Discovery Channel "Documentary" is Shameful

CNN is addressing the kerfuffle that the program caused.

They say the Discovery Channel is following the Mermaid fakery on the Animal channel. I was annoyed at that program until everyone said it was announced as a fake.

The news story is actually interesting, adding in a discussion of all the fake aliens and ghosts portrayed as evidence-backed on the other channels that no one complains as much about.
 
Last edited:
To remind those who didn't actually watch the program: It was absolutely played as factual. The disclaimers -- such as they were -- were shown at the end of the program and scrolled by so fast that I couldn't read all of them. ( And I read quickly, and was looking for them!)

Discovery replied to my complaint e-mail, and I'd like to quote their (obviously canned) reply:

"...With a whole week of Shark Week programming ahead of us, we wanted to
explore the possibilities of Megalodon. It's one of the most debated shark discussions of all time, can Megalodon exist today? It's Ultimate Shark
Week fantasy. The stories have been out there for years and with 95% of the
ocean unexplored, we wanted to explore the myth and fantasy of these great
beasts during the fun and joy that has become the nation's annual
celebration of all things shark and Shark Week.

This program, and storytelling that engages on fact-based hypothesis to
explore unexplained legends, has always been part of Discovery's mission
and offerings since our beginning. But please know that in an effort to
ensure the highest quality programming, comments such as these are taken
very seriously and we value you, our viewers, more than anything else we
do. Each and every comment is forwarded on to our programming executives
for review, consideration and debate.

..."

What bothers me most is the area I highlighted. There is NO such debate. The existence of a living prehistoric gigantic shark is not supported by even dubious 'evidence' -- thus they had to create some. The only debate of the issue is happening now, because Discovery has used its credibility to mislead its viewers.

I reiterate that I think we need some Big Guns in the science community to come down on them publically. I don't mind 'recreation' videos; I loved "Walking With Dinosaurs" and its ilk. But those shows clearly indicate they are recreations or hypothetical. This was equally clearly an attempt to portray fiction as fact.

As others have stated, the issue here is that a company that still describes itself on its masthead as "The World's #1 Nonfiction Media Company" is promoting what it knows to be complete and utter fiction as though it were fact. See their corporate website:

http://corporate.discovery.com/

Also please note that NONE of the quick, small-print disclaimers ever actually said that they had manufactured all the 'evidence' videos, stills, and non-fossilized teeth; or that the 'scientists' were all actors.

This is a chance for people who DO want quality programming, who think science fact is more interesting than science fiction, to stand up and be heard. We represent a bigger chunk of the public than the person(s) who decided to pitch Discovery's reputation under the bus realizes. Be heard! Send them an e-mail; comment on the website. Or, if you really want to stand out, send them a written letter via US Snail.

If the channel can be made to apologize and modify the program to have several clear notices that it is 'for entertainment' and 'not factual' then we will have scored a victory for truth and integrity. I think that's worth fighting for.
 
kellyb said:
Ok, I'm convinced. I'll email them, too.
Click to expand...
And help confirm that airing this program generated more publicity and interest for the channel than even a Super Bowl ad could buy.

Somewhere in TDC headquarters there's high-fives all around.
 
On a related note, here are the things I was cued in by:

* Camera work for 'candid' video was way too good.
* Lighting and camera work for 'scientist' interviews was too dramatic.
* The 'scientists' were all remarkably good looking.
* The search mission was conducted in a matter of weeks, finishing less than a month after the purported boat attack. That never happens--just lining up personnel and funding takes a long time.
* Speaking of funding, where did all the money for all that equipment and the lease of several large vessels come from?
* How did they get a fiberglass whale decoy designed and manufactured in less than two weeks? Just finding a shop that could do it might take that long.
* Er, scores of barrels of chum? Where did they get that, the local 'Chum Iz Us'?
* One scientist they got a comment from might have been real -- his (flashed and removed) credit indicated an Entymologist. (Because they're experts on marine life behavior.)
* Nobody being videoed candidly says, 'Hey, look over there!' and points.

Being an armchair economist, it was the rising expense account that caught my attention. The real expedition to attempt to film the giant squid took iirc somewhere on the order of two full years to put together, and it was not nearly as elaborate in its equipment. (Those scientists were making their own 'squid chum' with a blender, too.)

I'd have ranked it okay as a Syfy monster movie but I found it non-credible as factual. But then, I have a background in marine biology, paleontology, and critical thinking. I think the majority of the people who tuned in believed it was real, and I think that that is what Discovery Channel expected would happen.

I can't help but consider a parallel with the current events in Major League Baseball, where 12 of the 13 players* accused of using PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) have accepted their suspensions and given apologetic press conferences. The integrity of the game matters, and they -- and the League management, and even the player's union -- know it. The fans made it clear that they don't accept being lied to by those who manipulate their biology; that the game is about what athletes do, not what chemistry labs can produce. I think that it's past time for truth to be reiterated as a value in our culture.

Just my thoughts, MK



* Yeah, A-Rod is appealing, and I can't imagine what he hopes to gain by it. He was caught not only doping, but attempting to purchase evidence and testimony to keep his abuse secret. Same mindset as the guy who said, "I know, we'll make it look like this thing is still alive!" -- short-term and amoral. In the long haul, that will fail.
 
WildCat said:
And help confirm that airing this program generated more publicity and interest for the channel than even a Super Bowl ad could buy.

