Ok, I read the _Washington Post_ article. So what is new or revealed for the first time? The better programs, those from _National Geographic_, and the "Nature" series, are quite a lot above the ones on the cable channels like The Discovery Channel and on down. Sure the animals are captives, and are set up. Most of us know that. I guess some don't. The better programs do educate, however.
How are the animal shows different from the science shows (or even news clips) that report on some investigation or "discovery," and show a guy in a lab coat transferring materials with a pipette, or peering into a microscope. The photographer met the guy in his office and walked to the lab with him, where he posed, sometimes following directions, such as, "Can you look in the scope for me?" Next bit of the clip shows a video of something microscopic, maybe even the subject of the report, or related. The guy in the clip wasn't looking at it though, most likely. But the news recipient has learned a little about what science is doing, even if the images are no more than just bits of what the person might sometimes do in his work, if the verbal content is accurate. But no one wants to see a clip of a woman sitting at her desk reading a report or interpreting a statistical table. Does a person know much who only gets his knowledge of nature from television? No. If he sticks to the better programs, he does learn something. But bottom line, television is entertainment, not a classroom, and not a laboratory, and most of us know that. BTW, do you think most scientific animal behavior studies are done in the wild? Pretty naive if so. Even the original Bonobo studies that showed the sexual behavior were laboratory based studies of a captive colony. David McNeely ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a link to a timely report on this subject: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105782.html > > WT > > PS: It seems that some are not concerned; others think the practice is a > major problem. I tend to think it depends a lot on whether or not the faking > is misleading or truly educational, but I'd like to hear from Ecolog on this > issue. It seems that there's a lot that doesn't meet the eye . . . -- David McNeely
