sign in sign up
<<
Home , David Attenborough, Disneynature, Impact Partners, Nature documentary, Netflix, Steve Irwin

Photo: https://www.kmogallery.com/wildlife/2

018/10/5/ry0c9a1o37uwbqlwytiddkxoms8ji1

Page 1

The Plight of

The Relationship Between Programming And Conservation Efforts:

How Visual Storytelling Can Save The World

By: Kelsey O’Connell - 20203259

In Fulfillment For: , and Screen Industries Project – CULT4035

Prepared For: , BBC , Originals, National Geographic, , Planet, Etc.

Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I cannot express enough gratitude to everyone who believed in me on this crazy and fantastic journey; everything have done has molded me into the person am today. To my family, who taught me to seek out my own purpose and pursue it wholeheartedly; without you, I would have never taken the chance and moved to England for my Masters. To my professors, who became my trusted resources and , your endless and caring teachings have supported me in more ways than I can put into words. To my friends who have never failed to make me smile, I am so lucky to have you in my life.

Finally, a special thanks to , , , , Peter Gros, Jim Fowler, and so many others for making me fall in love with wildlife and spark a fire in my for their welfare. I grew up on wildlife and television shows like , Blue Planet, , Hunter, Mutual of Omaha’s , Shark Week, and others – it was because of those programs that I first fell in love with as a kid, and I’ve taken that passion with me, my whole life. I wanted to see how nature programming worked, what made it tick, and how it could be improved to inspire people everywhere to find compassion for wildlife and welfare. This paper is dedicated to all of my heroes and the work you have done to preserve life so that the next generation can experience the same awe and wonder that I did when I was young.

“Fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” -Ruth Bater Ginsberg (166)

Page 3

Project Summary Objectives

This industry report's primary purpose is to examine industry practices of nature programming utilized by major studios to determine the impact those methods have on real-world conservation efforts. This essay will explore the relationship between wildlife programs and conservation to shed light on the public's perceptions regarding the natural world and the issues threatening it. Understanding how these perceptions are formed makes it possible to shift the in a productive way that forges a new path towards a more environmentally conscious public and answers the question: Can visual storytelling save our planet?

Moreover, to discern the overarching message of this report, it is critical to understand that conservation efforts, the wildlife programming industry, and the issues facing them are diverse and multi-faceted. There is no one to the threats facing our world, and saying so would be short-sighted; the purpose of this essay is to explore the current practices, understand the current relationship between nature programming and conservation, and use that knowledge to suggest techniques that have the potential to impact conservation positively in the future. To fully understand the complexity of this topic, the following concepts must be analyzed. • Identify the major studies within the nature programming industry, their statistics, and their various structures. • Using existing literature and case studies, analyze the four models within the nature programming and how these sub- are formatted. • Seek to understand the relationship between the filmmakers and the wildlife subjects by examining the ethical proceedings observed by filmmakers when operating and producing wildlife and nature programs. • Review the most prominent theories that concern the effects that these programs have on conservation efforts.

Page 4

• Examine case studies that support these concepts and provide alternate perspectives and determine the capability these programs have to influence future conservation efforts.

Activities

• A statistical analysis of the six major studios that mass produce nature programs. • A full analysis of three different modes of the documentary genre as it applies to the most prevalent methods of nature programming. • Relate this research to the ethical practices of the production and post- production process. • Comprehensive research into the literature surrounding three prominent theories concerning the relationship between nature programming and conservation efforts, including relevant case studies, further cementing these theories. • Conclude with a theoretical formula for success in the future of nature programming that positively reinforces conservation efforts.

Findings

• Nature programming has a long history with conservation efforts and scientific discovery and have been the largest informal arena for regarding wildlife. (A) • Since the Industrial Revolution, the world has witnessed a growing perception that humanity and nature are separate – reinforced by specific ideals presented through mediated culture. (A) • Our planet is experiencing perhaps the most extensive environmental crisis in recent history; the impact of , plastic pollution, the illegal wildlife trade, , etc. (A) • Since 1970, the of our planet has halved – since 2000, over 1.9 million square kilometers of land has been lost, and over one million species risk in the coming years. (A)

Page 5

• In the past two decades, wildlife programming has risen to popularity again because of to technology that allow filmmakers to portray nature in ways that was never possible before. (A1) • Six major studios lead in producing high-quality nature programming content: Disneynature, National Geographic, BBC Earth, Netflix Originals, Discovery Channel, and . (A1) • Much of the nature programming produced by these conglomerations are mostly popular among Western world audiences, where these studios reside. (A1) • Across these six major studios most prominent in nature programming, four of them have separate conservation funds that work hand in hand with the nature productions to provide financial support to various conservation organizations. (A1) • There are six modes of documentary filmmaking as outlined by Nichols; wildlife programming persistently fits into these three modes, Expository, Participatory, and Reflexive. (A2) • In the frame of wildlife programming these modes can be broken down even further into specific sub-genres i.e. the Blue Chip, Formal Interview Documentary, Hosted , and Behind The Scenes sub-genres. (A2) • Each sub-genre utilizes different techniques throughout the practice as far as production, distribution, target audience, and impact, but all have the same goal of connecting with audiences about wildlife. (A2) • Throughout the production process of nature programs, filmmakers must mind their relationship with not only their wildlife subjects but also the environment they are filming in. (A3) • Film crews have two guidelines to follow during the production process to maintain ethical viability: Putting the wildlife and 's welfare above the film's priorities and avoiding misleading the audience to the best of their abilities. (A3)

Page 6

• The use of sentimentalism, dramatization, and is considered an unscientific approach to wildlife documentaries. However, when done appropriately, these methods connect well with audiences and allow them to empathize with and the natural world. (A3) • These techniques play to our psychology as humans; when something is filmed, it is being shot, produced, and seen through a human lens, so it is impossible to show wildlife behaviors and not impart some amount of human ideals onto them. (A3) • There are three over-arching theories regarding the relationship between nature programming and conservation efforts: Western Ideals vs. Local Communities, Voyeurism, and Celebrity Heroes and Social Influence. (B) • Nature programming is produced primarily to target Western cultures, so it is common to present Western ideals, beliefs, conservation concepts, and distribution methods. (B1) • However, when filmmakers purposefully neglect engaging, interviewing, and distributing films to local communities in countries they are filming in, they miss one of the most significant opportunities to affect real change in places where it is so desperately needed. (B1) • There are seven steps of separation from wildlife and any given group of people showing the disconnect between wildlife and audiences in Western cultures (B1): 1. Wildlife and Habitat 4. Scientists and Researchers 2. Local Communities and 5. Filmmakers and Creators Indigenous Peoples 6. Audiences and General Public 3. Conservationists, Rangers, 7. Policy Makers and Guides • As proven with the case studies, The Cove and Blackfish, films that misrepresent certain cultures and neglect to portray local communities in documentaries filmmakers run the risk of negatively impacting conservation efforts in that specific region. (B1)

Page 7

• The theory of voyeurism as it relates to the Blue Chip method and conservation efforts shows that when people are not alerted to environmental issues and are not given an outlet to contribute to conservation, they will grow complacent about the state of our world. (B2) • Data shows that audiences will show interest in a specific species for up to six months after the show’s release proving that general awareness about animals has an effect on people, but without the full truth, people failed to convert their interest into measurable actions. (B2) • However, in the case of effect, data showed a sharp rise in conservation efforts by audiences all because the issues were presented to them through the series of Blue Planet II. (B2) • In the climate of environmental issues, it is no longer ethically viable for nature programmers to ignore the effects that humans have had on the environment, and to do so would mislead audiences, subsequently causing negative impacts on conservation. (B2) • Within the theory regarding celebrity heroes and social influence, the use of parasocial interaction and identification involvement methods in nature programming like the reality sub-genre has given birth to wide distribution and relatable content that allows audiences to have a role model who encourages them to get involved in social issues like conservation. (B3) • William Brown conducted a study regarding this theory and the impacts of Steve Irwin on audiences and conservation. Finding that because of his unique use of the reality television platform, he built relationships with millions of people who took his message of conservation to heart. (B3) • Irwin’s platform on the show, , allowed him to create several conservation funds that his audiences contributed donations to support wildlife. (B3)

Page 8

Recommendations

The final question that we are left with is whether or not there is an exact formula that films can utilize to maximize their impact on conservation and environmental issues? The answer to that question is difficult to define because every industry that produces wildlife programming has a different method of impacting these areas. However, through the exploration of this report, I believe that there are a few key areas outlined that can help industries examine new areas to explore in the future. The following suggestions are areas in which I believe can maximize the positive impact these films have on conservation efforts and ensure financial success.

• Nature programs could benefit from utilizing reflexive methods or behind the scenes sequences to films and television series because this way, audiences can feel more connected to what is happening in the film and pique their interest in the deeper story going on within the films. • Utilizing every tool available to keep environmental impact and animal welfare as the first priority while producing a film. This means using local teams instead of flying everywhere or using unobtrusive filming techniques so as not to stress out the wildlife subjects. • Always being sure to disclose filmmaking practices to audiences, especially if it could potentially be misleading and explain why it was necessary to utilize that specific method. • Sentimentalism, dramatization, and anthropomorphism can all be terrific tools to generate empathy and compassion from audiences but should be utilized when necessary and appropriate for the narrative structure. • Film crews need to begin to make legitimate efforts to engage with local communities throughout the production process. These are the people with the most interaction with the habitat and wildlife subjects and, thus, have the most significant potential to protect them.

Page 9

• This engagement is crucial to understanding other cultures that can both impact how we perceive conservation as Westerners and how we portray these local communities to the rest of the world. Try to find ways to engage local people not only during the production process but also be sure to make that film available to them once distributed. • The entertainment industry is run on a sense of voyeuristic experiences, but spectators do not automatically equate to environmental activists. Films must portray the truth of human impact on nature to audiences and give them viable outlets to act after the program. • Make sure to express the nature of these issues but keep in mind that messages of hope go a long way in persuading audiences to action. • Do not just leave audiences hanging, studies show that people who are interested in what is going on will stay interested for months afterwards so films need to start going above and beyond. • By showing ways that people can help, creating websites for further education, sharing links to donation funds, petitions, and specific conservation groups these films have a huge opportunity to turn awareness into action. • Filmmakers and film studios also cannot be voyeurs in their own programs; the nature programming industry should be actively working with conservation organizations to either aid in funding or know what areas need to be focused on in potential films. • The celebrity voice is immensely powerful and incredibly influential on audiences across the globe. Nature programs should continue to utilize those tools and branch out to other tools like social media to build relationships with people. There are so many celebrities and influencers out there , all with their own influence circle, utilizing their voices could help bring more people in.

Page 10

My Conclusion

In the past two decades, there has been a renewed interest in nature programming; new advances in technology have allowed us to get closer to wildlife than we ever thought possible. However, while the popularity of nature programming has steadily been rising, so too has the plight of our planet; humanity’s domination of our world has left little room for the creatures living here. Since 1970, our planet’s biodiversity has been cut in half, with human interference reaching to even the most remote places in our world. As world-renowned wildlife filmmaker, Bertie Gregory cites, “I can’t really think of a place that I’ve been to where there hasn’t been a problem that the animal or place that you’re filming faces,” Gregory admits. “Even the most remote places are still affected by people.” (79) We stand at a watershed moment in our collective history; the actions we take today will determine the future of biodiversity as we know it.

In understanding the condition of our planet’s remaining natural areas and wildlife, I wanted to understand how we as humans interact with nature. What I found was that, at least in the Western world, a great divide had opened up between people and wildlife; our cultivated perceptions had separated us from nature. Through my research, I uncovered that real, first-person interactions with nature were minuscule, especially among populations secluded to urban areas; this begged the question, what is the method we choose to interact with wildlife? As it turned out, people were choosing to experience with wildlife through mediated, secondary interactions i.e., zoos, museums, photographs, and nature programming. Subsequently, as access to wilderness areas decreased through the years; naturally, these methods rose to take its place. Now, Western culture’s perception of nature is completely shaped around what these mediated interactions dictate about wildlife, their behavior, and how to protect them.

In this report, I focused on the industry of nature programming and how its influence on the general public affects current conservation efforts worldwide. Moreover, I wanted

Page 11

to find ways that could help this industry improve its methods to impact conservation and wildlife welfare positively in the future. I found that the basic structure of nature programming consists of three distinct relationships: the filmmakers, their wildlife subjects, their audience, and conservation efforts. For the most part, these different groups are all connected to each other through filmmakers and the programs they produce. Thus, showing the critical nature which that these programs impose on the connection of all three of these groups.

Current practices within the industry showed that the strategy employed by several major studios is the concept of encouraging compassion towards the animals depicted in each given program; this, in turn, will cause people to want to protect these animals outside of the program. This awareness strategy is achieved through narrative structures showing dramatized interpretations of wildlife behaviors like hunting, mating, and rearing young. When taken a step further, these behaviors are portrayed through the lens of Western ideals of family and survival to connect with audiences.

Within the three theories of conservation impact, we discovered the importance of engaging not just with audiences but also with the local communities and indigenous people who have the highest rates of interaction with specific and wildlife. These are the people who have the highest potential of affecting change in these habitats so, filmmakers must engage with these people to build a greater understanding of other cultures and to portray their beliefs accurately so as not to misrepresent their people. The next theory of voyeurism plays into the concept of creating complacency by ignoring the issues plaguing biodiversity. I found that the nature programming industry, especially Blue Chip documentaries, has been incredibly guilty of this for the past 50 years, and only within recent years have films begun to change their methods. “Certainly in the last few years, you have started to see programs like Blue Planet II, which were pivotal in pointing out the issues and making that the story.

