transformation is impossible to quantify.
!
Q: Do some networks and filmmakers really resort to cruel tactics like animal harassment,
staged animal fights, and animal abuse in order to capture their footage?
!
A: Yes. While many filmmakers do not use these methods, other filmmakers and broadcasters do
unfortunately use these methods, often under pressure to achieve higher ratings. Worst, the cruelty is hard to combat. Most of the cruelty happens out in the field, with no witnesses to stop it or
point it out to television audiences. This harassment ranges from simply getting too close and
disturbing animals to deliberately goading, harming, or even killing them.
!
2 of 4
Q: Does animal cruelty in wildlife and environmental filmmaking have any other consequences aside from physical and emotional harm to the animals?
!
A: Yes. How we act towards nature is a reflection of our humanity. Violence against animals is
unacceptable, especially when it is normalized on screen. How we portray human-wildlife relations on screen changes our relationship with wildlife and the environment in the real world. The
vicious attitude toward animals shown in many television programs reflects aberrant behavior
that deviates drastically from the humane attitudes held by most people. These wildlife programs
desensitize viewers, including impressionable children, to the reality of hurting living things.
Healthy, compassionate societies don’t treat animals as disposable property.
!
Q: Is there a way to capture amazing animal footage without resorting to violence or harassment?
!
A: Yes. The solutions include using better cameras and longer zoom lenses; hiring local scientists; budgeting more money; showing more patience; lowering expectations for blood, gore, and
extreme close-ups; and embedding the photography in better and more biologically accurate stories. New technologies like camera traps, remote vehicles, and drones can sometimes allow the
capture of exciting, up-close footage while giving wild animals their space.
!
Q: Who bears the responsibility for the content of wildlife and environmental films and
programming?
!
A: Everyone — from viewers to broadcasters to filmmakers. Indeed, the viewing public does
bear some of the responsibility for the content of wildlife films. The networks offer films that
they think will attract viewers. If people didn’t watch lurid wildlife films, there would be no lurid
wildlife films. But broadcasters cannot escape their ultimate responsibility by blaming viewers. It
is the broadcasters who pay for the programs and choose what to air: The buck stops with them.
Filmmakers also have the power to fight the pressure from the networks to produce programs
unethically.
!
Q: What can we do to fight unethical practices in environmental and wildlife media?
!
A: Viewers can speak up and demand higher standards from the networks. Social media can be
used to contact networks and broadcasters directly. Don’t watch shows with gratuitous animal
violence or harassment, and tell people why you don’t support those shows. Filmmakers must
capture footage responsibly and present accurate information to the public. Critics’ reviews
should routinely gauge the programs’ honesty, promotion of conservation, and treatment and depiction of animals. Educators have a responsibility to provide accurate, balanced, and relevant
information about media in general and unethical wildlife programs in particular. Networks,
which commission the shows and decide what to air, must bear responsibility for the programs
they broadcast.
!
3 of 4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Confessions Q&As
4 of 4