I had to post this article for several reasons. One, I have a great (and irrational) fear of sharks and two, I posted an article several weeks ago detailing a shark attack off the coast of Florida. Although the article goes to great length to stress the rarity of fatal shark attacks, the fact that this made headlines (and an associated press story) speaks volumes about its sensational nature.
This story also made me ponder whether it is responsible science communication. After all, people are more likely to die due to fatal car accidents within the United States than a shark attack. And even though the article does delve into the isolated nature of shark attacks, this one Great White attack was worthy of a Discovery News headline story.
5 comments:
Ater reading the actual article I would definitely conclude that it is in fact responsible science communication. Newspapers and magazines stay in business by publishing stories that appeal to their audiences. Despite their rarity, shark attacks most certainly get audience attention, and to ignore this simple fact would be foolish on behalf of the reporters. They do write in a responsible and respectable manner however by making sure to point out just how rare such attacks are. Also, instead of creating an image of sharks as big bad killing machines with a taste for human bllod they make sure to mention that the shark most likely mistook the wetsuit clad swimmer for a seal.
I agree with Madison that this article is in fact responsible science communication because the details of the attacks were not over sensationalized and the attack was placed in the context of their rarity of occurrence, even for the San Diego area. The article reports the details of news that would be of interest to that area since beach going is prevalent. Although to me it alluded to Jaws by the sheriff making a great white reference as the primary suspect, they said that the details are unknown and gave pure eyewitness accounts of what was known about the tragic occurrence. Moreover, like Madison said, the shark may have mistaken the swimmer for its prey, a risk which occurs when we come into contact with nature and other organism’s space.
You make great points. Accordingly, it seems that media is demonstrating its awareness and respect for the influential role it has in society and over public opinion. As mentioned in Smith's initial post on the movie Jaws, the stigmatization of sharks has had resounding impact on behavior. Had this article chosen to sensationalize this story, the ramifications might been deeply felt, but nonetheless irresponsible.
Ever since I was little, I have had a borderline-obsession with sharks and other marine megafauna. I, like so many other students in this class, was captivated by JAWS (the movie and, later, the book by Peter Benchley as well). While I agree with Madison and others that this article is "responsible" science communication, I also feel the need to point out how this particular example illustrates the way that science is in fact a social construct - an idea we discussed at length in today's class.
To say shark attacks are rare is an extreme understatement - statistically speaking, you are more likely to die in a pig-related accident (seriously) than ever from a shark bite, and you are THOUSANDS of times more likely to die in a car-related accident. However, articles like these (and films, novels, TV shows, etc) have lead to the popular misconception about sharks as being "senseless predators." This, in turn, has desensitized society a great deal to the fact that large predatory sharks are not only key apex predators that are essential to maintaining marine ecosystem balance, but also that we are currently overfishing them to dangerously low levels. I personally believe that, because of their "bad rap" in the eyes of the popular media, the plight of these important and overly-feared animals is being ignored, and the potential ecological effects of shark population collapse around the world would be very negative, to say the least.
I think if you are to compare fatal shark attacks with fatal car accidents, the question is not is this responsible science communication, but is this effective and needed science communication? Regardless, I think it is really hard to answer these kinds of questions when they are so emotionally-charged. If we decide that the way this attack was communicated was not responsible or maybe wasn't important to an overall conversation about how rare shark attacks are there will inevitably be others that think this event should be communicated even if it does not fit into the science communication sphere.
This event should be communicated solely because it is something audiences worldwide can connect to and, for this reason, communication is not always scientifically and objectively driven, but also motivated by emotion and what people will connect with. The tragedy of this event causes us not to immediately question if this is responsible or needed communication. Considering how much this one event has already been discussed, people have clearly portrayed that it is necessary communication that should be presented as promptly as possible.
Post a Comment