Brezina 1

Crystal Brezina
LIT 4433
Stephens
October 9, 2014
The Unavoidable Effect of Media
Today, one cant spend a day without being bombarded by advertisements, from Dove
commercials to Axe body spray. Even with the influx of technology, nature and science
companies and foundations have their fair share of advertisements as well. Recently, the World
Wildlife Federation has used scare tactics and guilt to persuade viewers into their agenda,
whether that is morally acceptable or not. From their use of a fish head on a human body to
point out climate change, to superimposing a panda face on a fish to argue that non-cute
endangered species need as much attention as cute endangered animals. This media usage
sheds light on the role mass-media has on people. Most people attribute their ideas towards
nature and science from mass-media. This can be from a book, such as Dawkins The Ancestors
Tale, or from another piece of mass-media, such as Neil Degrasse Tysons new program Cosmos.
Although these mediums can be informative and entertaining, they often lead the viewers,
especially those who have not seen the subject in person, to have a stylized view of how nature
is.
Tony E. Adams, in his report Phenomenologically Investigating Mediated Nature
states that there are three types of nature which exist: authentic-nature, simulated-nature, and
televised-nature (p 1). He then describes these three types:

Brezina 2
Authentic-nature describes local, state, and nationally designated areas within the
United States that we can visit in order to interact with the natural worldAuthenticnature can also imply mythic or idealized visions of what nature is or should be.
Simulated-nature describes areas that portray re-creations of nature; examples include
zoos, shopping mall landscapes, or botanical gardens. Televised nature describes nature
presentations that occur via television; examples include Jaws, Survivor, and Bambi (p
1).
While what he calls authentic nature and simulated nature are unbiased in its presentation,
televised nature, especially his examples thereof, paint an unrealistic view of how nature is.
David Quammen, a nature writer, argues that Worst of all, they are enticed to believe that nature
as they have seen itconcocted expertly from flickering photographic imagesrepresents
nature as it exists (202). While the beautification and bias in nature programming does create a
false sense of action, it also creates a false sense of reality. Bill Mckibben, an author, argues that
because for all their dart guns and millions of feet of film they actually get across remarkably
little information (74). It is not so much that these nature programs give little information, but
they give only the information which would entertain viewers. This entertainment can be given
through focusing on the action surrounding an animal, or it can liken the animal to something
most people would recognize. Many nature documentaries compare the animals behavior to that
of humans or other animals we readily associate ourselves with.
To make matters worse, viewers only see programs about conservation when referring to
animals that would be described as cute or human-like, but other animals in need of aid which do
not have that appearance are the subjects of documentaries focused on negative connotations.
Mckibben argues that of all the animals that are known, only a few meet the requirements for

Brezina 3
extensive television coveragecuteness (or grotesqueness so complete it borders on the cute)
(77). Adams uses examples such as Jaws and Bambi as televised nature, two movies which have
opposing views on what lies outside of human involvement. Bambi is an animated, lively and
endearing movie surrounding a young deer learning life in the forest, complete with a skunk and
rabbit for friends, while Jaws centers on a horrific and human-hungry shark. This contrast in
narratives puts the idea in viewers minds that deer are more important and better than sharks are,
an idea that shouldnt be used in associating ourselves with nature. Although Bambi may look
docile and cute, walking up to an adult male deer could easily result in a trip to the hospital.
One cannot however, degrade the medias representation of nature without noting the
positive effects it has had. Mckibben notes that a 1963 film named Flipper is the reason cans of
tuna have a dolphin-safe symbol, and later asserts that although some fisherman still kill
dolphinsthey try to hide their work because nearly everyone agrees it is a sick waste; in 1963,
obviously, not killing dolphins was revolutionary, and Flipper is a key reason for the change
(72).
Of course, scientists arent the exception, and still characterize things in the way in
which they first encountered them. Dawkins, an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, makes
this mistake in his text The Ancestors Tale. Opening up his discussion on the evolution of
sharks in comparison to our evolution, rather than describing sharks the way to make them not
seem vicious or intimidating, he describes them as murderous, but innocent of deliberate
cruelty, just making a living as perhaps the worlds most effective killing machine. I know people
for whom the great white shark is their worst nightmare (351). While sharks can be very
effective predators, this description exemplifies the false idea surrounding sharks and other large
predators, that they are terrifying and horrific. Dawkins goes further to describe them as

Brezina 4
nightmare planes and noting that the word shark itself is most likely also associated with the
word jaws, after the successful, and entirely inaccurate, 1975 film. (352) This way of
describing sharks not only reflects the preconceived notion that sharks are ones to be feared and
despised, but with this description, easily helps people rationalize that although sharks are being
killed in astronomical amounts, it doesnt matter, as theyre killing machines anyway.
Dawkins isnt the only one to use popular culture when referring to animals. Quammen,
in approaching the look of rhinoceroses, looks and criticizes a piece by Albrecht Durer, an artist
from the German Renaissance. He believes the print to be ridiculously done, condemning
Durers depiction of the rhino as almost having a full suit of armor on. One of his arguments is
that rhinos dont look like that on television, stating It seemed incongruous to me, especially
after my hour, in that library cubicle watching The Rhino War, which turns out to be a
compelling and clear-sighted film, full of real animals bearing not much resemblance to Albrecht
Durers notional beast (208). Here Quammen is, referring to what is shown on a National
Geographic documentary.
This critique could be reasonably justified, until he admits to doing elementary
research, which concludes that the rhino in which Durer would have been studying is the Indian
Rhino. Upon seeing what an Indian Rhino actually looks like, Quammen refutes his own
argument, and switches from criticizing the print itself to criticizing Durers description of the
rhino.
The usage of media to obtain knowledge and information regarding nature is common
and often times, fairly accurate. Even so, relying solely on the information given from one book,
artwork, or documentary, is going to result in a great deal of useless information with some

Brezina 5
pieces of actual fact. Popular media certainly has a very large hold on life in America and it is
clear that it will for the immediate future. One must however, take much of what is said and
perceived as partially biased or incorrect. It is only when the viewer witnesses in real life what
they would have seen in media do they realize the difference between television nature and real
nature.

Brezina 6
Works Cited
Adams, Tony. Phenomenologically Investigating Mediated Nature. The Qualitative

Report. 2005:512. Nova. Web. October 1, 2014

Dawkins, Richard. The Ancestors Tale. New York: Mariner Books, 2004. Print.
Mckibben, Bill. The Age of Missing Information. New York: Random House, 1992. Print
Quammen, David. The Boilerplate Rhino: Nature in the Eye of the Beholder. New York:
Scribner, 2000