Model
Digital Document
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Description
Despite evidence of their importance to marine ecosystems, at least 32% of all chondrichthyan
species are estimated or assessed as threatened with extinction. In addition to the logistical
difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is
believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to
humans. Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially
enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers,
and shark conservation. However, Shark Week has received regular criticism for poor factual
accuracy, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of science and scientists.
This research analyzes the content and titles of Shark Week episodes across its entire
32 years of programming to determine if there are trends in species covered, research techniques
featured, expert identity, conservation messaging, type of programming, and portrayal
of sharks. We analyzed titles from 272 episodes (100%) of Shark Week programming
and the content of all available (201; 73.9%) episodes. Our data demonstrate that the majority
of episodes are not focused on shark bites, although such shows are common and many
Shark Week programs frame sharks around fear, risk, and adrenaline. While criticisms of
disproportionate attention to particular charismatic species (e.g. great whites, bull sharks,
and tiger sharks) are accurate and supported by data, 79 shark species have been featured
briefly at least once. Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards
a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white,
mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific
experts. While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation
messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole,
while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad,
even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the
presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.
species are estimated or assessed as threatened with extinction. In addition to the logistical
difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is
believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to
humans. Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially
enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers,
and shark conservation. However, Shark Week has received regular criticism for poor factual
accuracy, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of science and scientists.
This research analyzes the content and titles of Shark Week episodes across its entire
32 years of programming to determine if there are trends in species covered, research techniques
featured, expert identity, conservation messaging, type of programming, and portrayal
of sharks. We analyzed titles from 272 episodes (100%) of Shark Week programming
and the content of all available (201; 73.9%) episodes. Our data demonstrate that the majority
of episodes are not focused on shark bites, although such shows are common and many
Shark Week programs frame sharks around fear, risk, and adrenaline. While criticisms of
disproportionate attention to particular charismatic species (e.g. great whites, bull sharks,
and tiger sharks) are accurate and supported by data, 79 shark species have been featured
briefly at least once. Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards
a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white,
mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific
experts. While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation
messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole,
while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad,
even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the
presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.
Member of