1. Literature Review
2. The White Shark in the Media: A Shark Is a Shark Is a Jaws Shark
- Statements about the “reality” of particular phenomena in these programs do not meet the standards of logic and evidence of established science due to their unrepeatability, weakness, or outright falsehood. In other words, to be viable, these statements would necessitate the rethinking of well-established science garnered through a rigorous process of observation, testing, and experimentation (Campbell 2016, pp. 188, 193; Sokal 2006, p. 288).
- Visual communication of science is chiefly accomplished through superficial “accouterments” or “trappings”, such as the enlisting of real scientists who supply samples or provide specimen analysis, insertion of lab imagery, and the use of technology, all of which attempt to ensure a measure of credibility for the pseudoscientific theories floated in the program (Campbell 2016, p. 193; Brewer 2012, p. 324).
- Evidence collection and witness examination are usually performed by a two-person team invested in the research, who also engage in “fact-finding” missions yet fail to secure conclusive evidence to back up their claims. The team relies on uncontested interviewee statements as a form of witness testimony, which amounts to little more than anecdotal evidence. Given the lack of conclusive proof, the team’s “discovery trips” also ultimately serve as nothing more than entertainment for themselves and the production crew.
3. Materials and Methods
4.1. Plot Structure
5.1. The Investigative Team and the Jaws Shark: The White Shark as Monster
5.2. The Shark Scientist
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Adams, Carol. 2015. Consumer Vision: Specieism, Mysoginy, and Media. In Critical Animal and Media Studies. Edited by Núria Almiron, Matthew Cole and Carrie P. Freeman. Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. London and New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 56–73. [Google Scholar]
- Aich, Raj Sekhar. 2021. Jaws and Beauty: Reflections on Great White Shark demystification. Academia Letters 2869: 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aitzen, Samantha. 2017. ‘Great White Shark Serial Killer Lives’ Is a True Story & This Shark Week Special Is Looking for Answers. Bustle.com. July 23. Available online: https://www.bustle.com/p/great-white-shark-serial-killer-lives-is-a-true-story-this-shark-week-special-is-looking-for-answers-71764 (accessed on 6 January 2020).
- Apps, Kirin, Kay Dimmock, and Charlie Huveneers. 2018. Turning wildlife experiences into conservation action: Can white shark cage-dive tourism influence conservation behaviour? Marine Policy 88: 108–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barcia, Laura Garcia, Juana Argiro, Elizabeth A. Babcock, Cai Yong, Stanley K. H. Shea, and Demian D. Chapman. 2020. Mercury and arsenic in processed fins from nine of the most traded shark species in the Hong Kong and China dried seafood markets: The potential health risks of shark fin soup. Marine Pollution Bulletin 157: 111281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berger, John. 2009. Why Look at Animals. Westminster: Penguin. [Google Scholar]
- Biancorosso, Giorgio. 2010. The Shark in the Music. Music Analysis 29: 306–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bierly, Mandy. 2015. ‘Shark Week’: Inside ‘Return of the Great White Serial Killer’. Yahoo Entertainment. July 6. Available online: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/shark-week-return-great-white-serial-killer-alien-123344983005.html (accessed on 10 August 2020).
- Boissonneault, Marie-France, William Gladstone, Paul Scott, and Nancy Cushing. 2005. Grey Nurse Shark Human Interactions and Portrayals: A Study of Newspaper Portrayals of the Grey Nurse Shark from 1969–2003. Electronic Green Journal 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bornatowski, Hugo, Nigel E. Hussey, Cláudio L. S. Sampaio, and Rodrigo R. P. Barreto. 2019. Geographic bias in the media reporting of aquatic versus terrestrial human predator conflicts and its conservation implications. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17: 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, Paul R. 2012. The trappings of science: Media messages, scientific authority, and beliefs about paranormal investigators. Science Communication 35: 311–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Elizabeth. 2016. How a Century of Fear Turned Deadly for Sharks. Florida Museum. June 26. Available online: https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/how-a-century-of-fear-turned-deadly-for-sharks (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Campbell, Vincent. 2016. Science, Entertainment and Television Documentary. London: Palgrave MacMillan. [Google Scholar]
- Cardeñosa, Diego, Andrew T. Fields, Elizabeth A. Babcock, Huarong Zhang, Kevin Feldheim, Stanley K. H. Shea, Gunter A. Fischer, and Demian D. Chapman. 2018. CITES-listed sharks remain among the top species in the contemporary fin trade. Conservation Letters 11: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, Noël. 1990. The Philosophy of Horror: Or, Paradoxes of the Heart. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Cavanaugh, Patrick. 2020. Shark Week: Air Jaws Director Jeff Kurr Looks Back at the Legacy of the Discovery Channel Series. Comicbook.com. August 7. Available online: https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/shark-week-air-jaws-jeff-kurr-director-interview-discovery-channel/ (accessed on 19 August 2020).
