Liberal lunacy Shark bite language debate stirs up US media
An Australian debate about whether to describe shark bites as âattacksâ or âencountersâ has made its way to US television networks, stirring both jokes and a dismissal that the issue was the latest âliberal lunacyâ.
The Herald earlier this month reported the Queensland government was looking to dial down the language when shark bites occur, preferring to describe them in its SmartShark literature as âa negative encounterâ.
Johan Potgieter has an extremely close encounter with a great white shark off the coast of South Africa.Credit:GoPro
The report generated some local commercial radio debate about whether the avoidance of âattackâ was the latest instance of âpolitical correctness gone madâ.
Scientists, though, said it was likely that many, if not most, bites were clearly accidental â" such as people stepping on Wobbegong sharks. In NSW, the Department of Primary Industries prefers âincidentsâ or âencountersâ in its formal reporting.
The debate received play in the US with the New York Post republishing most of the Heraldâs report, the New York Times detailing the experiences in Western Australia, California and elsewhere. Good Morning America also weighed in, with a piece calling for caution in language use.
Now, though, the issue has entered the so-called culture wars in the US, although sparking some humour along the way.
Late-night comedian Stephen Colbert joked about the response after a fatality might now be âIâm sorry a shark interacted with your husbandâs torso, and heâs experiencing a ânot-being-aliveâ incidentâ.
Conservative TV host Tucker Carlson snagged the shark debate as âToday in Liberal Lunacyâ on a recent segment on the Fox Network.
Mr Carlson grilled Dave Portnoy, author of the book, Sharks Have Feelings Too, initially saying Americans âcan imagine they can wade into the ocean without getting eaten. Youâre saying thatâs a violation of the territorial integrity of sharksâ.
âBodysurfing is a home invasion,â the host later said. â You know, I donât think most people have looked at it from that perspective.â
Mr Portney, though, was given time to make a case that itâs sharks, not humans, that are more at risk.
âIf you look at the numbers, thereâs 10 shark attacks, 10 deaths a year. Thereâs 100 million sharks that are being killed every year,â Mr Portney said. âThe sharks arenât the ones attacking people, itâs people attacking sharks.â
David Shiffman, a marine biologist at Arizona State University studying sharks, said the debate showed âconservative trolls are always looking for nonsense to feign outrage aboutâ.
âIf endangered species conservation becomes part of ongoing culture war BS, I fear itâll be the final nail in the coffin for lots of wildlife and wild places,â Dr Shiffman said.
How this plays out in the US and elsewhere could have lasting impacts because words mattered.
âThe word âattackâ is inflammatory and inaccurate. Most shark bites are minor and clearly accidental, thereâs no intent to harm,â he said. âAnd fear of sharks biting people makes others less likely to support conserving threatened and ecologically important species.â
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the dayâs most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Peter Hannam writes on environment issues for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
0 Response to "Liberal lunacy Shark bite language debate stirs up US media"
Post a Comment