Somewhere in TDC headquarters there's high-fives all around.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure "All publicity is good publicity" isn't the motto of the communications and marketing folks working for Big Brand companies like Discovery.
 
For my money the best Shark Documentary ever done is was "Blue Water, White Death" done back in the 1970's.
 
Skwinty said:
The ocean covers 71 percent of the Earth's surface and contains 97 percent of the planet's water, yet more than 95 percent of the underwater world remains unexplored. The ocean and lakes play an integral role in many of the Earth's systems including climate and weather.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't understand why it's a classic woo line.
 
I remember a Japanese girl I knew who thought that the X-Files were based on true stories. There was some sort of claim made in the opening credits or something that the events depicted were "based on eyewitness accounts" or something like that. This was translated into Japanese in a way that made it seem like there was more truth there than fiction. Some people just "want to believe" like Mulder I guess.
 
kellyb said:
That's completely irrelevant to an after-the-fact backlash against their airing of fake pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


There will be no backlash. All the non-fiction channels have gone the route of low-brow idiocy for a reason -- it sells.

TV programming is about delivering an audience to advertisers. Advertisers prefer certain audience characteristics, and suggestibility is a big one. It's the same reason that Larry King spent so many years delivering an audience that believes in talking to the dead to CNN's advertisers.
 
hgc said:
There will be no backlash. All the non-fiction channels have gone the route of low-brow idiocy for a reason -- it sells.

TV programming is about delivering an audience to advertisers. Advertisers prefer certain audience characteristics, and suggestibility is a big one. It's the same reason that Larry King spent so many years delivering an audience that believes in talking to the dead to CNN's advertisers.
Click to expand...

You might be right.
How depressing.
 
The Daily Show is doing this story right now.

What is the sharktroversy?
 
Miss_Kitt said:
To remind those who didn't actually watch the program: It was absolutely played as factual. The disclaimers -- such as they were -- were shown at the end of the program and scrolled by so fast that I couldn't read all of them. ( And I read quickly, and was looking for them!)

Discovery replied to my complaint e-mail, and I'd like to quote their (obviously canned) reply:

"...With a whole week of Shark Week programming ahead of us, we wanted to
explore the possibilities of Megalodon. It's one of the most debated shark discussions of all time, can Megalodon exist today? It's Ultimate Shark
Week fantasy. The stories have been out there for years and with 95% of the
ocean unexplored, we wanted to explore the myth and fantasy of these great
beasts during the fun and joy that has become the nation's annual
celebration of all things shark and Shark Week.

This program, and storytelling that engages on fact-based hypothesis to
explore unexplained legends, has always been part of Discovery's mission
and offerings since our beginning. But please know that in an effort to
ensure the highest quality programming, comments such as these are taken
very seriously and we value you, our viewers, more than anything else we
do. Each and every comment is forwarded on to our programming executives
for review, consideration and debate.

..."

What bothers me most is the area I highlighted. There is NO such debate. The existence of a living prehistoric gigantic shark is not supported by even dubious 'evidence' -- thus they had to create some. The only debate of the issue is happening now, because Discovery has used its credibility to mislead its viewers.

I reiterate that I think we need some Big Guns in the science community to come down on them publically. I don't mind 'recreation' videos; I loved "Walking With Dinosaurs" and its ilk. But those shows clearly indicate they are recreations or hypothetical. This was equally clearly an attempt to portray fiction as fact.

As others have stated, the issue here is that a company that still describes itself on its masthead as "The World's #1 Nonfiction Media Company" is promoting what it knows to be complete and utter fiction as though it were fact. See their corporate website:

http://corporate.discovery.com/

Also please note that NONE of the quick, small-print disclaimers ever actually said that they had manufactured all the 'evidence' videos, stills, and non-fossilized teeth; or that the 'scientists' were all actors.

This is a chance for people who DO want quality programming, who think science fact is more interesting than science fiction, to stand up and be heard. We represent a bigger chunk of the public than the person(s) who decided to pitch Discovery's reputation under the bus realizes. Be heard! Send them an e-mail; comment on the website. Or, if you really want to stand out, send them a written letter via US Snail.

If the channel can be made to apologize and modify the program to have several clear notices that it is 'for entertainment' and 'not factual' then we will have scored a victory for truth and integrity. I think that's worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

What's next for Discovery? The evolution/creation debate? The age of the earth - another big debate.
 
Skwinty said:
You're right, I am not an expert on woo. Perhaps you can explain why NOAA uses a classic woo line?

The statement is either factual or it isn't.
Click to expand...


Well, it has been classically used by various cryptidites (probably not a word!) like bigfooters. X% amount of the woods are unexplored, so it could be out there!

Obviously when dealing with woods the percentage is way less likely to be a real unexplored % than with the oceans. But that does not make the argument any more logical. The actual claim. There are various very good reasons why we know this creature very likely does not exist anymore in our oceans.

Let me give you a few more common examples for comparison:

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, a Plesiosaur could very well be living in there!"

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, our undiscovered distant relatives the aqua-men could very well be living in there!"

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, space aliens could very well be hiding in there!"

(That last one is probably more likely than Megalodon, surprisingly!)


The "our oceans remain 95% unexplored" is not only a distraction, it is a hook that rubs the "anything is possible" crowd exactly how they want to be rubbed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom