The Dorsal Fin

The Palm Beach Post has a cleverly crafted article with a headline “possibly” identifying the species involved in yesterday’s fatal shark attack of a Stuart, Florida kite boarder. The headline, Expert: Young great white sharks possibly involved in fatal Stuart attack, is followed up with the statement credited to Grant Gilmore noting that “young great white sharks — the fish of Jaws notoriety — are among suspects in Wednesday’s fatal attack off Stuart’s coast.” However, if you read far enough into the article, it states that Gilmore would NOT guess which species was involved, since the only available information about the attack was early news reports.

The article goes on to discuss yesterday’s shark attack and mentions three other species common to the area that are cited as being “known to attack humans” but notes that these three species (bull sharks, tiger sharks, and great hammerhead sharks) prefer warmer waters and tend to leave the area in the winter.

Despite the tendency for these species to leave the area in the winter, tiger shark sightings were reported just last week at Riviera Beach, approximately 35 miles north of yesterday’s attack. In addition, a shark which at least one news source identified as a great hammerhead, was also caught on Riviera Beach last week. That same report indicates that bull sharks are common in the area this time of year.

While there is nothing dishonest, per se, about the story’s headline identifying a “possible” suspected species, the nudging of the reader towards the idea that great white sharks (“of Jaws notoriety,” no less) were behind the attack is fairly prominent, despite no evidence being available at the time of the report to indicate the species. So, while the article is not necessarily dishonest, I find it a bit misleading at best. Other news agencies are eating up the Palm Beach Post article and running their own similar stories, including the LA Times article,
Young great white sharks may have killed Stuart surfer, expert says.

While it may turn out that great white sharks were, in fact, involved in this tragic attack, running headlines based on a few statements suggesting a possibility that great white sharks were the culprits is simply irresponsible reporting. Given the limited information that was available when the statements were made, speculation by news agencies falls outside of the realm of objective reporting, and is irresponsible journalism, at best, especially considering the fact that the expert who was questioned on the subject specifically stated that there was not enough information to even guess the species.

NBC Today has thrown their hat into the ring in what appears to be an attempt to outdo the level of sensationalism found in some of the other reports of Queensland’s supposed “Monster 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.

Multiple media outlets have jumped on the "Monster Shark" story out of Queensland. Oddly enough, the size of the "Monster Shark," which reportedly has not actually been seen by anybody, seems to vary depending on who is reporting the story.

Mother Nature Network estimates the shark being 15′ (4.5m) in length and lists the smaller shark that was reportedly bitten by the "monster shark" as being 9′ (2.75m). Despite listing the larger shark at 15′, MNN still refers to the animal as both "gigantic" and a "monster." The article’s headline, states that the shark "terrifies" the locals, although the local quoted in the article merely makes mention of being cautious.

A Sky News report (overflowing with "monster" usage) posted by YouTube user SharkAndAnimals reports the larger animal to be over 5m (>16.5′) and that the smaller shark was 3.7m (>12′).

The Daily Mail article ups the ante (we can always count on the Daily Mail), estimating the larger shark at up to 20′ (>6m). The beauty of the Daily Mail article is that it reports the smaller shark as being 10′ (3m) early in the article, then refers to the smaller shark as being 14′ (4.25m) in the caption of a photo of the mauled shark. Of course, I would expect nothing less from an article that refers to Vic Hislop as "an internationally-recognised authority on sharks."

The 7 News video below, which adds to fear-filled reporting, was embedded in the Daily Mail article.

I sincerely have a hard time taking a "shark expert" seriously, when he makes statements to the effect of, great white sharks "will eat anything." While that kind of fear marketing might help Mr. Edwards sell more of his shark attack books, it’s far from an accurate description of typical white shark feeding habits. However, with "shark experts" proclaiming such inaccuracies as fact, it’s no wonder that the news crew was able to find a woman on the beach, who believes that if a white shark would attack a snared smaller white shark, then it would definitely attack the woman’s daughter, since she is smaller than the mauled shark.

Oh well, journalism was never about getting the facts straight…or was it?

The Courier-Mail recently posted a story titled, Monster shark spreads fear off Queensland coast, focusing on a supposed "monster" white shark, which is so large that it was able to nearly bite a 3m (approximately 10′) white shark "in half" (with two bites on alternating sides, that is). The 3m shark was bitten after it was "snared on a baited drumline." The Courier-Mail posted this picture of the 3m white shark with the bite marks from the larger shark. The article goes on to estimate the size of this "monster" to be 5m (approximately 16.5′) or more. The article also refers to the shark as a "giant" great white, when not repeatedly referring to it as a "monster shark."

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?

The article goes on to discuss the controversial topic of shark nets. Aside from the unnecessary sensationalism, one thing about the article that did strike me as interesting was that it mentioned that Vic Hislop (great white shark "hunter") does not support the use of shark nets due to the overall damage they cause to the marine environment, and that he supports methods to "scare away sharks rather than capture and kill them." This comes as a bit of surprise considering some of Hislop’s statements about sharks, which were featured in a recent Edit International article.

The Daily Star (a UK "news" source) has really outdone itself with its story, Killer on a Beach, a report about a thresher shark washing ashore at Hayle Beach in Cornwall. The story is so over-the-top with ridiculous sensationalism that it would be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic. The "Killer on a Beach," title almost seems tame compared to the secondary title, "A SHARK that can decapitate a human with the lash of its tail has been found on a British beach." While there is an unconfirmed anecdotal account of a fisherman being decapitated by a breaching thresher, the source of this story probably also knew a kid in elementary school who ate Pop Rocks, while drinking Coke, and exploded. I suppose it’s possible to be decapitated by the tail of a thresher. If somebody took the time and effort they could probably decapitate a human with that plastic knife that comes with the Play-Doh Fun Factory (perhaps, Hasbro should add that as a warning). The Daily Star goes on to describe the thresher’s tail (caudal fin) as "razor-sharp." I’d invite the Daily Star Staff reporter to try to shave with the tail of a thresher. The article also notes that the thresher is a "close relative" of the great white shark, and it even goes so far as to include a photo of a great white shark merely swimming along, with the caption of "Lethal shark on the rampage."

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.