Page 12

What makes all these wildlife much more engaging is that this is immediate, and this might be the last time you get to see that [animal].” (79) Active efforts must be made by filmmakers to connect them with conservation efforts to allow them to have knowledge of the issues and to take action. In the last section, we explored how the rise in celebrities and influencers has offered an avenue for people to look up to role models like Steve Irwin, who had a hand in shaping the perceptions about wildlife for an entire generation. Now with social media, the potential for this type of influence has never been more substantial and should be utilized to the fullest extent.

For the past 50 years, many nature programs have strived to show something that is meant to be timeless, but the natural world no longer reflects that image – they are now running out of time. Though many may choose to ignore it, there may come a day much sooner than we had hoped or expected where some of these films may turn into museum exhibits of what used to be. That is why we, as filmmakers, must take moral responsibility as the bridge of understanding between people, wildlife, and their protection. Film studios, filmmakers, and creators need to use every tool at their disposal to deliver the message to communities around the globe, help us close the divide between humanity and wildlife, and give audiences outlets to become activists – that is how visual storytelling can save the world.

“We’re tremendously hopeful that (when) equipped with the knowledge, facts and increased appreciation we will understand that we are a part of nature not apart from it. If we can play a small role in getting that knowledge out or inspiring people, we will have succeeded.” - Dereck Joubert (8)

Page 13

APPENDICES INDEX

APPENDIX A: WILDLIFE PROGRAMMING INDUSTRY...... 16 A1. Major Studios ...... 19 A1.1 Disneynature ...... 19 A1.2 National Geographic ...... 21 A1.3 BBC Earth ...... 23 A1.4 Netflix Originals ...... 24 A1.5 Discovery Channel ...... 25 A1.6 Animal Planet ...... 26 A2. Modes of Nature Programming...... 27 A2.1 Expository Documentary: Blue Chip ...... 27 A2.2 Participatory Documentary...... 29 A2.4 Reflexive Documentary ...... 33 A3. Current Production and Post-Production Practices ...... 35 A3.1 Production Methods ...... 36 A3.2 Post-Production Methods ...... 39

APPENDIX B: CONSERVATION IMPACT THEORIES ...... 43 B1. Western Ideals vs Local Communities...... 43 B1.1 Case Study: The Cove ...... 46 B1.2 Case Study: Blackfish ...... 48 B2. Voyeurism and the Blue Chip Method ...... 50 B2.1 Case Study: Planet Earth II ...... 52 B2.2 Case Study: Blue Planet II...... 54 B3. The Social Icon in Reality Television Series ...... 57 B3.1 Case Study: The Crocodile Hunter ...... 58

BIBLIOGROPHY...... 62

Photo: https://www.kmogallery.com/landscape Page 14

“We cannot remember too often that when we observe nature, and especially the ordering of nature, it is always ourselves alone that we are observing.”

- G.C Lichtenburg (1)

Page 15

Photo: https://www.kmogallery.com/new-zealand

Photo: https://www.africa-media.org/careers/3-training-wildlife-camera-operator-premium/ .

APPENDIX A: WILDLIFE PROGRAMMING INDUSTRY

“Longing for the authentic, nostalgic for an innocent past, we are drawn to the spectacle of wildlife untainted by human intervention and will. Yet, we cannot observe this world of nature without such intervention.” (58)

In 1878 the very first motion picture to ever be created, a zoopraxiscope, was used out of human curiosity to understand the mechanics of a horse’s gallop. While this may have been the birth of wildlife filmmaking, it was not the beginning of our fascination with the natural world. To understand the relationship between wildlife filmmaking and conservation efforts in the , it is critical first to grasp the connection we as people have with nature and how it has evolved over time.

Humanity has long been captivated by our planet’s wild creatures and natural spaces; this deeply vested interest is rooted in our connection and curiosity of the world around us. From Paleolithic cave paintings in , ancient traditions of landscape art in Asia, to the era of Romanticism in America, visual stories have long been the tool used to express our reverence and understanding of nature for thousands of years. Now, nearly 145 years after the first motion picture, the filmic tradition of portraying wildlife onscreen has become endemic to the Western world’s method of deepening our understanding of the world around us and its inhabitants. The Smithsonian’s curator of photography, Shannon Perich, explains that, “The breakthrough is that the camera can

Page 16

see things that the human eye can’t see, and that we can use photography to access our world beyond what we know it to be,” (81) Since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, human beings in the Western world have witnessed a paradigm shift in our collective perception of humanity’s place in this world. As more and more people inhabited urban areas, a rift opened up between people and the world’s natural spaces. Jane Adcroft explains this point further, stating, “With the onset of industrialization, many of our immediate connections with animals were lost. The majority of humans no longer directly interact with animals through traditional hunting or subsistence farming and agriculture.” (1) As wilderness areas decreased and became less accessible, the average person’s interactions with these wild areas also started to decline, replaced by mediated wilderness interactions and education from institutions like zoos, nature preserves, museums, and mass media outlets. As Christina Choate suggests, “Mass media interactions represent the largest informal education arena, forming a powerful medium for communication and teaching. As real interactions with wildlife dwindle for most people, film is now one of the main connections the public has with animals.” (18) Instead of learning about nature through first-person experiences, the mode of education has shifted to secondary interactions through trusted sources such as wildlife documentaries. As a museum presents exhibitions of timeless artifacts, wildlife programs have quickly risen to the role of preserving the image of nature untouched by humanity. Gregg Mitman, the author of Reel Nature, adds to this point stating, “As art and science, nature films seek to reproduce the aesthetic qualities of pristine wilderness and to preserve the wildlife that is fast vanishing from the face of the earth.” (58) Thus, placing an immense power in the hands of visual storytellers, who now have a responsibility for shaping audiences' perceptions about nature and how it should be protected.

This power that rests with wildlife filmmakers has arguably never been more critical than it is at this very moment. In recent years, human activity has increasingly changed

Page 17

the face of our planet: Climate change, habitat destruction, poaching, plastic pollution, and many more. Our world’s natural spaces are vanishing at a far quicker rate than at any point in our collective history, and when nature disappears, so too will the animals that call the wilderness their home. Humanity now rests on the precipice – Since 2000, over 1.9 million square kilometers of land has been lost and over one million species of and animals are facing extinction in the coming Figure 1. 2016: How Wildlife has declined 1970-2016 (106) years. (106) Many experts believe that this may be the last generation that will have the potential to save the planet as we know it.

However, not all hope is lost; there are ways that visual storytellers, filmmakers, and creators can impact these efforts in a positive light and make the future a brighter place for many species in need. Wildlife conservation has a long history with the nature , and often they work hand-in-hand to construct for audiences that foster awareness and activism through communication. Though complex and multi-faceted, this relationship has proven to be beneficial when both parties work together to incite change. Below we will analyze the wildlife film sector’s current practices and examine the core structure of the nature programming industry to better interpret its relationship with conservation efforts. Through identifying major studios in the industry, analyzing the various modes utilized in the genre, understanding the process of the practice, and reviewing relevant case studios, we will build a frame of understanding that will guide us when we explore the relationship this industry has with conservation efforts.

“Storytelling is perhaps mankind’s oldest tendencies. Their narratives give meaning to our everyday experiences and help us understand our world.” - Praveen Singh (65)

Page 18 https://www.facebook.com/CTVBeam/photos/animal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natgeologo.svg https://www.pinterest.ch/pin/716564990692763051/ LogoPhotos:

Netflix :

https://www.clipartkey.com/view/oRxRmo_clip

DiscoveryChannel: - planet Disneynature - will - launch

: A1. Major Studios - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disneynature_logo.svg art https://en.logodownload.org/discovery - - a netflix - new -

- Global shifts in digitalization and trends in media consumption have affected nearly logo logo - - on transparent - october every aspect of the film and television industry. “The conglomeration of media - 28th - netflix companies and vertical integration of the entertainment industry has brought music, - new - logo - logo - - png/ channel print, television, and film production under the control of single multinational - same

BBC Earth: Earth: BBC - - channel logo/ companies whose distribution outlets span the world.” (14) Nature programming and

Animal Planet: Planet: Animal - same the companies that produce it have had to grow with the changes and take advantage - /2330604083634708/

National Geographic: of the new digital market space to stay relevant and fiscally soluble. However, this has given rise to a few frontrunners within the wildlife film and television

genre. Below is a statistical summary of the current top nature film, television, and streaming services in North America and Europe. These industry leaders must be analyzed because each technique utilized by these companies is unique, and all provides different outcomes for conservation impacts.

A1.1 Disneynature There is no doubt that Disney has become one of the largest entertainment conglomerates in the world. Disneynature has been around for just over ten years, but, Disney’s involvement with wildlife programming and conservation goes back much farther than that. (92) Originally dating back to the 1950s, completed several nature films, known as the True-Life Adventure films, eight of which won . Since then, Disney has only grown, and the introduction of Disneynature has brought the nature genre back to the company. (90) Now 12 years later, Disney has made it possible to interact with wildlife programming anywhere: from theaters, television, social media, theme parks, conservation, education, and now streaming services. • Disneynature launched in 2008 and became an independent based in ; specializing in producing wildlife and nature documentaries. (92)

Page 19

• Disneynature focuses on full-length Blue Chip documentaries geared towards educating children about nature and wildlife around the world. (86) • Since its inception, they have produced 17 full-length wildlife feature films geared towards children ages 8+. (86) • Along with education provided by each film, Disneynature also utilizes outreach programs for families to get involved in wildlife welfare programs. (86) • Disneynature also boasts an array of partnerships with conservationists and like Jane Goodall, to be ambassadors for their mission. (95) • The typical Disneynature film has a theatrical release or a day-to-date release. The average worldwide gross for Disneynature documentaries is around $40 million per wildlife film released. (97) • Disney introduced their new streaming , Disney+ in 2019, providing premiere access to all Disney owned entertainment including Disneynature films. Since then they have earned 50+ million subscribers. (96)

Disney Conservation Fund While Disney may be involved with producing and distributing nature documentaries, their interaction with wildlife welfare doesn’t stop there. In 1995 they created the Disney Conservation Fund, an organization committed to protecting wildlife and supporting conservation groups around the world. • The Disney Conservation Fund has contributed over $100 million to help aid nonprofit organizations dedicated to protecting the planet and saving wildlife since the fund’s creation in 1995. (84) • The conservation team leads scientific programs to conserve wildlife, connect people to nature, and works to care for the planet through daily actions. (84) • The fund works to award grants to nonprofit organizations that are leaders in conservation efforts around the world and inspire future generations to care for the planet and its wildlife. (84) • The Disney Conservation Fund earns money through donations and box office sales from their Disneynature films. Through the fund, Disney supports

Page 20

conservation groups and nonprofits that are tied directly to the subjects, meaning the money raised from each film goes back to positively impact the subjects of each film. (84) • So far, the fund has worked to protect 1,000 species around the world, made it possible to get 53 million kids connected to nature and has succeeded in protecting 315 million acres of land. (84)

Figure 2. Anon 2020: Disneynature Conservation Fund Contributions (86)

A1.2 National Geographic

National Geographic was created initially as a magazine in 1888 but has evolved to nearly all areas of the media industry: film, television, online, and social. (99) National Geographic was purchased by Disney back in 2016 and all of their programs are now included in the Disney+ streaming service. (104) This report will focus on the wildlife films and programs produced by National Geographic WILD, the television broadcast division of the company, as well as the conservation work completed by the National Geographic Society and partners. • National Geographic WILD was launched in 2006 as a global television network focused wildlife programming; headquartered in Washington D.C. (100) • Their wildlife programming includes feature-length documentaries, docu-series, reality television series, and online short-format content. (100) • Their target audience ranges depending on the programming but for the most part their audience consists of adults 25-54. • Has released over 200 series and 780 specials since 2006, that’s more than 2,000 hours of on-air content. (100)

Page 21

• The National Geographic WILD channel reaches 59.3 million households within the U.S. and 247 million households worldwide. (100) • Disney bought National Geographic for $52 million in 2016 and offers NatGeo WILD programs on Disney+. (104) • Since the Covid-19 , National Geographic decided to become more accessible as a virtual provider of education and has since offered virtual live shows with various speakers to Figure 3. 2018 Kunst: National Geographic Channel connect with audiences stuck at home. Viewers in the U.S. by age (107) (105)

“ has distinguished itself as the premier destination for viewers who love animals and the natural world as much as we do. Over the years, we’ve been incredibly successful in breaking through with passionate animal caregivers, experts and advocates who are the heart and soul of our biggest hit series... This is all in service of National Geographic’s mission and commitment to inspiring family audiences everywhere to join us in making our planet a better place for all living things for generations to come,” Said Geoff Daniels, executive vice president of global unscripted entertainment for National Geographic Global Networks. (100)

National Geographic Society Along with all of the content that, National Geographic produces, they also have a donation fund called the National Geographic Society. This organization supports conservation, scientific research, and exploration through generous donations and various grants. “Since 1888, the National Geographic Society has driven impact by identifying and investing in an international community of Explorers: leading scientists,

