The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently felt that it was necessary to put out this statement, which reads in part:
“Mermaids — those half-human, half-fish sirens of the sea — are legendary sea creatures chronicled in maritime cultures since time immemorial…But are mermaids real? No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists.”
Why, you ask? Wasn’t the mummy of the Fiji Mermaid, a famous P.T. Barnum humbug, debunked almost two centuries ago? Yes, it was. Now, however, instead of a famous showman whom people expected to be fooling them, we have unscrupulous and irresponsible TV executives, who run channels with trustworthy names like The History Channel, Discovery and The Learning Channel, and then use these venues to make Americans even more stupid and ignorant than they already are.
A majority of Americans believe in angels, and a hefty percentage believe in ghosts. It can’t take much to make them believe in Ariel and her fishy friends, especially when a fake documentary presenting the “evidence” for the existence of mermaids appears on Animal Planet, one of the channels owned and operated by the once respectable Discovery Channel. That’s what happened last May, and the fine print and early voice-overs explaining that it was a “science fiction” documentary mixing fact with fantasy predictably missed the attention of hundreds of thousands of viewers who were making sandwiches or hitting the bathroom.
National Geographic wouldn’t sully its reputation and betray its viewers by presenting such claptrap, no matter how whimsical it was. Even MSNBC wouldn’t go so far as to manufacture a documentary showing that Dick Cheney was coordinating the attack on the Twin Towers with his pal Bin Laden, though a lot of that network’s viewers would undoubtedly love it. PBS would never allow a tongue-in-cheek Sesame Street segment teaching that 2 + 2= 6. So how can the science-oriented Discovery company justify placing a false documentary on Animal Planet?
Easy: Ratings. Buzz. Money. So what if it makes Americans dumber, and misinforms children already getting a pathetic education? That’s not the Discovery executives’ concern.
Science fiction belongs on SyFy, or would if that channel had any integrity either. It certainly doesn’t belong on channels that advertise themselves as presenting knowledge about the real world, science and history. Ignorance isn’t funny, or something to be trifled with. It is dangerous, and the signs of its terrible effects on America are visible on the front pages every day. For media companies to set out to foster it intentionally, as with the mermaid documentary, defines irresponsible.
__________________________________________
Pointer: Daily Caller
Source:
Graphic: Fanpop
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Not much different than the Invasion from Mars.
“War of the Worlds” That’s the obvious comparison, yes. And Welles was also irresponsible…but at least he was a theatrical producer, and there was no precedent for hoaxes on the radio. If he was head of the NBC radio news division, it would be a better analogy.
True enough.
I’ll give Welles a pass here. Because of my work, I am a student of the media (contrary to the assumptions made by a kindhearted poster on another thread).
Welles was not irresponsible. He was groundbreaking in his art, using a new form of media in a way it had never been used before. The program was announced as a radioplay; it was interrupted by commercial breaks, it ended in an hour, nothing about the invasion was carried on other networks, and even more to the point: the panic ascribed to The War of the Worlds broadcast never happened.
A few people freaked out? Certainly. A few people freak out if they see a black cat cross their path. Read up on media history, and you’ll learn that the reporting of same was the result of the newspapers trying to slap down that upstart new medium called radio – they were afraid it would impact their control of the news.
Jack is the only guy here who has access to my identity beyond my handle (I prefer to remain anonymous on online forums, for professional reasons), but methinks he can assure any doubters as to my bonafides if asked.
Returning to topic: yeah, Discovery, History and so forth have had mission creep. So has the Weather Channel. Way I see it, this is probably healthy long term, not so much short term. America needs to wean itself from blind faith in its media – the idea of objective media is an American construct and a recent one at that. In fact, the ideal of “objective” media was advanced by publishers (Pulitzer) and broadcast executives (Paley) who were afraid that they were pissing off… advertisers.
The idea of objective media, btw, is one that most of the rest of the world doesn’t embrace. Media in free market economies is highly competitive. We see it here only in cable news.
Healthy doses of skepticism in all walks of life are good advice.
Pingback: Ethics Dunce: Animal Planet | Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find
I actually had a coworker explain this to me. He got kind of miffed when I asked how any evidence of a mermaid would be conclusive (I defy you to tell me a mermaid’s hand from a person’s). Later, I got back to Snopes and found it completely by coincidence. They mentioned it was a hoax. My coworker was about to start a few months working further away, so I’m very happy I got to tell him before he went.
What if this had been used for something more… present and possibly threatening in our lives? What if this same technique has been used to say that vampires lurked in the shadows, kidnapping young women to participate in blood orgies and sell their souls to become slaves to the dark lord of the pit? How much more harm would this have to do before someone would begin to think this wasn’t a good idea?
Discovery aired a special with Adam Savage that took him a thousand years into the future. It was treated all as real (though it self-evidently wasn’t, since it was going into the future), but each science advancement was based on a tiny kernel of truth and real (if very preliminary) scientific advancement. That may have been playing a little loose with the facts, but that looks like high art compared to this folderol.
