I've seen a similar discussion in the NY Times about the WPA pictures of
dust bowl families, and my reaction is the same -- does the program give a
realistic idea of what goes on in the wild, or is it sugar-coated or
otherwise distorted. If we know that species A eats species B, but only in
situations which are almost impossible to capture on film, which is the
greater distortion of reality? Ignoring it or faking it?
Even genuine films can give a distored image of what really goes on.
Predator kills in the Serenghete? Almost all you see are the quick bites to
the neck. It is rare to see a video of a predator attack on an antelope
lying down and giving birth, although I understand that this is quite
common. A lot of what goes on in nature is really really gruesome, and
sometimes it is shown, but rarely.
Whether reality would realy sink in is of course another question. Most
people seem to think that penguins are darling creatures, but when I see
films like March of the Penguins I am horrified by the life they lead.
Imagine standing for days over a hungry chick waiting for your mate to
return -- not knowing whether the mate has been eaten by a seal. When do you
give up and go to save yourself, leaving the chick to freeze? This seems
like an unbearable choice, but do viewers of the film see it that way?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "David L. McNeely" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: quinta-feira, 23 de Setembro de 2010 14:51
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media
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