Page 22

educators, storytellers, conservationists, technologists, and many other changemakers who help us define some of the critical challenges of our time, drive new knowledge, advance new , and inspire positive transformative change.” (101) • The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit created in 1888 by a number of professionals and leaders in the given fields of education, science, conservation, research and exploration to fund the exploration of research and knowledge.(99) • The society works directly with communities and professionals in their field to communicate their message to the rest of the world. (101) • They have awarded 14,000 grants, since 1890, to those who are working to make a positive change to our world: conservation, education, research, technology, and science. The fund relies on generous donations to support these grants. (101) • Right now, the National Geographic Society is directly involved in over 12 programs that are focused on wildlife and conservation. (101)

A1.3 BBC Earth BBC was created in 1922 as a radio news station based out of . Since then, it has grown to broadcast news and other programs worldwide through radio, television, online, and social media. BBC’s wildlife and broadcaster is known as BBC Earth, though their nature programming is produced in part by the BBC’s Natural History Unit. (108) • BBC Earth was launched in 2015, taking over the portion of the BBC Natural History Unit, which started back in the 1950s. (108) • BBC Earth is owned by BBC Studios and presents premium wildlife and nature programming, especially the well-known Blue Chip nature documentaries. (109) • These programs typically consist of full-length documentaries, docu-series, and host-led television programs. • BBC Earth’s programs are accessible through television broadcasting services, streaming services like BBC iPlayer, Netflix, or , and on social media platforms like YouTube. (109)

Page 23

• BBC has produced over 180 television programs and specials since the birth of the Natural History Unit. (109) • The BBC has won more awards in the category of wildlife documentaries than that of any other studio in the world and is considered the foremost leader in the Blue Chip documentary genre. (109) • Their target audience typically consists of adults 25-54, but in recent years, the BBC has been trying to cater more content toward younger audiences by moving content to online platforms and social media. (110) A1.4 Netflix Originals Netflix, the founding company of the streaming service platform, boasts an array of original wildlife documentaries unique to their brand as they are not exclusively a nature programming channel. Without a set brand or rules to follow in this regard, Netflix can be flexible in what they produce and whom they choose to work with when creating wildlife programming. • Netflix is known as the founder of the streaming service industry and operates as an SVOD company based out of the U.S. with a massive library of original and acquired content. (115) • Netflix was created over 20 years ago, and in that time, they have earned 192 million subscribers, with a huge growth amid the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic. (113) • In 2019, Netflix generated $5.2 billion in , and as of January 2020, they are worth $144 billion. (116,117) • “According to a 2018 study from Wall Street firm Cowen & Co., nearly 40% of Americans in the coveted 18-to-34 age bracket said Netflix is the platform they watch most often on TV, beating YouTube (17%), basic cable (12.6%), (7.6%), and broadcast TV (7.5%).” (114) • Netflix originals produce films and series that range across all genres within the industry, and the same goes for their nature documentaries. Since Netflix has leeway with how they can produce nature programs, they choose to work with various parties to create wildlife documentaries and series. By working with conservationists, scientists, researchers, and filmmakers from every corner of

Page 24

the industry, Netflix creates an array of content and messages unique to the genre. (115) A1.5 Discovery Channel Discovery Channel is a television broadcasting studio based out of the U.S. that produces high-quality non-fiction content for audiences worldwide. They are a conglomerate that owns several other channels, including Animal Planet and many others. The company that began in 1985 is well known for introducing the popular annual event known as Shark Week and its influence on education and conservation. (120) “Offering a signature mix of compelling, high-end production values and vivid cinematography across genres including, science and technology, exploration, adventure, history and in-depth, behind-the-scenes glimpses at the peoples, places, and organizations that shape and share our world.” (120) • Discovery Channel is currently broadcast to 87 million U.S. homes and 277 million worldwide. (119) • They deliver 8,000 hours of every year. (120) • The target audience for the Discovery Channel’s nature programming can range based off the particular content but typically resides with kids and young adults. • Their content can be accessed on the broadcasted television channel as well as their streaming service app. (120) • Discovery Channel’s revenue from 2018 was nearly $10.6 billion. • In 2018, it was announced that Discovery Channel was looking to start a streaming service dedicated primarily to nature and wildlife programming. Discovery Impact “Through its Discovery Impact programs, Discovery leverages the power of its brands, businesses and employees to give back to the world. From programming that inspires and educates to network and corporate cause-related partnerships that make a direct impact on the communities in which we live and work, Discovery strives to celebrate, support and sustain the majesty of our Earth.” (126) • Discovery Impact was launched in 2010 as a way for Discovery Channel to support community programs, conservation efforts, and many others. (126)

Page 25

• The Impact team works with a vast array of programs including some that were specifically based off of a particular piece of nature programming. (126) • Discovery with wildlife conservation programs and enables people’s donations to go directly to support those efforts. (126)

A1.6 Animal Planet

Animal Planet is a 100% nature-based television broadcasting company owned by Discovery Inc. The company which was launched in 1996 creates series and specials aimed at educating and entertaining the youth in regard to animal welfare. • The company which was launched in 1996 creates series and specials aimed at educating and entertaining the youth in regard to animal welfare. • Animal Planet reaches nearly 84 million U.S. households and 360 million around the world. (125) • “Animal Planet, one of Discovery, Inc.’s great global brands, is dedicated to creating high quality content with global appeal delivering on its mission to keep the childhood joy and wonder of animals alive by bringing people up close in every way.” (125) • Their target audience mostly consists of a younger demographic but statistics show that Animal Planet’s content does well across a wide range of ages. (123) • The content produced by Animal Planet is distributed to audiences through television networks and online Figure 4 Kunst 2018: Animal Planet Viewers in the U.S. by Age (123) streaming services. (124)

Page 26

Photo: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/filipe-deandrade-national-geographic-1.5576399

A2. Modes of Nature Programming

“Different styles of natural history film evoke distinct feelings and emotions about wild animals which viewers use as a basis for their perception of wildlife.” (18)

Bill Nichols, a pioneering theoretician who revolutionized the study of contemporary , identifies six modes within the genre of documentary filmmaking. These documentarians' methods establish structured categories within which these film’s narratives conform; these sub-genres include observational, expository, poetic, participatory, reflexive, and performative. While wildlife documentaries are diverse and have the potential to stretch to fit all of these categories, we will only be focusing on those that are the most relevant, wide-reaching, and accessible to the general public. (78)

A2.1 Expository Documentaries: The “Blue Chip” Method There are several different variations of wildlife films, and the techniques they use are vast, but far by the most recognizable practice is the expository mode of documentary, also known as the “Blue Chip” method. These films are known by the classic features

Page 27

of timeless visuals of wildlife in pristine natural habitats untouched by humanity with an unseen narrator to guide the audience through the narrative. During production for these high-budget documentaries, Film crews will often travel to some of the last patches of wilderness on the planet for months-on-end to try and film their wild subjects as they would naturally behave.

Thus, giving audiences a “window” into the wild without leaving the comfort of their homes. Telling stories of wildlife behavior without human intervention and influence is the over-arching goal of many Blue Chip documentaries. However, humanity’s impact is far-reaching, and filmmakers will sometimes be forced to exclude any evidence of their presence, lest they shatter the “window” of pristine wildlife. In this way, Blue Chip documentaries have long been regarded as an educational tool for viewers seeking to understand wildlife’s true nature across the globe. Helping audiences gain that understanding and awareness requires a guide, someone who is knowledgeable in wildlife behavior and persuasive enough to captivate the audience. “Here, the voice-over narration is dominant, usually explaining the images on screen, describing behaviors, adaptations, and encounters. The narrator serves as an institutional voice of authority over the illustrative pictures and addresses the viewer directly.” (18) This authoritative voice of the narrator is critical to the Blue Chip documentary for they are the ones telling the story, and as such, they need to be the voice of someone trustworthy to the viewers. There is perhaps no one who better fits this role than that of David Attenborough, whose voice is so

recognizable within this genre that it Photo: https://www.streetroots.org/news/2018/01/26/60-years-his-career-david-attenborough-still-marvels-over-nature has become nearly synonymous with the public’s perceptions of Blue Chip documentaries. Over his almost 70 years of working in the field, Attenborough has not

Page 28

only shaped the wildlife film industry, but has also become the voice for the plight of our planet. It is his belief that showing the lives of animals and telling their stories will evoke emotions that will lead to compassion and appreciation for the creatures we share this world with. (80)

“It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.” – Sir David Attenborough (80)

A1.2 Participatory Documentary: A Look at Testimonial Methods The second mode of documentary, as outlined by Nichols, is the participatory model. This documentary method is defined as an interactive experience between the filmmaker and their subjects; differing from the expository method of observing without interfering. (78) When applied to the genre of nature documentary, this mode can be broken down into a testimonial style of documentary that consists of two specific methods. “This style uses the testimony of an onscreen subject and is based on the interactive (participatory) mode. Two sub-genres exist, one with a host or presenter, the other with more formal interviews; either experts in a field or individuals telling personal stories.” (18) Both of these modes lend the voice of authority to the speaker or presenter shown on camera, whereas the Blue Chip method lends the authoritative voice to the unseen narrator. Below we will analyze both approaches and discuss how these techniques are utilized to tell stories concerning wildlife.

Formal Interview Documentary The first mode within this testimonial style is the method of using formal interviews to define the narrative. Using journalistic techniques of reporting, this method of filmmaking tells the overarching narrative of wildlife and their welfare through the lens of the people closest to them. Filmmakers interact and obtain interviews from individuals and groups of people who protect animals and their habitats: wildlife

Page 29

experts, rangers, scientists, investigators, and conservationists. These culminated stories ultimately define the outcome of the onscreen narrative. This documentary mode serves a journalistic intent of working to peel back the curtain in ways that show the impact that humans have on wildlife to a broader audience. This method is seen throughout the screen industries and is arguably a favored tool used to persuade audiences to activism, encourage awareness, and highlight conservation efforts from the human perspective.

This sector of the sub-genre can be formatted in many ways; from full-length documentaries designed for broadcast or streaming or short format documentaries perfect for online sharing on social media platforms. The flexibility of the potential to format these films in many ways make them attractive because of their ability to be distributed almost everywhere on the digital and broadcast markets. These films can tackle various topics worldwide, but recently they have become popularized as an avenue to communicate issues typically characterized by dramatic sequences that call for change and serve as wake-up calls to audiences and government agencies. This method is not endemic to one country or culture, however, the two high-profile industries known to create these documentaries, National Geographic and Netflix, create films that are popular primarily among Western world audiences.

For example, the 2016 film , this -documentary brings attention to the vast and persisting issue of the illegal ivory trade and the decimation of the wild population of African elephants. Netflix created this documentary in partnership with Terra Mater Film Studios, Malaika Pictures, , and Appian Way, as a call to action regarding the illegal ivory trade and its complexity. (129) This film uses all of the principles outlined in the participatory genre's testimonial model by allowing the people who are risking everything to protect these creatures to dictate the story. Instead of lecturing audiences about the issues, The Ivory Game utilized this testimonial approach that ultimately enabled the story to speak for itself. (130)

Page 30

This film is played out over continents and seen from the conservationists’ perspectives and rangers on the ground protecting the elephants to the undercover investigators working to reveal the illegal activity in . “The Ivory Game” may be a harsh wakeup call to anyone concerned about the future of the largest land mammal, but it’s also a keen evaluation of the efforts being made to correct the situation. (130) Though Netflix doesn’t release specific viewer data from its platform, The Ivory Game was widely well- received, earning 81% from , positive reviews from critics, as well as multiple nominations for film awards. (131,132) Netflix and Photo: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952266/ their partners wanted to provide audiences with a means to access further information and ways to contribute to the cause, so at of the film they added a link at the end of the film for those who felt inspired to help. These techniques helped the film find success in creating an outcry from the public demanding change in international policies. In 2018 China committed to their promise and outlawed ivory's legal commercial trade, a huge win for conservation, though, the fight still continues.

The Reality Television Show The second mode within the testimonial documentary method is characterized by a presenter or host that dictates the narrative to the audience onscreen. Taking the reality television programming approach, this sub-genre will choose a person who is both knowledgeable and charismatic about the specific animal subjects they are portraying to create a relationship with the audience and keep them invested in the program. Similar to the Expository method, this one person will serve as the authoritative voice to guide audiences to a specific understanding. However, this method chooses a much more “hands-on” approach where the host will appear on

Page 31

screen with wildlife to explain their behaviors. This decision to show the interaction between humans and wildlife offers a perspective in contrast to other methods that try to present an image of nature without humans’ interference and helps bridge the gap of separation between audience’s perceptions of our relationship with nature.

This wildlife programming model does especially well with younger age groups and families because it gives children a role-model to look up to; someone who will mentor them about nature and compassion for wildlife. The idea is to get kids to care about wildlife at an early age, and they will grow up with compassion towards nature and want to protect it. These factors mean that this type of testimonial programming is incredibly popular on television broadcasting networks, as it is cheaper to produce than most Blue Chip films and fits naturally into a television series format. Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, BBC, and National Geographic are all networks that utilize and have popularized this method of programming over recent years. However, the TV host model is arguably one of the longest persisting methods of nature programming; dating back to shows like in the 1950s with a younger David Attenborough bringing audiences with him worldwide exploring natural habitats and wildlife. Zoo Quest, was a first in many respects for many places shown in these specials had yet to be filmed and distributed to audiences in the Western world; for them, it was a first glimpse at life that was different from their own. (133)

Years later, this type of programming evolved and became more widely distributed to educate and entertain families and younger demographics. The techniques first explored in shows like Zoo Quest gave way to other shows that continued to bring nature right to the audience’s living room. In 1963, a new show rose to popularity in America among families, Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, first appeared on NBC until it was syndicated and grew to become a television icon. The series was co-hosted by Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, then later with Peter Gros, who shared their enthusiasm for wildlife and their natural habitats with audiences across America. (134)

Page 32

The show originally broadcasted in 30-minute segments every Sunday from 1963- 1988, then rebooted on Animal Planet from 2002-2011, and won 41 major awards as well as four Primetime Emmy’s. “I can’t tell you how many people tell me that they pursued a career in , wildlife conservation, or a related field because of Wild Kingdom,” Fowler said. “Beyond the awards and the ratings, the show’s positive impact is truly astounding.” (134) Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom now operates as a web series to reaching its viewers through and YouTube. (135) It was shows like these that modeled a new way for families to experience and learn about nature and gave rise to other well-known programs where creators could build relationships with their audiences through their mutual love and curiosity towards animals.