- Ceballos, Gerardo, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anthony D. Barnosky, Andrés García, Robert M. Pringle, and Todd M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1: e1400253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Amico, Lisa Nicole. 2013. Ecopornography and the Commodification of Extinction: The Rhetoric of Natural History Filmmaking, 1895-Present. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Dancyger, Ken, and Jeff Rush. 2007. Alternative Scriptwriting: Beyond the Hollywood Formula, 4th ed. Waltham: Focal Press. [Google Scholar]
- DeMello, Margo. 2021. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Donovan, John, and Dan Morris. 2013. Sharks: Why We’re Obsessed with This Perfect Movie Villain, and Why That’s Bad. ABC News. August 8. Available online: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/sharks-obsessed-perfect-movie-villain-bad/story?id=19886673 (accessed on 25 August 2020).
- Duhaime-Ross, Arielle. 2014. How Shark Week Screws Scientists. Discovery Is Alienating the Very People Who Supply Its Content: Scientists. The Verge. August 13. First published 2013. Available online: https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998745/how-shark-week-screws-scientists (accessed on 14 July 2020).
- Dulvy, Nicholas, Colin A. Simpfendorfer, Lindsay N. K. Davidson, Sonja V. Fordham, Arnie Bräutingam, Glenn Sant, and David J. Welch. 2017. Challenges and Priorities in Shark and Ray Conservation. Current Biology 27: R565–R572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunayer, Joan. 2015. Mixed Messages: Opinion Pieces by Representatives of US Nonhuman-Advocacy Organizations. In Critical Animal and Media Studies. Edited by Núria Almiron, Matthew Cole and Carrie P. Freeman. Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. London and New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 91–106. [Google Scholar]
- Dunkel, Tom. 2015. Will Discovery Channel’s Shark Week Continue to Swim in Strange Waters? The Washington Post. June 18. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/great-white-hope/2015/06/15/d6b2c7be-056d-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html (accessed on 17 August 2020).
- Edgerton, Gary R. 2001. Television as Historian: A Different Kind of History Altogether. In Television Histories: Shaping Collective Memory in the Media Age. Edited by Gary R. Edgerton and Peter C. Rollins. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Ellefson, Merja, and Eva Kingsepp. 2004. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Stereotyping Russia the Western Way. In News of the Other: Tracing Identity in Scandinavian Constructions of the Eastern Baltic Sea Region. Edited by Kristina Riegert. Nashwauk: Northern Perspectives, vol. 6, pp. 203–22. [Google Scholar]
- Environmental News Network. 2020. Plastics Found in Sea-Bed Sharks. July 22. Available online: https://www.enn.com/articles/64584-plastics-found-in-sea-bed-sharks (accessed on 24 July 2020).
- Evans, Suzannah. 2015. Shark Week and the Rise of Infotainment in Science Documentaries. Communication Research Reports 32: 265–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferretti, Francesco, Boris Worm, Gregory L. Britten, Michael R. Heithaus, and Heike K Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecological Letters 13: 1055–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishman, Mark. 1980. Manufacturing the News. Austin: University of Texas. [Google Scholar]
- Ford, Akkadia, and Zan Hammerton. 2020. Shifting the Anthropocentric Paradigms Embedded in Film and Classification (Ratings) Systems That Impact Apex Species. Animal Studies Journal 9: 147–91. Available online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol9/iss2/7/ (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- Francis, Beryl. 2012. Before and After Jaws: Changing Representations of Shark Attacks. The Great Circle 34: 44–61. Available online: https://jstor.org/stable/23622226 (accessed on 22 August 2021).
