The Dorsal Fin

There are actually some fairly impressive kite boarding videos on YouTube. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. According to the title and the video information, the video above purports to show a great white shark attack a kite surfer, when in reality it’s just a garbled mix of surface and underwater shots with a couple of snippets of white shark footage spliced in. Throw in some really bad acting and “blood” in the water, and you’ve got your supposed shark attack video. To the video creator’s credit, the transitions into and out of the white shark footage are fairly smooth, but that’s about all I’m willing to give him credit for.

Sadly, there are people who will believe this video is an account of an actual event, as evidenced by the fact that somebody has already posted a comment inquiring about the status of the cameraman. Fear not, the cameraman was probably just fine after he got done editing this video…physically, at least.

This video seems particularly insensitive, due to the fact that a Florida kite-boarder actually was lost in February as a result of what is believed to be a bull-shark attack. Of course, these guys won’t be the only ones trying to capture a phony version of shark attacking kite-boarder, as it has already been reported that Discovery Channel plans to do their own “re-enactment” of the February attack to be featured in this year’s Shark Week programming.

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.