A2.3 Reflexive Documentary Lastly, we must discuss the method of reflexive documentary and its current utilization in the industry to complement filmmaking techniques. Nichols outlines reflexive filmmaking as a “Brechtian” aspect of the documentary sub-genres stating that it is about the relationship between the audience and the filmmaker’s process rather than the filmmaker and the subject. “Showing the man (or woman) behind the curtain to the audience should shake the core of the whole process of storytelling.” (78) This technique has been used within nature filmography in conjunction with the expository method to give audiences a behind-the-scenes look to understand how these Blue Chip documentaries were filmed. (78) These reflexive methods can be supplemented in many ways: either added to the end of an episode or film, or simply become its own separate episode or bonus feature.

Though this method has started to become a trend in Blue Chip documentaries only recently, the change has created ripples in the traditional process in which these films are created. This approach demystifies the art of filming wild animals in their natural habitats and helps to solve, in part, one issue that has plagued Blue Chip documentaries from the very beginning, separation. By focusing on animals in an untouched habitat, there tends to be a disconnect between audiences and what animal

Page 33

behavior is really like; which can mislead viewers on the urgency for conservative measures. Showing the harsh and sometimes grueling work that filmmakers often have to go through to obtain those beautiful cinematic sequences prevents this miscommunication and reconnects audiences to the realities of these situations and the urgency for conservation efforts.

The 2019 BBC series, Seven Worlds One Planet, is an excellent example of this concept. Each episode of this series contains an “On Location” segment at the end that shows the process which these filmmakers experienced while obtaining footage of their particular subject. (136) In episode 4, “Asia” David Attenborough recounts his first time filming Orangutans in in 1956, how much has changed in that time, and the added difficulties that the film crew faced when capturing footage for that sequence for the episode. This use of reflexive filmmaking allowed Attenborough to be frank with the audience regarding how these episodes were made but also the issues that these Photo: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Worlds-Planet-Jonny-Keeling-ebook/dp/B07TW5RLXV animals and habitats are facing. (136)

Page 34

A3 Current Production and Post-Production Practices

In the process of understanding the complexity of the wildlife film industry and the subsequent impact nature programming has on conservation, it is crucial to examine decisions regarding wildlife welfare and what is shown to the audience throughout the production and post-production process, as well as the impacts these decisions have on conservation efforts. Issues of captive filming, direct intervention, habituation, harassment, staging, environmental impact anthropomorphism, dramatization, voyeurism, -riding, and misleading narratives are all ethical concerns that filmmakers must consider when handling wild subjects. By analyzing the process of humane filming and techniques and the concept between education vs. entertainment within Blue Chip documentaries, we can paint a better picture of the current standard of which the public holds these programs to, as well as the subsequent impact on conservation efforts.

“Wildlife documentary has often been seen as a bridge between film and science and as such has caused controversy because of the way the science has been manipulated for popular entertainment.” (1)

Page 35

There is an implicit belief among the general public that science and wildlife films work hand in hand to present audiences an authentic image of the natural world. This concept is consistent across the documentary genre because it is thought that films within the genre are meant to be an educational tool, and thus should be portrayed truthfully. Though, as filmmakers well know, what is shown on the screen is not always a full picture of what occurs in nature. Filming techniques and editing all play a role in creating a narrative that audiences will find interesting. “Despite this powerful effect, television was never meant to be a well-balanced classroom or even a window onto reality.” (18) In the end, filmmakers need to portray an entertaining story to keep viewers invested in the onscreen drama. “One could argue that most nature programming no longer qualifies as “documentary” because of its extensive use of fictionalization and techniques with close similarities to reality TV.” (18) It is a difficult line to walk between truth and entertainment; but filmmakers must strive to put the welfare of wildlife subjects above all else and abstain from purposefully misleading the audience.

A3.1 Production Methods Amongst the current climate crisis, one of the first questions that film studios must tackle well-before production begins is the potential impact on the environment created during the production process. It is the duty of film crews, especially within the nature , to minimize actions that could damage the very habitats they are trying to film. That means looking at the carbon footprint that any given film production could cause, any destructive behavior towards the environment, and potential stress filming could cause on wildlife. Excessive back-and-forth flights for film crews, damaging or staging habitats for filming, using heavy machinery like helicopters unnecessarily, and harassing animals for a particular behavior are all examples of poor choices that can negatively impact the environment during film production. Studios should employ preventative measures to avoid actions that have the potential to impact habitats negatively. Using local film teams instead of excessive flights, utilizing drones instead of helicopters, and working in line with local conservationists to perform

Page 36

filmmaking duties humanely are all cases for ethical practices that should be followed in the interest of the environment.

This concept of preserving the environment and the creatures that live there from a filmmaker's viewpoint leads directly into the next issue of production methods employed by all sub-genres of wildlife films. Working to reduce the carbon footprint of a film is one thing, but filmmakers must also act in the best interest of the welfare for the animals they are filming. Every wildlife documentary mode portrays varying levels of interference from human activity, but it is impractical to capture wildlife on film without imposing somewhat on their lives. Even with the most unintrusive techniques like that of the expository method, it is impossible to erase human activity during filming completely. After all, nature is unpredictable, and wildlife does not act off of a given script. So, filmmakers have to be flexible, creative, and patient in their pursuit to capture desired behaviors that fit within the narrative humanely. “Making a wildlife or natural history film adds another layer of complexity, since the filmmaker rarely has any control over the subject. Unlike an advertisement film or a , where one starts off with an extremely detailed script and storyboard, the wildlife film has to contend with the unpredictability of nature. Animals in the jungle cannot be made to perform for the camera according to one’s wishes. This does not mean that you cannot plan a wildlife film, only that the process of planning and making a wildlife film is quite different from what is involved in the making of a film involving people.” (7)

From the start, success relies on the filmmakers’ knowledge and ability regarding wildlife behavior and tendencies. To increase these chances of success and ensure humane practices, filmmakers will enlist the aid of local guides, scientists, and conservationists who all have a history and experience with a particular wildlife subject. Even so, depending on the mode of documentary being produced, filmmakers may have to spend months to years filming specific behaviors or a particularly rare species before getting successful footage. For example, the production for BBC’s Planet Earth

Page 37

II took place over the course of four years, with 2,089 days spent in the field. Filmmakers during this time spent months-on-end at each location trying to capture specific dramatic moments for the screen: hunting, mating , raising young, territorial disputes, etc. (137)

All the compounded time is why it is often common for the film crew to habituate themselves with specific subjects to encourage natural behavior around the filmmakers. A wild animal that is skittish around humans will not behave naturally for the camera, defeating the purpose of filming for a specific sequence. “To increase the likelihood of a sequence working, it is always better to film animals that are somewhat used to humans, or at least are not afraid of them.” (6) Innovations in technology with camera traps, powerful telephoto lenses, and drones help filmmakers remain as unobtrusive as possible. However, there are times when some amount of interference and perhaps habituation is unavoidable. Though, film crews must continue to act in the best interest of the animal’s welfare and abstain from crossing the line into direct interventions and harassment.

When a specific behavior is crucial to the film's narrative but runs the chance of stressing out the wild subjects, film crews may turn to captive animals to fulfill their sequence. For example, filmmakers working on production for took this approach in order to film polar bear cubs in their den site. By choosing to use a captive polar bear mother and cubs, the team could capture events that would have been nearly impossible to do in the wild. These actions can help filmmakers explain specific behaviors, but it also runs a risk of misleading audience members. In order to prevent backlash from misleading viewers, filmmakers should consider the action carefully and be sure to disclose the use of captive or tame animals in the narrative. The same rules apply to uses of CGI, reconstruction, and simulation; all can aid in completing a narrative but should never be used to manipulate the audience.

Page 38

To ascertain the line between humane actions and harassment depends on the type of program being produced. Within the expository method, filmmakers need to remember they are meant to be observing nature and thus cannot actions or behaviors through staging, baiting, and other measures. This means letting nature run its course even when it is difficult – nature, though beautiful, can often be cruel to its hosts, and this can be difficult for film crews to witness. During production for BBC's Planet Earth II, filmmakers in the middle east witnessed a massive pandemic rip through migratory herds of Saiga antelope, killing off around 150,000 of the already in a matter of days. (137) In situations like this, there is nothing that the filmmakers can do, nor should they; it is not up to the filmmaker to intercede when an animal is in trouble it must be left to the proper channels of conservationists, scientists, and rangers that protect wildlife. The issue here is that often audiences who witness gut-wrenching sequences of nature's brutal side onscreen want to help and become outraged that filmmakers don't step in to help animals struggling. What viewers sometimes fail to understand is that it is the goal of many of these filmmakers to show the natural order of things, remain truthful in their presentation of wildlife, and abstain from misleading audiences.

A3.2 Post-Production Methods Just as wildlife filmmakers must exhibit ethical practices during the filming process, so too must they continue these practices throughout post-production efforts. For it is in the editing process, that the directors and editors decide what narrative is going to be shown to viewers. This crucial step in the filming process holds the potential to make or break a film; good visuals cannot save poor editing and narratives, no matter the film. That is why filmmakers, regardless of genre, have always exhibited some sort of strategy in creating a narrative structure that resonates with audiences, and nature programs are no different. The strategy in question is that of sentimentalism, personification, and anthropomorphism in a wildlife documentary. Below we analyze why nearly all sub-genres employ the same techniques, whether or not it is ethical, and why it works.

Page 39

“When we place animals on film, we remove them from their natural context and place them within a human construct. Characterization and personification, emotive music and the imposition of a narrative structure all place human-like motivations and emotions on animals.” (1)

There has been a persistent trend in nature films utilizing sentimental storylines, emotive music, and personified characters to dramatize nature stories. Creators of wildlife documentaries will romanticize aspects of animals’ lives into great epics of life and death: searching for love, fighting tooth and nail for survival, and protecting family from the cruel reality of their world. While this improves the film’s chance of success in the market, to some, this approach is seen as unscientific and misleading to audiences. Raising the concern that since animals cannot act within a human construct, their behaviors being interpreted through specific human cultural values and idealism is an unrealistic image of nature and thus should be avoided by serious documentary programs. Yet Jane Adcroft argues that it is impossible to create a film that is entirely devoid of human ideals, claiming that the practices of anthropomorphism are “inseparable from the wildlife filmmaking process.” (1) This is evident even within the observational, non-verbal genre of wildlife films, where human presence is entirely non-existent. Here, specific musical choices evoke emotions from viewers in which they construct a narrative through the lens of their own ideals. Adcroft notes that the material portrayed on the screen is inherently the wildlife filmmaker’s choices, and ultimately, the medium of film is meant for entertainment purposes, and as such, will produce films that are popular among audiences. (1) “As such, anthropomorphism, when defined as humanizing non-human objects, is a natural by- product of the filmmaking process – the camera lens is also a human̳ -lens... Films, as with other forms of artistic creation, are produced ̳... by humans for humans, by cultural groups for cultural groups.” (1)

However, the use of anthropomorphism is more than a clever way to convince people to watch the dramatic lives of wildlife around the world; these strategies serve a larger purpose of getting people to feel compassion towards wildlife and their welfare. As

Page 40

Baba Dioum said, “we will conserve only what we love,” and getting people to care about wildlife is critical to their conservation. (128) “Respected primatologist Jane Goodall acknowledges the advantages of using names in particular; when discussing her films about states’ I don’t think people would have been as interested if David Graybeard had been number 29... With names, the chimpanzees made their way into people’s hearts. Goodall accepts that the chimpanzees needed to become named characters in a story before audiences were able to sympathize with their plight.” (1)

These strategies of creating narratives that resonate and encourage compassion and excitement have the potential to enter the mainstream, thereby influencing an increasing audience towards activism through awareness and discussion. “Understandings of anthropomorphism need to move away from criticism of its validity as a filmmaking technique and be reframed towards its potential to inspire audiences.” (1) Historically speaking, the release of the global phenomenon, March of the Penguins in 2005, first showed the potential for sentimental and anthropomorphic techniques to thrust wildlife programming to the forefront of public attention. “It was this anthropomorphic construction that ultimately caused the audience to feel a deep emotional connection with the characters and made the penguin’s story so globally likable. The humble animal heroes are marching, embarking, journeying and overcoming unbelievable odds, all for love.” (1) This resonance felt by audiences across the globe caused this film to skyrocket to become the second most successful documentary ever created, earning $128 million in profits. Thus, opening doors for other studios to follow suit and arguably starting the renaissance of wildlife cinema and programming. All of these techniques have since become a regularity across every sub-genre from anecdotal quips about animal personality from narrators in Blue Chip documentaries, to animal rights thrillers like The Ivory Game, and exuberant hosts from wildlife reality television; all areas of the industry express some amount of characterization and anthropomorphism in their

Page 41

programs. However, these efforts to connect to audiences can make a difference for conservation across the globe. “Linking the audience with the stories on screen allows them to feel that they are intrinsically connected to the wildlife and nature represented, that they are involved in their lives or have been there before. Once connected to these animals or landscapes, audiences are more likely to have a personal investment in their interests or conservation.” (1)

In conclusion, the practices employed by the nature programming industry concerning the production and post-production processes are incredibly nuanced and vary from film to film. However, there are still ethical proceedings that must be adhered concerning animal welfare and honesty; the number one priority in any nature program should be the welfare of the subjects being filmed. So it goes without saying that unnecessarily stressing animals out or trying to coax certain behaviors that will play well onscreen are unethical and must be avoided at all costs. Nowadays, filmmakers can turn to other methods to aid in the production process, including camera traps, powerful telephoto lenses, and drones. If there is too significant a risk posed to the wild subject, the film crew can also utilize methods of captive filming, habituation, and other means, but these can sometimes be viewed as misleading and should be disclosed to the audience. The post-production is relatively similar in terms of ethical practices, but there is more emphasis here on refraining from misleading narratives. Using techniques of sentimentalism, dramatization, and anthropomorphism are often seen by critics as unscientific and not an accurate image of natural behaviors. However, filmmaking is a form of entertainment at its base and will always reflect that fact; it is impossible to create a completely unbiased program and still be successful among audiences. There is absolutely a thin line that filmmakers must balance between being truthful and entertaining enough to get people to care about the animals on the screen.