- Frank, Scott. 2003. Reel Reality: Science Consultants in Hollywood. Science as Culture 12: 427–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisch, Ashley J., and Justin R. Rizzari. 2019. Parks for sharks: Human exclusion areas outperform no-take marine reserves. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17: 145–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, Michael. 2018a. All Teeth and Claws: Constructing Bears as Man-Eating Monsters in Television Documentaries. European Journal of American Studies 13: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, Michael. 2018b. Looking through the Beast’s Eyes? The Dialectics of Seeing the Monster and Being Seen by the Monster in Shark Horror Movies Mise-en-Scène: The Journal of Film & Visual Narration 3: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbs, Leah. 2020. Agency in Human-Shark Encounter. EPE: Nature and Space, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerra, Ana Sofia. 2019. Wolves of the Sea: Managing human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean. Marine Policy 99: 369–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammerton, Zan, and Akkadia Ford. 2018. Decolonising the Waters: Interspecies Encounters Between Sharks and Humans. Animal Studies Journal 7: 270–303. Available online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol7/iss1/13 (accessed on 22 August 2021).
- Hardiman, Nigel, Shelley Burgey, and Jia Shao. 2020. How Sharks and Shark–Human Interactions are Reported in Major Australian Newspapers. Sustainability 12: 2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heupel, Michelle R., Danielle M. Knip, Colin A Simpledorfer, and Nicholas K Dulvy. 2014. Sizing up the Ecological Role of Sharks as Predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 495: 291–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huveneers, Charlie, Kirin Apps, Edgar E. Becerril-García, Barry Bruce, Paul A. Butcher, Aaron B. Carlisle, Taylor K. Chapple, Heather M. Christiansen, Geremy Cliff, Tobey H. Curtis, and et al. 2018. Future Research Directions on the Elusive White Shark. Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingham, H. Rae Westbury, David L. Neumann, and Allison M. Waters. 2015. Empathy-related ratings to still images of human and nonhuman animal groups in negative contexts graded for phylogenetic similarity. Anthrozoös 28: 113–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, David. 2000. Green Screen: Environmentalism and Hollywood Cinema. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. [Google Scholar]
- International Shark Attack File. 2019. Yearly Worldwide Shark Attack Summary. Florida Museum. Available online: https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary (accessed on 18 August 2020).
- IUCN Red List. 2020. White Shark. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=white%20shark&searchType=species (accessed on 29 May 2020).
- Jürgens, Uta Maria, and Paul M. W. Hacket. 2021. Wolves, Crows, and Spiders: An eclectic Literature Review inspires a Model explaining Humans’ similar Reactions to ecologically different Wildlife. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, Brandon. 2019. Why Shark Movies Are Such Reliable Box Office Bets: A Deep Dive. Observer.com. July 6. Available online: https://observer.com/2019/07/shark-movies-box-office-the-meg-the-shallows-47-meters-down-jaws (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Koven, Mikel J. 2007. Most haunted and the convergence of traditional belief and popular television. Folklore 118: 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraterou, Aliki. 2021. Close Encounter: Shark Attacks to Be Renamed ‘Negative Encounters’ & ‘Bites’ to Change Deadly Predators’ Image, Say Scientists. The Sun. July 15. Available online: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15597242/shark-attacks-renamed-negative-encounters-change-deadly-predators-image/ (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Kueffer, Christoph, and Brendon M.H Larson. 2014. Responsible Use of Language in Scientific Writing and Science Communication. Bioscience 64: 719–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Busque, Brianna, and Carla Litchfield. 2021. Sharks on film: An analysis of how shark-human interactions are portrayed in films. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Busque, Brianna, Philip Roetman, Jillian Dorrian, and Carla Litchfield. 2019. An analysis of Australian news and current affair program coverage of sharks on Facebook. Conservation Science and Practice 1: e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Busque, Brianna, Jillian Dorrian, and Carla Litchfield. 2021a. The impact of news media portrayals of sharks on public perception of risk and support for shark conservation. Marine Policy 24: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Busque, Brianna, Philip Roetman, Jillian Dorrian, and Carla Litchfield. 2021b. People’s fear of sharks: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerberg, Matthew. 2016. Jabbering Jaws: Reimagining Representations of Sharks Post-Jaws. In Screening the Nonhuman: Representations of Animal Others in the Media. Edited by Amber E. George and J. L. Schatz. Lanham: Lexington Books, pp. 33–46. [Google Scholar]
