The ‘reality’ of nature

Is 'reality’ television going too far? We pose this question in the wake of a Discovery Channel special where a naturalist tried to get himself eaten alive by a huge anaconda. Although the stunt did not go down well and the naturalist was pulled away to safety before any damage could be done, many critics and viewers agreed that it was a totally irresponsible and unnecessary stunt.

It is no secret that television networks are vying each other to boost their ratings, with even more spectacular programs. Dance, travel, music, quiz, motoring, cooking/eating - whatever your interest is, there is a so-called reality TV show to match. This trend has caught on in Sri Lanka as well, where the TV channels have introduced various reality TV programs.

Indeed, the word “reality” in this instance is a misnomer, because these programs have nothing to do with reality or real life. They are often pure entertainment programs with little or no educational value, designed to appeal to a cross section of the viewers. Worse, even little children have been dragged on to reality shows which are carbon copies of the adult versions.

In this particular instance, the staunch environmentalist offered himself as dinner to the Anaconda and was prepared to be swallowed alive, filming every moment. To avoid suffocating, experts crafted Rosolie a specially designed carbon fiber suit, equipped with a breathing system - as well as with cameras and a system to communicate. But in the end, Rosolie wasn't exactly ingested by the snake. (Anacondas really do not swallow live prey, they kill it first).

Instead he let the anaconda coil around him before calling the mission off, fearing he might get seriously injured.

Rainforests

“Everybody on Earth knows that the rainforests are disappearing and most people can tell you how important they are, but still, not enough people are paying attention, not enough people realise this is such a problem,” said the American activist. Nevertheless, it is debatable whether this was the correct way to spread that message.

However, quite apart from reality shows, many nature documentaries have gone to the extreme.You may have seen presenters eating spiders and snakes in some of the “survivor” type reality programs. Clearly, in these docu-dramas, the presenter is never alone because there is a camera crew and other experts on hand to assist him or her. There is simply no need to eat live animals, but such sensational tricks have become essential to pull the viewers in. I have seen a program where a live bird was offered to a big snake and the scene would have disturbed many viewers.

In fact, this particular program “Eaten Alive” too had featured an appalling example of human-animal relations. Snakes were jumped on, grabbed, pestered, goaded, and harassed. Animal harassment for the sake of entertainment is one of the most troubling ethical issues in wildlife filmmaking, and one that is increasingly common with the advent of nature reality television shows. Even Sarah Palin was criticised for featuring caribou slaughter on her short-lived Learning Channel show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” Airing footage of an animal’s death purely for viewer enjoyment amounts to a special kind of insensitivity.

Experts have pointed out that there are many ethical issues in documenting animals’ natural lives through TV, including deceiving the audience by using captive animals and harming conservation by demonising animals like sharks. Animal harassment is particularly troubling because it can distress the animal and even injure it.

There cannot be any justification for animal harassment in the name of conservation or awareness of environmental issues. The very presence of TV cameras, humans and equipment vehicles could be stressful for the animals that are used to a wild existence.

Perceptions

Moreover, negative perceptions could be created as the result of nature reality TV programs. It has been pointed out that “Eaten Alive” did more to harm the reputation of the anaconda than to enlighten people on its plight. The show’s preview has demonised the anaconda as a “dangerous beast” and the show pushed that image by goading the snake to attack. We all know that the image of the shark took a beating after the release of the Steven Spielberg movie “Jaws” even though only a very few deaths occur worldwide due to shark attacks. It is only now that this wrong image is being erased gradually. Even the author of Jaws Peter Benchley has expressed regret over his demonising of sharks.

It is certainly possible to have programs that are both educational and fun. Broadcasters such as David Attenborough have shown that this can be done with programs such as Life, Planet Earth, Living Planet, Life of Birds, Life of Mammals, Life in Cold Blood and the Private Life of Plants on Discovery and the BBC. Other programs such as Survival too have proved this. Many, if not all of these programs depict the harsh realities of life in the wild and indeed, some of the scenes can be quite bloody and shocking.

In a way, these are the original reality shows. But that is part of Nature and the scenes are not “staged” for our viewing pleasure. However, in certain programs which feature human-animal interaction animals can suffer unnatural pain and distress.

In fact, representatives of animal rights organisations and veterinarians are required to be present at the shooting of documentaries and movies that feature live animals in most countries, to ensure that they are not harmed.

You may have seen the credit line which proclaims that ‘no animals were harmed during the making of his movie’. For most scenes that do feature animals getting killed and maimed, the action is created digitally on computers instead of involving live animals.

Nature is theatre - it is the biggest open air theatre in the world. It is undoubtedly a spectacle, but perhaps Man should not be involved in ‘enhancing’ it.

Television is the most powerful medium of communication and television networks and producers have a duty to portray nature in the correct perspective.