Page 42

Photo: https://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/dynasties/episodes/season-1-episode-00-the-making-of-dynasties--15203

APPENDIX B: CONSERVATION IMPACT THEORIES

In this process of examining the relationship between nature programming and conservation efforts, it is imperative to explore literature and theories that pertain to possible negative implications that these programs can have on conservation. Whereas the above section focused on the ethical practices of filmmaking pertaining to the wildlife and environment, this section explores the relationship between these productions and the people connected to these programs: local communities, audiences, and conservationists. By reviewing these theories and relevant case studies, we will ascertain a basic understanding of ethical practices that will benefit both the film industry and contribute positively towards conservation efforts. Below we will analyze three areas that pose problems within the industry concerning wildlife and their conservation: colonialism, voyeurism, and free riding.

B1. Western Ideals vs. Local Communities in Classical Documentaries The first theory to be discussed concerns the ethics of how filmmakers go about working with local communities and the presentation of Western ideals. It is no secret that the high-budget nature programs are, for-the-most-part, produced by Western world studios, and those creations tend to be more popular among Western

Page 43

audiences. However, this aspect can create an issue not only for conservation efforts but also for audience perceptions of other countries and their local communities. By neglecting communication and relationships to local communities where films are produced, is measurable positive impact on conservation efforts possible? (3) “Wildlife films come almost exclusively from a single interpretation of nature, that of an industrialized, western perspective stressing the separation of humans and nature. The films are produced by people whose understanding of modernity dissociates them from the very nature they produce.” (3) Western society has been inundated with wildlife programming for decades – nearly every corner of the world has been broadcast directly into the audience’s living rooms, providing a particular perspective of the world we live in. Yet, while many of these films call for change and support conservation efforts in different ways, are they really doing everything they can to effect real change? (3) During production, filmmakers who travel to even the most remote regions of the planet typically have a singular goal in mind to film wildlife and their behaviors; but they neglect to engage with the local communities and indigenous people who have the most contact with those animals. They may connect with some conservationists and local guides to help during the filming process, but this is not the same thing as opening up a dialogue to reach a mutual understanding with these communities. Bertie Gregory, a worldwide renowned filmmaker, and cinematographer, comments on this concept saying, “Particularly I think, sort of old school science and filmmakers are guilty of that, like, you know, parachute in colonial style and forget about the local people,” he says. “I think that's been that sort of style of filmmaking has been something that our industry has been pretty guilty of.” (79)

To understand this concept a little better, I have outlined seven steps of separation to explain the levels of contact and interaction between any given group of people and wildlife. First, of course, being wildlife and natural habitats themselves, followed by local communities and indigenous people who for-the-most part, will have the most interactions with specific habitats and their wildlife. After the communities comes the

Page 44

people who help oversee and protect these areas conservationists, rangers, and guides, followed by the scientists and researchers who study these areas. Then there are the filmmakers and creators who go to these areas to create stories about these places, followed by the audiences and the general public who view these programs. Finally, at the end of the list is the policymakers, those in government who hand down legislation regarding national and international laws on conservation. This list gives us an understanding of the close relationship between local communities and specific natural habitats, but it also portrays the separation most average people have with first-person interaction with wildlife. Steps of Separation 1. Wildlife and Habitat 4. Scientists and Researchers 2. Local Communities and 5. Filmmakers and Creators Indigenous Peoples 6. Audiences and General Public 3. Conservationists, Rangers, and 7. Policy Makers Guides These local communities often have the most intimate relationship with specific and their inhabitants, and when they are forgotten in any given narrative, a vital piece of the story is left out. By neglecting that connection with local communities and indigenous people, filmmakers are not only missing an opportunity to open up a discussion about conservation from different perspectives; they are also risking portraying these areas and people in a way that is misleading and inconsiderate of their culture and beliefs. This means that when Western filmmakers produce wildlife films – regardless of the genre – they are created through a lens, where ideals and values are portrayed and perceived by Western cultures and people. That particular set of beliefs is applied to diverse cultures that do not fit within those constructs and thus can create misrepresentations that do not reflect these communities accurately. “It appalls us that the West can desire, extract and claim ownership of our ways of knowing, our imagery, the things we create and produce, and then simultaneously reject the people who created and developed those ideas and

Page 45

seek to deny them further opportunities to be creators of their own culture and own nations” (3)

This concept of misrepresentation is evident, especially when applied to conservation within wildlife programming. When communities are neglected a place to communicate their ideals concerning conservation, it leaves room for audiences to begin to view these communities in a negative light. Furthermore, allowing the general public to get into this ‘blame-game’ style of thinking where audiences find fault with these communities and countries for struggling to preserve natural habitats and question why these cultures do not reflect Westernized ideals of conservation. However, assuming that there is only one way to conserve the natural world simply isn’t true; conservation can’t be dictated by one cultural set of beliefs. “To hold alternative histories is to hold alternative knowledges... [which] can form the basis of alternative ways of doing things... Communities are the ones who know the answers to their own problems” (3) Every local community and indigenous has different cultural beliefs when it comes to preserving and protecting the animals that they live with. “Meanwhile, their films continue to reassert and reinforce their idea of what nature should look like. The erasure of people in the genre reflects the way indigenous communities were removed to create space for colonial inhabitation” (3)

This issue pertains to every sub-genre of wildlife filmmaking, but for this discussion, we will review its effects within the testimonial method of classical documentaries through two case studies. These two examples have similar topics but were executed in different ways and have had different outcomes as far as conservation impacts.

B1.1 Case Study: The Cove Take, for instance, the issues surrounding The Cove, a 2009 film about dolphin hunting in Taiji, Japan. The narrative was expertly crafted using hidden camera work and ‘spy- craft’ to show the world the brutality of these annual dolphin hunts in this coastal town. This film follows the actions of Western activists, primarily that of Ric O’Barry, on his

Page 46

mission to uncover the hunting operations in Taiji. (141) Upon completion, the film was released in America and became an instant hit scoring a rating of 8.4/10 from critics and earning $1.18 million in the box office. (139,138) The documentary even went on to win an Oscar for best documentary as well as several other awards. Western countries’ success subsequently garnered sympathy from Western audiences for the plight of these dolphins that were being caught, killed, or sold into captivity. It eventually led to protests and an outcry against the abuse and cruelty the Japanese were inflicting as well as a call for policy change. (141)

However, the attention and reaction received by Japan was very different from that of the U.S. The use of hidden cameras and a harsh representation of Japanese people and culture was met with severe criticism for the practices utilized in this film. The Taiji fishermen, especially, were outraged at the representation of their people, and the film was met with immense backlash and opposing protests, not to mention that only a few theaters in Japan even dared to show the controversial film. (139) The fact that the film was entirely created by a Western studio, and film team, compounded with the fact that there was no chance within the film for a Japanese voice to offer a perspective for their culture, led to a solely Western perspective of the operations happening in Japan. Even with support to end these dolphin hunts from America and other Western countries, Japan and Taiji have made little to no effort to change their practices; now they go to further extents to hide their practices from outsiders. (139) “This kind of documentary clearly raises awareness but, within the communities able to actively change practices harmful to the environment it rarely has the same impact. Despite already having risen to astronomical levels of popularity, there is still a lot of scope for these programs to do more for conservation. Choosing to champion local voices ... might just be the kind of convincing many people need to take action on climate change.” (29)

Page 47

B1.2 Case Study: Blackfish This begs the question if using local voices and understandings of different cultures would it be possible to incite change to a greater degree? To shed light on this question, we turn the discussion to the case of the 2013 documentary, Blackfish. The film by Gabriela Cowperthwaite was created to question SeaWorld’s treatment of their marine mammals, especially orcas. The film was based around a single orca named Tilikum, who was involved in the deaths of a few of his trainers; the film claims that the animals’ captivity and forceful performance is inhumane. This film about the American company was produced by a Western film crew and used multiple voices of experts, SeaWorld trainers, and other firsthand accounts all to provide a complete picture of the operations going on at SeaWorld. (147) With numerous positive reviews, the film’s popularity in the U.S. took off, earning the film $2.3 million from the box office and an 8.1/10 rating from critics. (146,145)

What happened next was a massive outcry from the public in response to this film; SeaWorld faced immense backlash later dubbed the ‘Blackfish effect’. “Despite numerous attempts to refute Cowperthwaite’s claims, SeaWorld was unable to turn the back as both celebrities and regular park-goers alike made their disdain clear, either by visibly boycotting the parks or by simply not going.” (142) The company saw a loss in , visitor numbers, and a ruined public image. There was also attention from policymakers who sought to change laws regarding the captivity of orcas and other marine mammals in due to this film. (147) Eventually, SeaWorld was forced to end their captive breeding program and promised to phase out gaudy performances from their captive orcas. (142)

In the end, it is difficult to definitively prove that the negation of cultural representation caused the difference of receptions and measurable impact between these two films. However, I theorize that the concept of using local voices that give representation to a specific culture may, in the future, lead to more cooperative efforts regarding conservation and animal welfare. For filmmakers working to positively impact

Page 48

conservation efforts, the following questions must be asked: who are these films made for, what is the relationship with local communities, how are they portrayed, and do they have access to this film after production? “Engagement is undoubtedly the best way to get us to care more about the . If we want to make films more effective in the future...we need to encourage that engagement by giving the cameras to local populations to document their own experiences.” (29) Letting communities play an active role in the production and participate in films about their own culture and wildlife not only gives audiences a new perspective on the natural world, it also provides a greater chance of raising awareness within these local communities. To fulfill this, filmmakers should try to use these three measures within their programs. First, engage with local communities and open up a dialogue about their culture and beliefs as they relate to local flora and fauna. This way, teams are building relationships with people based on mutual respect for differences in culture. The next step would be to present some of their perspectives into the program, whether through interviews or offering new perspectives for audiences to learn from. The last step is to find ways to make that film available to the specific community with the most contact with the wildlife subjects from the film. “To be successful, participatory methods must help indigenous communities be heard. They must help teach conservationists to critically assess their own assumptions, motivations, and values. By challenging characterizations of locals’ apathy and ignorance as the source of conflict, participatory methods can help return control of the moral debate to the communities with the most at stake. Successful collaborations on conservation depend less upon locating conducive local beliefs than upon working from mutual respect. If conservation directly conflicts with local values, it only has more onus to justify its imposition.” (3)

Page 49

Photo https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/50097863

B2. Voyeurism and Blue Chip Documentaries The second theory that must be examined as far as conservation impacts are concerned is that of voyeurism. This section will examine the issue of voyeurism as it pertains to nature programming and seeks to understand why it has negative impacts on conservation efforts. By analyzing evidential literature and relevant case studies, we will subsequently structure an understanding of how nature programming can improve in the future.

In context, the definition of a voyeur is someone who is acting as, “a prying observer” who seeks to fulfill their desire for “pleasurable looking.” (38) This concept directly pertains to the structure of cinema itself, where films and narratives are created for audiences whose only means of interaction with the program is through passive spectating. Taking this concept one step further and analyzing the perception of voyeurism pertaining to wildlife programming and conservation, it is clear that this notion of ‘observers seeking pleasurable looking’ applies directly to the idea of nature programming serving as a ‘window’ into the natural world. Vanessa Serraro Himenez relates this theory of ‘window viewing’ by relating to Western cultural ideals saying, “The positioning of the spectator as a voyeur is especially strong in wildlife and nature films, where the dominant social ideology reinforces the separation between the spectator and the film’s subject matter.” (38)

Himenez goes on to explain that within Western society, it is believed that humans are separate from nature and must utilize an intermediary (window) to interact with our perceptions of nature. (38) Audiences can passively peer through this ‘window’ and witness the pristine drama of the lives of wild animals and their habitats, all from the

Page 50

comfort of their living room. The characterization of these voyeuristic style films in the wildlife genre subsist on a sense of spectacles of nature and an absence of human activity to maintain the separation between humans and the natural world. Wildlife films that exhibit these tendencies enter this state of spectator entertainment experiences, where audiences are lulled into a passive and voyeuristic state by a series of techniques that keep them entertained but denies action. (38) While voyeuristic style films are found throughout the nature programming industry, these specific characterizations are most notably utilized within the expository method; namely, Blue Chip documentaries. These programs have become the intermediary interaction with nature in the Western world, and as the division between nature and humanity has continued to grow, so too has the demand for more wildlife programming, especially Blue Chip documentaries. However, the demand for wildlife programs that subsist of pristine visuals and untouched habitats can have an unintended consequence for conservation efforts worldwide. Dr. Jane Goodall explains this mass desire from audiences, stating, “They want to see herds of migrating wildebeests shot from helicopters in high definition. We want to peer into termite mounds and see inside the dens of polar bears. So, there is this ‘spectacularisation’ of wildlife footage that limits the extent to which environmental politics have been able to be explored in the wildlife genre.” (45)

Although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with voyeurism in narrative films, nature programming has a broader goal of conservation in mind and thus cannot afford to have audiences passively interacting with their films. The natural world and its inhabitants are at a watershed moment in our history, so filmmakers seeking to make an impact on conservation efforts must do everything in their power to prevent the creation of voyeuristic spectators that will do nothing to further the cause. Critics and conservationists theorize that by failing to mention threats facing biodiversity and neglecting to offer an outlet for inspired people to make a difference, filmmakers that claim to promote awareness actually advertise complacency.