- Letessier, Tom, David Mouillot, Phil J. Bouchet, Laurent Vigliola, Marjorie C. Fernandes, Chris Thompson, Germain Boussarie, Jemma Turner, Jean-Baptiste Juhel, Eva Maire, and et al. 2019. Remote reefs and seamounts are the last refuges for marine predators across the Indo-Pacific. PLoS Biology 17: e3000366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linné, Tobias. 2015. Tears, Connections, Action! Teaching Critical Animal and Media Studies. In Critical Animal and Media Studies. Edited by Núria Almiron, Matthew Cole and Carrie P. Freeman. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 251–64. [Google Scholar]
- Lucrezi, Serena, Suria Ellis, and Enrico Gennari. 2019. A test of causative and moderator effects in human perceptions of sharks, their control and framing. Marine Policy 109: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundén, Elizabeth Castaldo. 2012. Jaws: Creating the Myth of the Man-Eating Machine. Master’s thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
- Manfredo, Michael, Esmeralda G. Urquiza-Haas, Andrew W. Don Carlos, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, and Alia Dietsch. 2020. How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation 241: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, R. Aidan, Kim D. Rossmo, and Neil Hammershlag. 2009. Geographic profiling applied to track hunting patterns of white sharks in South Africa. Journal of Zoology 279: 111–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCagh, Christine, Joanne Sneddon, and Dominique Blache. 2015. Killing sharks: The media’s role in public and political response to fatal human–shark interactions. Marine Policy 62: 271–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merskin, Debra L. 2015. Media Theories and the Crossroads of Critical Animal Media Studies. In Critical Animal and Media Studies. Edited by Núria Almiron, Matthew Cole and Carrie P. Freeman. Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. London and New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 11–25. [Google Scholar]
- Merskin, Debra L. 2018. Seeing Species: Re-Presentations of Animals in Media & Popular Culture. New York: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
- Metz, Anneke M. 2008. A Fantasy Made Real: The Evolution of the Subjunctive Documentary on US cable Science Channels. Television and New Media 9: 333–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikos, Lothar. 2014. Analysis of Film. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Edited by Uwe Flick. London and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 409–23. [Google Scholar]
- Mikos, Lothar, Susanne Eichner, Elizabeth Prommer, and Michael Wedel. 2008. Involvement in ‘The Lord of the Rings: Audience strategies and orientation. In Watching the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien’s World Audiences. Edited by Martin Barker and Ernest Mathijs. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 111–29. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, Suzanne. 2003. Summer of the Shark? Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go into the Water...It Is. July 24. Available online: https://www.spiked-online.com/2003/07/24/summer-of-the-shark/ (accessed on 31 July 2020).
- Muter, Bret A., Meredith L. Gore, Katie S. Gledhill, Christopher Lamont, and Charlie Huveneers. 2013. Australian and U.S. news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation Biology 27: 187–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myrick, Jessica Gail, and Suzannah D. Evans. 2014. Do PSAs Take a Bite Out of Shark Week? The Effects of Juxtaposing Environmental Messages With Violent Images of Shark Attacks. Science Communication 36: 544–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neff, Christopher. 2015. The Jaws Effect: How movie narratives are used to influence policy responses to shark bites in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science 50: 114–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neff, Christopher, and Robert Hueter. 2013. Science, policy, and the public discourse of shark attack: A proposal for reclassifying human–shark interactions. Journal of Environmental Studies in Science 3: 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nosal, Andrew P., Elizabeth A. Keenan, Philip A. Hastings, and Ayelet Gneezy. 2016. Hastings, and Ayelet Gneezy.The Effect of Background Music in Shark Documentaries on Viewers’ Perceptions of Sharks. PLoS ONE 18: e0159279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyhus, Philip J. 2016. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41: 143–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordiz, Andrés, Richard Bischof, and Jon E. Swenson. 2013. Saving Large Carnivores, But Losing the Apex Predator? Biological Conservation 168: 128–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oxley, Douglas R., Arnold Vedlitz, and B. Dan Wood. 2014. The Effect of Persuasive Messages on Policy Problem Recognition. The Policy Studies Journal 42: 252–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, Garrett. 2016. How Much The Discovery Channel Makes During Shark Week. Money Inc. Available online: https://moneyinc.com/discovery-channel-shark-week/ (accessed on 19 August 2020).
- Parletta, Natalie. 2019. The Man Who Swims with Sharks. Interview of Charlie Huveneers. Cosmos Magazine. March 3. Available online: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-man-who-swims-with-sharks/ (accessed on 6 June 2020).