What happened to cable TV? Finally we get cable TV in Japan, and I think it might be nice to watch TV in English so we get it. I was in the US 12 years ago for work, and haven’t watched much US TV since then and now I’m flabbergasted at what’s on Discovery, The History Channel and National Geographic, but most of all The Learning Channel. What the hell!? ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’,’I Didn’t Know I was Pregnant’, ‘Say ‘Yes’ to the Dress’, and isn’t it TLC that has that show about cleaning out dirty houses? ‘The Voyeur’s Channel’ is more like it.
The junk science out there is appalling and the list is endless: mermaids, ghosts, Darwin’s theory of evolution, Newton’s theory of gravity, etc.
Do you have a point, or are you just being obnoxious? Are you defending fake science documentaries? Saying that Newton and Darwin are the equivalents of ghost-hunters and frauds? Just sharpening your troll skills? It’s not productive, and it’s not in the spirit of the inquiry here.
No, actually I have a point. I’m not defending a mermaid documentary I haven’t seen, but I am adding to the list of junk science you started. You say there aren’t mermaids, angels, or ghosts. Well I might agree about mermaids, but I disagree about angels, and maybe even ghosts. But my real point is that “science” is far from complete and many of the things “scientists” take for granted turn out to be false or incomplete. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution is completely false. Evolution (in the sense that a species becomes “better” or “superior” over time) is false. Every time we reproduce, we make copying errors in our genes and with every generation more children are born with genetic defects. More like devolution. On a long enough timeline, the human species (probably all species) are doomed to become weaker and more defective. “Natural selection” as described by Darwin slows down devolution by removing members of the species too weak to reproduce, but how about the people with copying errors who still reproduce. We’re still in a downward spiral. How anybody could believe the opposite is beyond me. Newton’s theory of gravity is provably incomplete. Scientists have found examples where the theory of gravity completely fails to hold up. Gravity isn’t the whole story. I’m just saying, hey, if you take science for granted and fail to challenge your most basic beliefs about the universe once in awhile, you’ll actually be more ignorant. Ask any cosmologist.
From your description of this documentary, it doesn’t sound unethical. They admit that “no evidence has been found.” It sounds like an interesting documentary actually. Even if you end up being wrong, there’s nothing unethical about asking the question, “What’s the basis for a seafaring legend about mermaids?” There really are dwarfs, there really are people who look like werewolves, there really are giants, there are even people who grow tree-bark skin, and people who grow cutaneous horns on their heads (like the devil). Why NOT some real basis for the mermaid?
I disagree about angels, and maybe even ghosts.
Funny that you’re so confident about the falsehood of mermaids but are willing to believe in other man-made concepts. How do you feel about leprechauns? Or is it just the ones in the bible that are real
Darwin’s theory of evolution is completely false.
Sure, that doesn’t sound crazy. I think it would be better to say Darwin’s theory of evolution has evolved as scientists learn more about the genetics that control species.
every generation more children are born with genetic defects
Where did this statement come from?
We’re still in a downward spiral
Then there’s no hope. Time to get off the train now and avoid any cataclysmic end.
Newton’s theory of gravity is provably incomplete.
If you look long and hard enough there will always be an exception to everything. But for most instances the theory holds up. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
you’ll actually be more ignorant.
No, I think you’ll be.
From your description of this documentary, it doesn’t sound unethical.
We’re actually in agreement
les9 is in the “not even wrong” category. Yes, Darwin’s original hypothesis of evolution was not wholely accurate, but nobody claims it was. The theory of evolution has been modified over time and is accurate.
The devolution attack reads like it was copied from a creationist website about entropy. It completely ignores all the stabilizing mechanisms in our genetic code with duplication and domination being the biggies. The argument sounds good to layman, but it contradicts facts that are left out of the analysis.
This and subsequent posts on other topics has me persuaded that les9 is, in fact, a troll and nothing more. His comments are neither serious nor consistent, just intentionally annoying. Who knows what he really thinks, and in my case, at least, I couldn’t care les.
Yea, I kinda figured that from the lack of followup, but I wanted to be subscribed in case someone else jumped in.
Clearly the mermaids were brought to Earth by the Ancient Aliens.
–Dwayne
Wait, has the History Channel sued them yet? That clearly belongs on MonsterQuest!
I like MonsterQuest, but only because I use it as a game of “What common animal have all these ‘experts’ mistaken for a fantastic, mythical beast”?
Monster: Loch Ness-like monsters
Animal shown in their pictures and other ‘evidence’: beaver
Monster: The mythical Thunderbird
Animal shown in their pictures and VERY GOOD VIDEO: common vulture
Monster: The dog-man
Animal depicted in drawings, descriptions, and sculptures: wolverine
Only a few human activities are in my lexicon of “sins”. One of them would be exploitation of the weak, the vulnerable, and the CREDULOUS, not necessarily for monetary profit but just for “fun” (i.e., making the exploiter feel “superior” to his victims).
Like scientific evidence for mermaids, or the Sasquatch, etc.
(Or maybe even the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny?)