Page 51

Historically, many wildlife filmmakers shied away from exposing environmental issues, for fear of pushing audiences away with controversial issues. Instead, films began to adopt the argument that if the narratives were interesting enough and if enough people watched them, then more viewers would begin to care about the animal subjects and their welfare. While this may be accurate to some extent, it neglects the understanding that if the natural world is presented as pristine and animals are living peacefully without human contact, then these audiences will be misled to the threats facing them and instead become complacent believing that wildlife is fine; when it is, in fact, in peril. Goodall continues on this point saying, “If you just see a documentary that shows beautiful, untouched forests, animals living wild, untouched lives, you tend to think, ‘well, everything is okay.’ But everything is not okay. Documentaries teach you to love, but then they need to give you a little wake-up call as to what you can do to make what you love continue.” (45)

B2.1 Case Study: BBC’s Planet Earth II In 2016, BBC Earth and their Natural History Unit released Planet Earth II, the sequel to the first groundbreaking nature documentary series from 2006. The series, voiced by

Figure 5. 2016 Anon: Planet Earth II In Numbers (148)

Page 52

Attenborough became an instant hit, reaching nearly 84 million viewers in the UK alone, and earned the title of “most-watched natural history show in 15 years.” (149,151) Planet Earth II then went on to win two Primetime Emmys along with 11 other awards and 21 other nominations. (150)

The series utilized a classical approach to the Blue Chip method of documentaries. Portraying pristine visuals of wildlife dramas and employing the latest in camera technology to capture wildlife as it had never been seen before. However, the question remains, how did Planet Earth II impact conservation efforts? By researching the relationship of Wikipedia page visits for specific species and the correlated dates in which they appeared on the series, Darío Fernández-Bellon was able to analyze audiences' behaviors after the show. He proved that the more airtime a specific species got, the more time people spent researching them after the show and that there was still a heightened interest in those species up to six months after the show. (151) Thus, confirming that nature programming does have a distinctive impact on audience perceptions and interests.

However, when the question of environmental Figure 6. 2019 Fernández-Bello: Species Recorded Peaks on Wikipedia Pages during Planet Earth II (151) issues and conservation arises, the numbers tell a different story. “Planet Earth II barely mentioned environmental issues – only 6% of the script was dedicated to topics like climate change, and audiences reacted accordingly.” (151) The lack of airtime spent on conservation issues showed no discernable impact or buzz generated from audiences about the threats facing the habitats and the animals from the show. By taking the voyeuristic approach of refraining from conservation topics, BBC missed a critical opportunity to get the message out about environmental issues and threats. As a result, they had a lot of people interested in wildlife subjects from the show. Still, they

Page 53

made no action to aid in their conservation because there was no information about it and no outlets to direct their inspiration.

B2.2 Case Study: BBC’s Blue Planet II In contrast to Planet Earth II, we will review how BBC changed its tactics for the later released Blue Planet II and how the impacts caused by this series differ from the about case study. The 2017 documentary series premiered a year after Planet Earth II as a sequel to the first Blue Planet. Once again, narrated by Attenborough, this series follows the stories of life in our world’s oceans and bodies of water. The program was the most viewed show in 2017, and the fourth most-viewed show of all time in the UK. (156,162) Blue Planet II also went on to win one Primetime Emmy with 10 other wins and 12 nominations. (161)

While Blue Planet II, may have performed similarly to Planet Earth II statistically speaking, the measurable impact on conservation efforts was almost completely different between the two. The creators of this series realized early on that they could Figure 7. Anon 2017: #BluePlanet2's Most Fascinating Facts (153) not ignore the environmental issues going on while producing this program. So, they decided to take a different approach from previous Blue Chip narratives and confronted manmade issues facing these habitats like climate change, overfishing, and plastic pollution. Blue Planet II employed three new methods within the series, actively

Page 54

discussing and portraying humanity’s effect on our oceans, creating outlets for viewers inspired to act after the show, and inserting reflexive filming techniques and showing audiences behind the scenes. (154,155) These methods all worked together to prevent voyeuristic spectators and created room for newly emerging activists, and the numbers are there to prove it. According to the Waitrose & Partners, Food and Drink Report from 2018-2019 showed that shopping behaviors changed in the UK stating, “Nearly nine in 10 people (88%) who saw that episode of BBC’s Blue Planet II about the effect of plastics on our oceans have changed their behavior since. Sixty percent of us now choose a refillable water bottle and coffee cup more than we did, and Waitrose has seen an 800% increase in questions about plastics from customers.” (163)

The bracing reality of our impact was made clear by the last episode of Blue Planet II. Making it easier for people to find ways to get involved through the BBC’s added webpage about activism changes started to be seen around the UK. “In 2018, twice as many volunteers participated in the Great British Beach Clean than the year before.” (160) These ripples also began to spread to policymakers and companies in the UK “The past 18 months have also brought longer-term initiatives. Members of WRAP’s UK Plastic Pact have committed to making 100 percent of plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.” (160) These sudden changes that occurred after the series release came to be known as the “Blue Planet effect” and proves that measurable impact on conservation efforts is possible through nature programs. Professor Richard Thompson, who arguably has done more research on plastic pollution than anyone, is convinced that, “In my view, a few minutes of coverage by Blue Planet II has done more to raise awareness than the decades of underlying research could ever have done alone.” (160)

In conclusion, the first and most significant duty of a documentarian, regardless of genre, is to present truthful narratives that do not mislead audiences. When nature programs like Blue Chip documentaries hide threats from human interference from

Page 55

their films to maintain pristine wildlife dramas’ visage, they are willfully misleading viewers and playing into the Western notion of the divide between humanity and wildlife. Thus, continuing the voyeuristic experience and lulling audiences into a sense of complacency about the dire state of the world. As Bertie Gregory says, “We don’t live in a world where everything is pristine and lovely, which is really how wildlife documentaries have been made for the last 50 years,” he says. “I think gone are the days where you can make a wildlife film, and pretend everything’s fine.” (79) Complacent voyeuristic audiences pose a significant problem for conservationists who are desperate to raise awareness and generate activism concerning the issues facing our planet. As the data from Planet Earth II shows, voyeurs are not activists; however, when the same audience is armed with the truth and an outlet to work through, measurable differences are recorded. These two case studies showed that audiences are interested in the natural world and will not be pushed away by portraying environmental issues; in fact, data shows quite the opposite.

For future practices, filmmakers need to utilize their industry methods to present the whole truth to audiences because these issues will not go away if they are ignored. This means going beyond just creating a nature film; instead, it means working to engage audiences through transmedia-like experiences. Creating conservation funds, providing donation links, offering petitions, and giving viewers a chance to educate themselves are all ways that nature films can continue to aid conservation efforts. The success and measurable impact created by Blue Planet II is a step in the right direction. Since then, many other nature programs have begun to shift the structure of what characterizes a Blue Chip documentary. By using nature programming as a for education and change, conservation efforts will start to see more successes like the Blue Planet effect in the future.

Page 56

Photo: https://www.discoveryuk.com/series/the-crocodile-hunter-best-of-steve-irwin-6/

B3. The Celebrity Hero and Reality Television The last theory that will be explored encompasses the concept of the growing influence that celebrities have on society and more specifically how societal ‘heroes’ have championed the conservation cause, impacting millions of people across the globe. In recent decades the rise of the celebrity can be attributed to the media’s ascent to societal and cultural importance. Due to immense media exposure, these icons possess an extensive platform from which they can influence the opinions, habits, and behaviors of millions of people who look up to these figures. From economics, politics, media, to culture, celebrities significantly impact every area of our current society. These figures also have the capability to bolster social issues and create meaningful change in areas like conservation. As William Brown states, “The tremendous potential for celebrities, particularly those perceived as heroes, to advance social issues and rally public opinion and action to meet critical needs is substantial and relevant.” (14)

The mediated influence of social icons and celebrity heroes through the entertainment industry means that conservation issues can be exposed to large audiences worldwide. These authoritative figures hold an incredible opportunity for wildlife

Page 57

programs and conservation alike to create meaningful awareness and activism. However, even with the oversaturation of celebrities and influencers out there right now, finding someone that will impact global perspectives is much more difficult than it may seem. There are two methods in which celebrity role models garner attention and cultivate relationships with their fans, the processes of parasocial interaction and identification. These theories were first introduced in the 1950s and describe how audiences idolize mediated celebrities. In parasocial interactions, audiences develop a relationship with a specific figure through a perceived intimacy created on-screen; given the current amount of media consumption, this theory is quite common. (14) In identification involved relationship is where audience members change their behaviors to be more like the given celebrity, as Brown describes, “In this identification process, a person adopts the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of another person because he or she actually believes in him or her... Thus, a person can identify with a celebrity by adopting his or her attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors without any real interaction with the celebrity.” (14)

There are precious few within the nature programming and conservation industry who can create these kinds of relationships on a grand scale; not to mention those who can handle the immense scrutiny that comes with being a celebrity hero. These environmental heroes that are able to complete all of this, become a global influencer, and champion conservation efforts is an immensely difficult task and only a small handful of people have been known to rise to the occasion. Below we will examine the case study of one such person who earned hero status, Steve Irwin.

B3.1 Case Study: Steve Irwin Steve Irwin was an Australian-born television personality, best known for his reality television series The Crocodile Hunter. The series which debuted in 1996, quickly became a success on Animal Planet; Irwin’s charismatic energy paired with his antics immediately connected with younger audiences across the globe. Whether he was rassling with , getting up close and personal with venomous

Page 58

, or cuddling up to reptiles, Irwin gave attention to many species that were typically ostracized out of fear. Irwin’s goal was to get people, especially the younger generations, excited about wildlife and their conservation. Irwin elaborated on the success of the series stating, “You know what I reckon it is? My belief is that what comes across on the television is a capture of my enthusiasm and my passion for wildlife. Since I was a boy, from this house, I was out rescuing crocodiles and snakes... So now what happens is the cameras follow me around and capture exactly what I've been doing since I was a boy. As the audience, I want you to come with me, right?...So when I'm talking to the camera, I'm talking to you, in your living room.” (164) This proved to be the formula of success for the show; over its 10-year run, the show would be beloved and enjoyed by more than 500 million people in over 130 countries. (164) The show's success was also a victory for the conservation message, which Irwin cared for deeply. His mission to further the cause of conservation and the platform that The Crocodile Hunter gave him allowed his goal to be understood by millions of people. “So we've gone beyond the media that we're working with now, and we're taking the media, we're taking the ‘Croc Hunter’ message, we're taking conservation, and the greening of our planet to kids’ toys, to shirts, you know, our shirts will be an advertisement of conservation. It's like we're taking it to the nth degree. In fact, we probably won't stop there either. If there's another medium where we can just get people excited about conservation, we'll take it, we'll run with it.” (164) Along with the message of conservation within the show, Irwin worked tirelessly with his family on several other programs to benefit conservation efforts like the International Crocodile Rescue, Worldwide, the Lyn Irwin Memorial Fund, and the Australian Zoo Wildlife Hospital, to name a few. (165) Sadly, Irwin lost his life in 2006, when a barb pierced his heart, shocking communities worldwide. “By the time of his tragic death, Irwin had already established himself as a popular

Page 59

celebrity, having won international acclaim as a role model for wildlife education and conservation.” (14) Millions felt his loss and there was an outpouring of respect and reverence for the life that he led and his numerous impacts on conservation. Irwin’s enthusiasm and down-to-earth persona connected with people regardless of age and made them feel as if he was a part of their family, though they had never met him. “People of all ages could identify with Steve Irwin, and he was seen as ‘‘role model’’ and in death a ‘‘hero’’ for many.” (14)