- Peace, Adrian. 2015. Sharks Aren’t Criminals, But Our Fear Makes Us Talk as If They Are. The Conversation. January 26. Available online: https://theconversation.com/sharks-arent-criminals-but-our-fear-makes-us-talk-as-if-they-are-36493 (accessed on 31 July 2020).
- Pepin-Neff, Christopher. 2014. Shark Bite Statistics Can Lie, and the Result Is Bad Policy. The Conversation. January 15. Available online: https://theconversation.com/shark-bite-statistics-can-lie-and-the-result-is-bad-policy-21789 (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- Pepin-Neff, Christopher, and Thomas Wynter. 2018a. Shark Bites and Shark Conservation: An Analysis of Human Attitudes Following Shark Bite Incidents in Two Locations in Australia. Conservation Letters 11: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pepin-Neff, Christopher, and Thomas Wynter. 2018b. Reducing fear to influence policy preferences: An experiment with sharks and beach safety policy options. Marine Policy 88: 222–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, Richard E., and Duane T. Wegener. 1998. Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables. In Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Daniel Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske and Gardner Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 323–90. [Google Scholar]
- Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2009. Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Washington, DC: Pew Center, Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/ (accessed on 25 August 2021).
- Pollo, Simone, Mariuccia Graziano, and Cristina Giacoma. 2009. The ethics of natural history documentary. Animal Behaviour 77: 1357–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qirko, Hector. 2017. Kinship appeals and conservation social marketing. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 1009–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, William. 2020. Humanity’s Plague Phase. Ecological Economics 169: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rober, Mark. 2021. Producer. Shark vs. GoPro (Video). Broadcast on Shark Week 2021, Discovery+, July 12. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6tnF31zr4 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
- Sabatier, Etienne, and Charlie Huveneers. 2018. Changes in Media Portrayal of Human-Wildlife Conflict During Successive Fatal Shark Bites. Conservation & Society 16: 338–50. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500645?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed on 15 July 2020).
- Schilds, Adam, Johann Mourier, Charlie Huveneers, Leila Nazimi, Andrew Fox, and Stephan T. Leu. 2019. Evidence for non-random co-occurrences in a white shark aggregation. In Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. vol. 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiffman, David. 2018. Shark Scientists Explain What’s Right and What’s Wrong with Shark Week. Washington Post. July 24. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/07/24/shark-scientists-explain-whats-right-and-whats-wrong-with-shark-week/ (accessed on 30 July 2021).
- Shiffman, David S., Sarah Joy Bittick, Madeline S Cashion, Sheila R. Colla, Laura E Coristine, Danielle H. Derrick, Elizabeth A. Gow, Catherine C. Macdonald, Mikayla More O’Ferrall, Melissa Orokbo, and et al. 2020. Inaccurate and Biased Global Media Coverage Underlies Public Misunderstanding of Shark Conservation Threats and Solutions. iScience 23: 101205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverstone, Roger. 1984. Narrative strategies in television science. Media, Culture and Society 6: 377–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmons, Peter, and Michael Mehmet. 2018. Feeding Frenzy: Public Accuse the Media of Deliberately Fueling Shark Fear. The Conversation. June 22. Available online: https://theconversation.com/feeding-frenzy-public-accuse-the-media-of-deliberately-fuelling-shark-fear-95858 (accessed on 17 April 2021).
- Sokal, Alan D. 2006. Pseudoscience and postmodernism: Antagonists or fellow travellers? In Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Edited by Garrett G. Fagan. London and New Yok: Routledge, pp. 286–361. [Google Scholar]
- Solstice Media. 2019. Great Whites Shake Loner Tag. Medium. October 22. Available online: https://newsleads.medium.com/white-sharks-shake-loner-tag-7507146e167f (accessed on 14 November 2019).
- Spielberg, Stephen. 1975. Director. Jaws (Film). Distributed by Universal Pictures. Available online: https://universalstudios.fandom.com/wiki/Jaws_(Film) (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John MacNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio 36: 624–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stockton, Nick. 2016. The Ethics of Why You Should Definitely Watch Shark Week. Wired. June 29. Available online: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ethics-definitely-watchshark-week (accessed on 19 August 2019).
- Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases and Law. The Yale Law Journal 112: 61–107. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/i270358 (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Tavares, Davi Castro, Jailson Fulgencio de Moura, Esteban Acevedo-Trejos, and Agostino Merico. 2019. Traits Shared by Marine Megafauna and Their Relationships With Ecosystem Functions and Services. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, Teun A. 1981. Episodes as Units of Discourse Analysis. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Edited by Deborah Tannen. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 177–95. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dijk, Teun A. 1988. News Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
- Vidal, John. 2004. ‘Dead Zones’ Are Blamed for Rise in Shark Attacks. The Guardian. August 7. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/aug/07/conservationandendangeredspecies.internationalnews (accessed on 5 August 2019).
- Wallace, Paige. 2019. Phony Facts and Eco-media: Fake Nature and the Call for Widespread Media Literacy. Environmental Communication 13: 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitley, Cameron Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Tim Flach. 2021. Using Animal Portraiture to Activate Emotional Affect. Environment and Behavior 53: 837–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, Linda. 1998. Melodrama revised. In Refiguring American Film Genres. Edited by Nick Browne. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 42–88. [Google Scholar]
- Winters, Ben. 2008. Corporeality, Musical Heartbeats, and Cinematic Emotion. Music, Sound, and the Moving Image 2: 3–25. Available online: https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/269080 (accessed on 23 August 2021).
- Yuhas, Alan. 2021. Don’t Call Them Shark Attacks, Scientists Say. The New York Times. July 20. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/science/shark-attacks.html (accessed on 24 July 2021).
|Segments and Sub-Segments||Cast Member(s)|
|Introduction and 6 segments: Brief recap of shark encounters between 2008–2014; Collier and McMillan seen together in intro and segment 3. |
Segment 1: Spear fisher off Devil’s Jaw struck (2016); dubbed the most recent.
Segments 2, 4–7: McMillan (alone) interviews surfers, kayaker, and other witnesses in 2008–2014 shark encounters.
|McMillan, Collier (intro, seg 3)|
McMillan (seg 4, 5, 6, 7)
|Sub-segment 1: Narrator makes the case that McMillan and Collier are thinking the shark culprit could be a female on a 2-year migration coming back to her hunting grounds. Domaier begs to differ. He is on site on a boat to deploy satellite tagging and find out whether the sharks are coming from the Farallon, Guadalupe, or Southern California. Narrator calls shark concentration in the area “abnormal.”||McMillan, Collier|
|Sub-segment 2: Collier measures shark teeth involved in “attacks” and explains measurement technique. Domaier on boat shoots down methodology: inconsistency of tooth patterns. Notes that first 3 sharks measured between 16–17 ft., last one was 20 ft. He clarifies that it is simply more sharks traveling through the area.||Collier, Domaier|
|Sub-segment 3: Report that kayaker was struck near Gaviota Beach (2015). |
Voice of male surfer interviewed by McMillan says that it felt like something massive hitting.
|Sub-segment 4: Domaier hopes to capture sharks and tag them.||Domaier|
|Sub-segment 5: Domaier finds no sharks, only a whale carcass with shark bites.||Domaier|
|Sub-segment 6: McMillan with Collier at Morro Bay (2015). |
Narrator states they have solid evidence for a single shark in multiple attacks.
|Sub-segment 7: Narrator notes that Morro Bay is just 30 mi. north of Gaviota.|
Collier bases his assertions that it could be the same shark based on 3 attacks in Morro Bay by white sharks in the span of 11 days 30 min. apart and separated by 400 yards.
