The Dorsal Fin

Another media outlet has their own great white shark related report regarding yesterday’s tragic attack off of Stuart, Florida. This one is has an even more misrepresentative headline than the Palm Beach Post “report” from earlier today. CBS12.com features a story with the headline, Expert: Great White Shark could have been behind fatal attack. The report features statements from Gary Gross, a biology professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, who is quoted as saying, “Great whites in our area are very uncommon. They are mostly in deep waters where it’s colder. There has never been an attack here by a white shark.” In fact, the only other mention of white sharks by Professor Gross in the report deals with large sharks mistaking a kite surfer for a turtle, in which Gross is quoted as saying such a scenario is a “white shark situation.” However, Gross goes on to speculate that the attacking shark was “likely a bull shark.” (Currently, there is also no evidence to support or oppose the theory that the sharks involved in the attack were bull sharks.)

CBS12 really seems to be stretching things here. The headline suggests that Gross has indicated that he believes a white shark could be behind yesterday’s attack. However, the statements from Gross within the article suggest that he does not think that great white sharks were involved. Perhaps, a more representative headline would have read, Expert: Highly unlikely great white shark involved in attack. Of course, that might not draw nearly as much attention. It seems that media outlets have realized that great white sharks seem to draw more attention than other shark species, and the mass number of stories running with the great white shark theory (which isn’t backed up by any evidence in this particular case) just goes to show that sometimes the number of viewers/readers a story draws can overshadow truly objective reporting.

At the end of the day experts weighing in on the species involved or not involved is still nothing more than speculation, until some more details and evidence regarding the attack is available.

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.

And the winner is…The New York Daily News for the headline, Australian man fends off Great White with oar, gets two shark teeth as souvenir. The headline accompanied the story mentioned here yesterday about a white shark grabbing an oar from the hands of volunteer lifeguard, Greg Ross, while he was in a surf boat off of Hawks Nest Beach. According to Ross’ own account, he did not in any way use the oar to "fend off" the shark, rather Ross had a hold of the oar when the shark grabbed a hold of it and pulled it from his hands before he even saw the shark. The article also claims that the shark was “so intent on devouring the oar” that it left two teeth embedded in it. While the shark did, in fact, leave two teeth behind, it was also “so intent on devouring the oar” that it lost interest in it and left the oar in the water for Ross and his crew to recover.

The claim that Ross “fended off” the shark with the oar is about as accurate as saying that a pickpocket victim fended off his assailant with a wallet.

The NY Daily News also earns extra special points for using the “We’re gonna need a bigger boat,” reference in a hard news story.

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.

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.