Brown noticed the significance that Irwin’s life and mission had on many people and created a study regarding the power that celebrity ‘heroes’ have on social issues. The study found that more than two-thirds of participants, “reported that Steve Irwin demonstrated in his life (were) the values they want to live by reinforcing the potential power of Celebrity Heroes.” (14) There was also an important correlation between the impact that The Crocodile Hunter had on audiences and the number of people involved in conservation efforts later on, continuing to prove Brown’s theory of social influence through a celebrity’s platform. Brown went on to note the phenomenon of financial support after Irwin’s death; the proceeds of which went towards the conservation groups that Irwin founded stating, “Results of this study also reinforce the understanding that increased involvement with celebrities leads to increased social influence. Steve Irwin’s organization’s website, Wildlife Warriors, was inundated with traffic after his death, and donations rose dramatically through the website. Donations to Wildlife Warriors reached $2,000,000 in October of 2006.” (14) Irwin’s unique talent for bringing people together over their shared love for wildlife, showing the capability that the reality television sub-genre of nature programming has when the right host, message, and platform all come together. Dawn McCall, Discovery Network’s International President, commented that Irwin’s, “passion for animals and leadership in wildlife conservation awareness leaves a powerful, lasting legacy across the globe.’’ (14)

Page 60

"In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we are taught." -Baba Dioum (128)

Page 61

Photo: https://www.kmogallery.com/wildlife

Bibliography

1. Adcroft, J., 2010. Reframing perceptions of anthropomorphism in wildlife film and documentary. OUR Archive. Available at: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1615/AdcroftJE2011MSci Comm.pdf?sequence=>. 2. Alluri, R.A., 1970. Ethics in Wildlife Filmmaking. OUR Archive Home. Available at: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/5543 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 3. Amir, A.P.H., 2019. Folk Filmmaking: A Participatory Method for Engaging Indigenous Ethics and Improving Understanding. JSTOR. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26611739?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. 4. Andrade, T.E.de, 2020. "Tell a Tail": the design of an interactive cinematic VR for an animal welfare transmedia. DigitUMa. Available at: https://digituma.uma.pt/handle/10400.13/2760 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 5. Anon, 2011. Should wildlife films contribute to the conservation of the environments they film? The Freshwater Blog. Available at: https://freshwaterblog.net/2011/12/12/should-wildlife-films-contribute-to-the- conservation-of-the-environments-they-film/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 6. Anon, 2016. Earth - Working with animals in wildlife filmmaking. BBC. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160314-working-with-animals-in-wildlife- filmmaking [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 7. Anon, Category: Articles. WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION FILMMAKING. Available at: http://www.shekardattatri.com/blog/category/articles [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 8. Anon, Conservation. Wildlife Films. Available at: http://www.wildlifefilms.co/conservation [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 9. Arkesteyn, C., 2020. Framing Environmental Movements: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Anti-Plastic Straw Movement. Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/214864 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 10. Barrios‐O'Neill, D., 2020. Focus and social contagion of environmental organization advocacy on . Society for Conservation Biology. Available at: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.13564 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 11. Bieniek-Tobasco, A. et al., 2019. Communicating climate change through documentary film: imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Springer Link. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7. 12. Blewitt, J., 2015. The media, animal conservation and environmental education, Routledge. 13. Bohlmann, A., Can environmental films help save the planet?: DW: 27.08.2013. DW.COM. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/can-environmental- films-help-save-the-planet/a-17049896 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 14. Brown, W.J., 2010. Steve Irwin's Influence on Wildlife Conservation. OUP Academic. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/60/1/73/4098414 [Accessed August 30, 2020].

Page 62

15. Chaves, J. et al., 2019. The Realities of Wildlife Filmmaking from Gavin Thurston: Cameraman of "," "Bears" and More. Videomaker. Available at: https://www.videomaker.com/article/f06/18277-the-realities-of-wildlife- filmmaking-from-gavin-thurston-cameraman-of-monkey-kingdom-bears-and- more [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 16. Chen, S.A., 2015. Life on the edge: The survival of wildlife cinematography as a craft. SquareSpace. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/547aa0f9e4b07ec2526663d5/t/59f705bf0d 9297f9ed7a2120/1509361189561/ChenSA_TheSurvivalofWildlifeCinematography asaCraft.pdf. 17. Chiu, H., 2019. The Sea Turtle as a Marketing Symbol for the Anti- Plastics Movement. Scholarship @ Claremont. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=pitz er_theses. 18. Choate, C.S., 2012. [PDF] HOW DIFFERENT STYLES OF NATURE FILM ALTER OUR PERCEPTION OF WILDLIFE by - Free Download PDF. HOW DIFFERENT STYLES OF NATURE FILM ALTER OUR PERCEPTION OF WILDLIFE by - Free Download PDF. Available at: https://nanopdf.com/download/how-different-styles- of-nature-film-alter-our-perception-of-wildlife-by_pdf [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 19. Clark, S., 2015. Blue chip to new chip: natural history with bite. TBI Vision. Available at: https://tbivision.com/2015/04/28/blue-chip-to-new-chip-natural- history-with-bite/ [Accessed August 31, 2020]. 20. Cockerill, C.H., 2013. Exploring Social Media Obstacles and Opportunities within Public Agencies: Lessons from the Ohio Division of Wildlife. International Journal of Business and Social Science. Available at: http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_2_February_2013/5.pdf. 21. Coward, R., 2005. Back to nature. . Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/may/09/broadcasting.ITV [Accessed August 31, 2020]. 22. Davies, G., 1997. Networks of Nature: Stories of Natural History Film-Making from the BBC. Core. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1673511.pdf. 23. DeCesare, J.A., 2012. An Intersection of Conservation, Multimedia and Usability. JMLE. Available at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=jmle. 24. Dionisio, M. et al., 2016. Transmedia Storytelling for Exposing Natural and Promoting Ecotourism. SpringerLink. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48279-8_31 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 25. Emerton, L., 1997. The Economics of Tourism, and Wildlife Conservation in . Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucy_Emerton/publication/269099422_The_ Economics_of_Tourism_and_Wildlife_Conservation_in_Africa/links/54802d9d0cf2 5b80dd705558/The-Economics-of-Tourism-and-Wildlife-Conservation-in- Africa.pdf.

Page 63

26. Figgener, C., 2018. What I learnt pulling a straw out of a turtle's nose. Gale Onefile. Available at: https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE|A573117649&sid=googleScholar&v =2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=HRCA&sw=w. 27. Foust, K., 2014. How Environmental Movies Can Impassion Change. Earth's Friends. Available at: https://www.earthsfriends.com/environmental-movies/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 28. Frey, D., 2017. 's spotlight can have real-life conservation impact. THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY. Available at: https://wildlife.org/hollywoods-spotlight-can- have-real-life-conservation-impact/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 29. Frost, R., 2020. Do environmental documentaries actually change our bad habits? living. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/02/29/do- environmental-documentaries-actually-have-an-impact-on-people-s-bad-habits [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 30. Gandiwa, E. et al., 2014. Spill-over effect in media framing: Representations of wildlife conservation in Zimbabwean and international media, 1989–2010. Journal for Nature Conservation. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1617138114000405 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 31. Garland, E., 2013. The Elephant in the Room: Confronting the Colonial Character of Wildlife Conservation in Africa: African Studies Review. Cambridge Core. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/african-studies- review/article/elephant-in-the-room-confronting-the-colonial-character-of-wildlife- conservation-in-africa/6A2F07AA3CDA966645AAC064C78122D9 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 32. Garner, R., 2019. 's spaces: Defining and exploring transmedia tourism. Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd. Available at: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/128340/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 33. Good, T.G., 1970. Perceptions of Wildlife in And Persuasive Documentary Filmmaking Techniques. OUR Archive Home. Available at: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/9682 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 34. Goodfellow, M., 2019. Why environmental film projects are now a tough sell. ScreenDaily. Available at: https://www.screendaily.com/news/why- environmental-film-projects-are-now-a-tough-sell/5145797.article [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 35. Gouyon, J.-B., 2019. Greenwashing? Why wildlife TV is finally engaging with the climate emergency. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/greenwashing-why-wildlife-tv-is-finally-engaging- with-the-climate-emergency-128498 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 36. Graziano, T.A., 2005. AN ECOFEMINIST MODEL FOR WILDLIFE FILM. Citeseerx. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.428.1926&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf. 37. Green, R. & Giese, M., Negative Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife. Research Gate. Available at:

Page 64

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noel_Scott/publication/40871766_Wildlife_T ourism_a_strategic_destination_analysis/links/54f6a1c20cf27d8ed71e448e/Wildlif e-Tourism-a-strategic-destination-analysis.pdf#page=103. 38. Hiemenz, V.S., 1970. Reflexive filmmaking for wildlife and nature films. ScholarWorks at Montana State University (MSU). Available at: https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/1468 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 39. Higginbottom, K. & Green, R., Positive Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife. Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronda_Green2/publication/29458543_Positi ve_Effects_of_Wildlife_Tourism_on_Wildlife/links/5c0997e292851c39ebd8c688/P ositive-Effects-of-Wildlife-Tourism-on-Wildlife.pdf. 40. Hutchinson, M., Getting started in wildlife filmmaking. IAWF. Available at: http://www.iawf.org.uk/articles/index.asp?articleid=1005 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 41. Iluzada, C.L. & Waller, R.L., 2019. Blackfish and SeaWorld: A Case Study in the Framing of a Crisis - Randall L. Waller, Christina L. Iluzada, 2020. SAGE Journals. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2329488419884139 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 42. Jepson, P. et al., 2011. Entertainment Value: Should the Media Pay for Nature Conservation? Science. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1351 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 43. Jones, J.P.G. et al., 2019. Nature documentaries and saving nature: Reflections on the new Netflix series Our Planet. besjournals. Available at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10052 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 44. Kennedy, A.F., Producing Nature(s): A Qualitative Study of Wildlife Filmmaking. OhioLINK ETD: Kennedy, Addison F. Available at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:bgsu158920132 1354644 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 45. L'Estrange, S., 2014. Are wildlife documentaries contributing to environmental ignorance? Radio National. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/animalpeople/wildlife- documentaries-and-environmental-ignorance/5700890 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 46. Louson, E.M., NEVER BEFORE SEEN: SPECTACLE, STAGING, AND STORY IN WILDLIFE FILM’S BLUE-CHIP RENAISSANCE. YorkSpace Library. Available at: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/35801/Louson_E leanor_M_2018_PhD.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y [Accessed 2018]. 47. Luxford, J., 2017. What impact do environmental documentaries really have? Little White Lies. Available at: https://lwlies.com/articles/environmental- documentaries-an-inconvenient-truth/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 48. Mahoney, S.P. ed., 2019. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Page 65

49. Manenti, R. et al., 2020. The good, the bad and the ugly of COVID-19 lockdown effects on wildlife conservation: Insights from the first European locked down country. Biological Conservation. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720307862 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 50. Minin, E.D. et al., 2018. A framework for investigating illegal wildlife trade on social media with . Society for Conservation Biology. Available at: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.13104 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 51. Minin, E.D. et al., 2018. Machine learning for tracking illegal wildlife trade on social media. Nature News. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018- 0466-x [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 52. Mosquera, M.R., 2019. Banning Plastic Straws: The Beginning of the War Against Plastics. HeinOnline. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/earjujo9 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 53. Nekaris, K.A.-I. et al., Tickled to Death: Analysing Public Perceptions of 'Cute' Videos of Threatened Species (Slow Lorises – Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites. PLOS ONE. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069215 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 54. Palmer, C. & Lawrence, S., 2019. When Wildlife Docs Harass: Ethics Required in Environmental Filmmaking Too. International Documentary Association. Available at: https://www.documentary.org/feature/when-wildlife-docs-harass-ethics- required-environmental-filmmaking-too [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 55. Parsons, E.C.M. & Rose, N.A., 1970. The Blackfish Effect: Corporate and Policy Change in the Face of Shifting Public Opinion on Captive Cetaceans. Latest TOC RSS. Available at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cog/tme/2018/00000013/f0020002/art0 0003 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 56. Peronino, M.C., 2016. Linking Luna: Implications of a Viral Video on Conservation Awareness of Endangered Killer Whales. Era. Available at: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/7d026e27-99f6-4be4-82a3- b9b025af0940/view/a203a9f3-0a04-40f4-bce8-e2f66cf7d573/Peronino- 20(Tucker-20Chantelle)Final.pdf. 57. Pod Volunteer, Our recommended wildlife and conservation documentaries. Pod Volunteer. Available at: https://www.podvolunteer.org/blog/best-documentaries- for-wildlife-and-conservation-lovers [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 58. Mitman, G., 2001. Reel Nature: America's Romance with Wildlife on Film. The American Historical Review, 106(4), p.1392. 59. Rose, D.C. et al., 2016. Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation. Springer Link. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-016-1163-1. 60. Rowley, L. & Johnson, K.A., 2015. Anthropomorphic Anthropocentrism and the Rhetoric of Blackfish. Taylor & Francis. Available at:

Page 66

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2016.1167757 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 61. Rust, S., 2013. Ecocinema and the Wildlife Film (Chapter 15) - The Cambridge Companion to Literature and the Environment. Cambridge Core. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-literature-and- the-environment/ecocinema-and-the-wildlife- film/6E14F1908372B2863A044098712A0A14 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 62. Schroepfer, K.K. et al., 2011. Use of "Entertainment" Chimpanzees in Commercials Distorts Public Perception Regarding Their Conservation Status. PLOS ONE. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026048 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 63. Seale, N., 2020. How can environmental films make an impact? Synchronicity Earth. Available at: https://www.synchronicityearth.org/how-can-environmental- films-make-an-impact/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 64. Silk, M.J. et al., 2018. Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation. Society for Conservation Biology. Available at: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13030 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 65. Singh, P., 2005. Narrative in Wildlife Films: How It Shapes Our Understanding Of The Natural World And Influences Conservation Choices. ScholarWorks. Available at: https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2285/SinghP0505.pd f?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 66. staff, S.X., 2017. Conservationists should harness 'Hollywood effect' to help wildlife. Phys.org. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-conservationists- harness-hollywood-effect-wildlife.html [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 67. Story, J.D., 2017. Echoes In The Night: A Performance Thesis. West Texas A&M University. Available at: https://wtamu- ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/11310/124/STORY-THESIS- 2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 68. Sujarittanonta, L., 1970. Voluntourism product development and wildlife conservation for Thailand. Latest TOC RSS. Available at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/whatt/2014/00000006/00000001/ art00004 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 69. Teel, T.L. & Manfredo, M.J., 2009. Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation. Society for Conservation Biology. Available at: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01374.x [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 70. Thys, T. & Aitchison, J., 2018. Science and nature filmmaking: making a career of visual storytelling. The Ecological Society of America. Available at: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.1958 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 71. Tony Atwater, M.B.S., 1985. Media Agenda-Setting with Environmental Issues - Tony Atwater, Michael B. Salwen, Ronald B. Anderson, 1985. SAGE Journals.