|Sub-segment 8: McMillan with male surfer who was hit (2015). McMillan states that shark was “stalking you” and surfer replies that it struck him as “predatorial.”||McMillan|
|Sub-segment 9: Collier with female surfer whose board was bit after the male surfer’s board. Collier measures distance of shark teeth on male surfer’s and female surfer’s boards and purportedly finds a match. Collier states that there is precedent for same shark coming back because the same shark attacked several people in 1916 and 2010.||Collier|
|Sub-segment 10: Narrator wonders if it is the same shark coming back on a two-year interval to kill. Domaier on boat interjects that there is no evidence of a shark that has figured out how to kill or eat people or that likes to do so but says nonetheless that the pattern of strikes coincides with his own discovery of the female 2-year migration cycle.||Domaier|
|Sub-segment 11: October 2016, 2 months after the spear fisher hit at Devil’s Jaw. Domaier and assistants reel in and tag a 14½-ft. female shark. Long sequence.||Domaier|
|Sub-segment 12: Guadalupe I—McMillan with “naturalist”/cage dive operator Jimi Partington who explains how sharks eat elephant seals. McMillan asks a leading question, noting that if an 18-ft animal can take a chunk out of an animal that large (elephant seal), a human should be no problem. Narrator adds that a large female will leave the area pregnant.||McMillan|
|Sub-segment 13: Collier expects to find out if same shark is “responsible” for the strikes. Heads to morgue for shark tooth enamel from body of surfer killed in 2010 encounter, which is taken to Cal Lutheran for DNA analysis, which is described as a revolutionary methodology.||Collier|
|Sub-segment 14: Collier goes digging for more clues: fragments left behind in any of the attacks to find the shark “responsible.”||Collier|
|Sub-segment 15: Guadalupe II: McMillan with naturalist/cage diving operator Jimi Partington who touches nose of baited shark so mouth gapes. Dubbed as rarely-seen behavior. Long sequence.||McMillan|
|Sub-segment 16: Collier with sea otter biologist in Morro Bay to collect more shark tooth fragments. Tally of 160 otters shark-bitten.||Collier|
|Sub-segment 17: Collier collects more tooth fragments in Santa Ynez, California from a shark-bit kayak in 2014. Owner notes that shark rolled kayak over and came out of the water. Dorsal size: 3 feet. Domaier on boat has also collected a tiny bit of skin sample from dorsal of female tagged for DNA analysis.||Collier|
|Sub-segment 18: Collier looks to have the DNA analysis done at Cal Lutheran and find out whether there is a match for the shark behind the 2010 surfer death.||Collier|
|Sub-segment 19: Guadalupe III—McMillan with Jimi Partington. Clip of Shark Emma going after backup air supply of Jimi’s submersed cage.||McMillan|
|Sub-segment 20: Domaier has tagged a 14½-ft female, a 17-ft. female, and a 10-ft. male. Reports location on satellite tracking device. Only first female located.||Domaier|
|Sub-segment 21: Collier and McMillan wait for results from Cal Lutheran: no match found. Narrator says with tooth enamel samples, investigation now building a genetic database of white sharks in the region. Collier: identify shark “responsible.”||McMillan, Collier|
|Sub-segment 22: No match found. Narrator notes that number of hits off Surf Beach can be explained by more people recreating in the water coming across an increasing number of white sharks. Domaier encounters a small elephant cove that puts an end to the mystery behind the strikes because it functions as a shark ‘refueling stop’. Narrator notes that humans are not on the shark menu since sharks are following a growing number of seals. But as McMillan takes to the water on his surfboard, Narrator muses about the thought of a giant hungry female coming back to the area and another appointment with the shark.||Domaier, McMillan|
|Total Appearances: McMillan: 15; Collier 13 (together in 5); Domaier: 8 (on boat)|
|Total images of sharks of various sizes and ages: 205. |
Eighty-nine visuals or 43.4 percent in presumably aggressive poses: whole sharks with mouth open, lunging, and in Jaws poses.
Shark body parts: dorsal (“stalking”), eye (“consciousness”)
|Segment/Sub-segment Sharks Totals and in Aggressive Poses|
Dorsal and Eye Number, Shot Size, and Effects (FX)
|Segment 3:||0||0||1 MCU|
|Segment 4:||5||1||1 MCU||2 ECU shark with eye on camera|
|Sub-segment 1:||9||4 Jaws||1 ECU right eye and FX|
|Sub-segment 2:||1||1||1 CU-ECU|
|Sub-segment 3:||4||2||1 CU|
|1 blurry CU eye SLO MO|
1 ECU eye
|Sub-segment 4:||3||0||1 very large ECU eye|
|Sub-segment 6:||6||2||1 MCU-CU|
1 MCU FX
|Sub-segment 8:||4||3||1 larger ECU eye|
|Sub-segment 9:||6||3||1 ECU|
|1 huge ECU eye|
|Sub-segment 11: (shark reeled in, dorsal tagged)||29||0||3 MS|
|Sub-segment 12||10||4||1 ECU|
|CU-ECU shark with eye on camera|
|Sub-segment 15||35||20 Jaws|
|Sub-segment 17||6||1 Jaws||1 MCU|
(tag attached to dorsal)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).