I really like the second half of the video clip above from NatGeo Wild. It’s actually rich with information about how sharks locate meals. It also educates the audience about ampullae of Lorenzini, and the hammerhead shark’s unique head shape.

Unfortunately, the first half of the video contains ominous warnings about humans and hammerheads being on a “collision course,” because they happen to occupy the same body of water. This is followed by some relatively graphic “attack” footage that seems to be forced into the segment, as it really has nothing to do with the narrator’s discussion of the hammerhead shark. In fact, not long after the second instance of faux shark attack footage, the narrator asserts that the scalloped hammerhead sharks in question “don’t appear to look upon humans as a potential meal.”

The video does go on to redeem itself after the unnecessary “attack” footage, but it makes me wonder why the clip has scenes of panicking victims and bloody water, in the first place. I also question why the information describing the video refers to the hammerhead as a “vicious shark” who “never lets a human get between it and a tasty meal,” when the main theme of the video speaks to the contrary.

I’ve enjoyed National Geographic’s offerings ever since I can remember, and it was a National Geographic feature on white sharks that first piqued my interest in sharks when I was barely old enough to read. It makes me wonder if a young child were watching this clip whether they would be more likely to remember the worthwhile information in the second half of the clip or the scenes of an implied shark attack.

While it doesn’t appear that the victim ever claimed to have been attacked by great white shark, at least one witness, Michael Brown (a “shark spotter”), made the rounds with the media suggesting that a 2m (6.5′) juvenile great white could have attacked the man. According to ABC News, Brown claimed that “the animal that bit Mr Welsh appeared to be a two-metre great white, by the look of its tail.” Brown also told the Herald Sun that Welsh grabbed a rock, he “was hanging on to the rock for grim death.” ABC News reports that Brown has a history of stirring up fears about sharks in Sydney and has accused the NSW Government of ignoring warning signs that shark populations were increasing in the area.

Steve Whan, NSW Primary Industries Minister, has called Brown’s integrity into question regarding his account of the incident and commented that one would not have to know much about sharks to distinguish a wobbegong from a great white.

By the way, this is wobbegong shark…

and this is a great white shark…

The Today Show segment goes all-out with unrelenting Jaws references, the Jaws soundtrack, and some of the more ridiculous interview clips from other reports (including my favorite, “If they’re going to grab something as big as another shark, they’re definitely going to grab my daughter.”. The Today Show on-air personalities even join in on the Jaws-based hysteria, at the end of the segment. To the Today Show’s credit they do mention that the shark in Jaws is “mythical.” I’m glad they are at least aware that it’s just a movie.

One would think that a reputable network news program like NBC today would have at least taken the time to research the story before running wild with it, but apparently that wouldn’t have put a damper on the whole 20′ great white shark angle.

Fortunately, the good folks over Underwater Thrills: Swimming with Sharks decided to take the time to contact various agencies in Australia about the story and were told by Tony Ham, The Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries manager, that the shark in photo was “a confirmed 3.3 meter (10′) white shark, caught by our contractor, he measured the primary bite mark at 50 centimeters.” However, Ham went on to say that his team estimated that based on the bite marks, the feeding shark was in the 5-5.2 meter (16-17′) range. Even the Courier Mail who first ran the image of the mauled shark on October 24, have marveled at how the feeding shark seems to have magically grown since the story first broke.

Now, I’m only speculating here, but I think that NBC’s Today show probably has a larger operating budget than the Underwater Thrills: Swimming with Sharks blog. So, why is it that a shark blog was able to track down some legitimate information about this story, while a media giant seemed to be incapable of looking past a overly-sensational depiction of the story? My opinion is that NBC’s Today show was simply looking for a shock and awe story, so journalistic responsibility was cast aside for some good old fashioned fear, which really seems to draw in an audience, for some reason.

Let’s take a step back into reality, shall we? 5m is not outside of the range of what would generally be considered a normal length for an adult white shark. It is hardly a "giant," relatively speaking, when it comes to white sharks. So, who is spreading the fear about a monster off the coast of Queensland? Is it the actual shark or the over-the-top sensationalized reporting about the shark?

Believe it or not, this is just a wild animal. It's not actually a monster.

While the video itself plays on the drama and danger of the situation, it still manages to do a fairly good job of avoiding portraying the shark in a negative manner. Unfortunately, it seems that whoever wrote the description of this (otherwise shark-conscious) video simply could not resist the urge to add some negative hype. The video description currently reads…

A rescue team performs emergency surgery on a MAN-EATING Sand Tiger Shark – but they have to catch it first.

Is it really necessary (or even accurate) to refer to a sand tiger shark as “man-eating?” Sand tigers are generally regarded as being non-aggressive around humans and simply do not have a history of being “man-eaters.” While this kind of over-the-top hype seems commonplace among The Discovery Channel’s recent shark-related programming, I still expect better from National Geographic.

The Daily Star deserves an award!

Congratulations, The Daily Star, you are truly special!

Note: It is generally accepted that the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) is not considered to be aggressive toward or dangerous to humans, although divers are cautioned to treat thresher sharks with respect (this is a general rule with all aquatic life). Injuries (non-decapitating ones) to divers have been documented as a result of being struck by the thresher’s whip-like tail, which can occur if the shark is provoked.

Real-life great white sharks, like this one and the ones recently spotted near Chatham, are often times confused with the large, fake, mechanical shark featured in the movie, Jaws, by some media outlets.

ContactMusic’s article, “Jaws sightings close Massachusetts Beaches,” is about as utterly ridiculous as they come. Just to clarify the headline, multiple sightings of great white sharks near the coastline are what prompted the closing of several Chatham beaches, not sightings of the movie Jaws. The article goes so far as to say that the recent white shark sightings near Chatham, Massachusetts are "terrifying residents of nearby Martha’s Vineyard" (where Jaws was filmed). Say what? Was there any reporting done to substantiate the terror has fallen upon the residents of Martha’s Vineyard? It seems that the good people of Martha’s Vineyard wouldn’t be too fazed by white shark sightings, considering that there have been white sharks reported around the Vineyard repeatedly in recent years. I guess the white sharks around Chatham are more fear-inducing than the ones that were in closer proximity to Martha’s Vineyard in the past.

Thanks for spreading unnecessary fear, ContactMusic. Now, back to reality.

Above is the currently featured promotional video for Shark Week from Discovery Channel’s official YouTube page. It starts off with a series of shark attack depictions that rival those found in the movie, Jaws. If Discovery Channel is truly committed to putting “all of their media weight” behind the effort “of educating viewers about the plight of sharks and encouraging them to take action,” as Discovery Channel president, John Ford claims, why do they continue to feature promotional videos that focused predominantly on shark attacks on humans. Did I miss the conservation angle in this video?