Page 67

Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/107769908506200227 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 72. Verma, A., Van Der Wal, R. & Fischer, A., 2015. Microscope and spectacle: On the complexities of using new visual technologies to communicate about wildlife conservation. Springer Link. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-015-0715-z. 73. Vivanco, L.A., Seeing Green: Knowing and Saving the Environment on Film. JSTOR. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567107?seq=1. 74. Westhues, M.W., 2014. Climate Change and the Environmental Documentary Film. GRIN. Available at: https://www.grin.com/document/340640 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 75. Westhuizen, R.van der, 2020. What you need to do to become a conservation photographer -Africa Media. Africa Media Academy. Available at: https://www.africa-media.org/careers/what-you-need-to-do-to-become-a- conservation-photographer/ [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 76. Wright, J.H., 2009. Use of film for community conservation education in primate habitat countries. Wiley Online Library. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajp.20749 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 77. Wu, Y. et al., 2017. Using social media to strengthen public awareness of wildlife conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569117306609 [Accessed August 30, 2020]. 78. Anderson-Moore, O., 2015. Nichols' 6 Modes of Documentary Might Expand Your Storytelling Strategies. No Film School. Available at: https://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/nichols-6-modes-documentary-can-help- expand-your-storytelling [Accessed September 5, 2020]. 79. Frost, R., 2020. What's it really like to film documentaries for David Attenborough? living. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/07/22/what-s-it-really-like-to-film- documentaries-for-david-attenborough [Accessed September 5, 2020]. 80. Anon, 2016. BBC announces two brand new programmes with Sir David Attenborough for 2016. BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/david-attenborough- commissions?lang=cy [Accessed September 5, 2020]. 81. Shah, H., 2018. How a 19th-Century Photographer Made the First 'GIF' of a Galloping Horse. Smithsonian.com. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-19th-century- photographer-first-gif-galloping-horse-180970990/ [Accessed September 6, 2020]. 82. Anon, 2020. Disney Conservation Fund Awards $6 Million in Grants to Support Wildlife and the Environment. . Available at: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-conservation-fund-awards-6-million- in-grants-to-support-wildlife-and-the-environment/ [Accessed September 10, 2020].

Page 68

83. Anon, Disney Conservation. Facebook. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/DisneyConservation. 84. Anon, Disney Conservation. The Walt Disney Company. Available at: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-conservation/. 85. Anon, DisneyConservation. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/DisneyConservation. 86. Anon, Disneynature Official Website. Disneynature. Available at: https://nature.disney.com/. 87. Anon, Disneynature. Facebook. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/Disneynature/. 88. Anon, Environmental Sustainability. The Walt Disney Company. Available at: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/environmental-sustainability/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 89. Anon, The Lion King : Protect the Pride. Disney Partners. Available at: https://partners.disney.com/the-lion-king-protect-the- pride?fbclid=IwAR0qASpcY3CQ3NYY4V5BvJemGM2k4r5G6S_FfUHTQTg2cprfyV Gm3fNG2l4. 90. Anon, Walt and the True-Life Adventures. The Walt Disney Family Museum. Available at: https://www.waltdisney.org/blog/walt-and-true-life-adventures. 91. Eller, C. & Chmielewski, D.C., 2008. Disney gets back to nature. Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-apr-22-fi- disney22-story.html. 92. Glaister, D., 2008. Disney launches unit to make cinematic nature documentaries. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/apr/23/news.television. 93. Iqbal, M., 2020. Disney Plus Revenue and Usage Statistics (2020). Business of Apps. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/disney-plus-statistics/. 94. Society, N.G., Big Cats Initiative. National Geographic Society. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/big-cats-initiative/. 95. Terrero, N., Jane Goodall Q&A: Scientist talks Disneynature Ambassador role, more. EW.com. Available at: https://ew.com/article/2014/04/10/jane-goodall- disneynature-ambassador/. 96. Watson, A., 2020. Global number of Disney subscribers 2020. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095372/disney-plus-number-of- subscribers-us/. 97. Anon, Disney Nature Box Office History. The Numbers. Available at: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/production-company/Disney- Nature [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 98. Anon, National Geographic Society. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 99. Anon, 2018. Jan. 27, 1888: National Geographic Society Gets Going. Wired. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2010/01/0127national-geographic-society- founded/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 100. Anon, 2020. Nat Geo WILD Rings in the New Decade and Its 10th Anniversary by Announcing Robust Slate of New Series and Specials. Business Wire. Available

Page 69

at: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200117005516/en/Nat-Geo- WILD-Rings-New-Decade-10th [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 101. Anon, Impact. Impact Programs | National Geographic Society. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 102. Anon, Stories of Animals, Nature, and Culture. National Geographic. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 103. Anon, Watch Nat Geo TV Live Stream Online - Nat Geo Wild Schedule. National Geographic Channel. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/watch- live/natgeo-wild [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 104. Zhang, M., 2017. Disney to Buy National Geographic in $52 Billion Deal for Fox. PetaPixel. Available at: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/disney-buy- national-geographic-part-52-billion-deal-fox/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 105. Anon, National Geographic Live. Facebook. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/natgeolive/ [Accessed September 10, 2020]. 106. Briggs, H., 2020. Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-54091048 [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 107. Kunst, A., 2020. National Geographic Channel viewers in the U.S. by age 2018. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/228972/cable-tv- networks-national-geographic-channel-watched-in-the-last-7-days-usa/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 108. Anon, The BBC Story - History of the BBC. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/timelines/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 109. Anon, Home: BBC Earth. BBC Earth. Available at: https://www.bbcearth.com/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 110. Southern, L., 2020. BBC Earth uses audience data for greenlighting its original series. Digiday. Available at: https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/bbc-earth-uses- audience-data-greenlighting-original-series/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 111. Anon, Grants | BBC | Wildlife Fund. BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wild/grants.shtml [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 112. Watson, A., 2020. Netflix subscribers count in the U.S. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/250937/quarterly-number-of-netflix- streaming-subscribers-in-the-us/ [Accessed August 13, 2020]. 113. Watson, A., 2020. Number of Netflix subscribers 2019. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-of-netflix- streaming-subscribers-worldwide/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 114. Beer, J., 2019. Inside the secretly effective–and underrated–way Netflix keeps its shows and movies at the forefront of pop culture. Fast Company. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90309308/by-any-memes-necessary-inside- netflixs-winning-social-media-strategy [Accessed August 9, 2020]. 115. Anon, Unlimited movies, TV shows, and more. Netflix. Available at: https://www.netflix.com/ [Accessed August 12, 2020].

Page 70

116. Anon, Netflix Net Worth 2006-2019: NFLX. Macrotrends. Available at: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-worth [Accessed August 12, 2020]. 117. Pallotta, F., 2019. Netflix misses on subscribers, but is up. CNN. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/media/netflix-third-quarter- earnings/index.html [Accessed January 9, 2020]. 118. Anon, 2017. Why the BBC is wrong to scrap its Wildlife Fund. The Ecologist. Available at: https://theecologist.org/2011/aug/03/why-bbc-wrong-scrap-its- wildlife-fund [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 119. Watson, A., 2020. Discovery Communications channels audience size 2019. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/545566/discovery- communications-channels-audience/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 120. Anon, 2019. Discovery, Inc. Discovery Inc. Available at: https://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-newsroom/discovery-channel- announces-slate-of-programming-highlighting-the-wonders-of-the-natural-world/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 121. Anon, Discovery Communications Through the Decades. Discovery Through the Decades. Available at: https://30yearsofdiscovery.com/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 122. Smith, C., 2020. Interesting Discovery Inc Statistics and Facts. DMR. Available at: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/discovery-inc-statistics-and-facts/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 123. Kunst, A. & 21, J., 2020. Animal Planet viewers in the U.S. by age 2018. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/228928/cable-tv-networks- animal-planet-watched-in-the-last-7-days-usa/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 124. Anon, animalplanet.com Traffic Statistics. SimilarWeb. Available at: https://www.similarweb.com/website/animalplanet.com/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 125. Anon, 2018. Discovery, Inc. Discovery Inc. Available at: https://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-newsroom/animal-planet-launches- new-global-brand-identity-with-global-series-premiere-of-crikey-its-the-irwins-on- october-28/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 126. Anon, Discovery, Inc. Discovery Inc. Available at: https://corporate.discovery.com/initiative/discovery-impact/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 127. Anon, Discovery, Inc. Discovery Inc. Available at: https://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-impact-employees-giving-back/ [Accessed September 11, 2020]. 128. Anon, 2016. In the end we will conserve only what we love. Living nature in San Ignacio Lagoon. Available at: https://conservingsanignaciolagooon.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/in-the-end-we- will-conserve-only-what-we-love/ [Accessed September 12, 2020]. 129. Anon, The Ivory Game. Available at: https://theivorygame.com/ [Accessed September 13, 2020].

Page 71

130. Kohn, E., 2016. 'The Ivory Game,' Produced By Leonardo DiCaprio, Is a Shocking Look at an Underground Marketplace - Telluride Review. IndieWire. Available at: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/09/telluride-film-festival-the-ivory- game-review-netflix-leonardo-dicaprio-1201722786/ [Accessed September 13, 2020]. 131. Anon, The Ivory Game (2016). Rotten Tomatoes. Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_ivory_game [Accessed September 14, 2020]. 132. Anon, The Ivory Game. IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952266/awards?ref_=tt_ql_op_1 [Accessed September 14, 2020]. 133. Anon, Zoo Quest - first on-screen appearance by David Attenborough - History of the BBC. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/december/zoo-quest [Accessed September 14, 2020]. 134. Anon, 2013. Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom Celebrates 50 Years; Looks Forward. Business Wire. Available at: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130108005499/en/Mutual- Omahas-Wild-Kingdom-Celebrates-50-Years [Accessed September 14, 2020]. 135. Anon, Where Wildlife Adventure Begins. Home – Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Available at: https://www.wildkingdom.com/ [Accessed September 14, 2020]. 136. Anon, Seven Worlds One Planet, Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Trailer/dp/B0833HJ65G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UIMRYSGAT 4Q4&dchild=1&keywords=seven+worlds+one+planet&qid=1600117303&sprefix=s even+worlds%2Caps%2C382&sr=8-1. 137. Anon, 2016. 27 mind-blowing facts about the making of Planet Earth II. Shortlist. Available at: https://www.shortlist.com/news/making-of-planet-earth-ii-david- attenborough-how-they-made [Accessed September 15, 2020]. 138. Anon, The Cove. Box Office Mojo. Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl88966657/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 139. Anon, 2009. The Cove. IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/?ref_=vp_back [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 140. Tabuchi, H., 2009. Film on the Dolphin Hunt Stirs Outrage in Japan. . Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/asia/23dolphin.html [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 141. Anon, 2019. The Cove. Oceanic Preservation Society. Available at: https://www.opsociety.org/our-work/films/the-cove/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 142. Erbland, K., 2018. 'Blackfish' Fallout: SeaWorld Settles Federal Charges Related to Covering Up 'Negative Impact' of Eye-Opening Documentary. IndieWire.

Page 72

Available at: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/blackfish-seaworld-settles- federal-charges-documentary-1202005195/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 143. Anon, 2014. The Blackfish Effect - How Film Can Impact Big Business. WITNESS Blog. Available at: https://blog.witness.org/2014/12/blackfish-effect-film-can-impact-big-business/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 144. Renninger, B.J., 2013. SeaWorld Unleashes 8 Assertions About 'Blackfish' and Filmmakers Respond. IndieWire. Available at: https://www.indiewire.com/2013/07/seaworld-unleashes-8-assertions-about- blackfish-and-filmmakers-respond-36897 [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 145. Anon, 2013. Blackfish. IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545118/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 146. Anon, Blackfish. Box Office Mojo. Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2923922945/weekend/ [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 147. Anon, Press. Blackfish. Available at: https://www.blackfishmovie.com/press [Accessed September 17, 2020]. 148. Anon, Planet Earth II - Planet Earth II in numbers. BBC One. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1KQms2z3Gnk8ZLfYMPHxfBg/plane t-earth-ii-in-numbers [Accessed September 18, 2020]. 149. Jackson, J., 2016. Planet Earth II most watched natural history show for 15 years. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and- radio/2016/nov/07/planet-earth-ii-bbc1-most-watched-natural-history-show-for- 15-years [Accessed September 18, 2020]. 150. Anon, 2016. Planet Earth II. IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5491994/ [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 151. Anon, Weekly top 30 programmes on TV sets (July 1998 – Sept 2018). BARB. Available at: https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-30/?_s=4 [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 152. Fernández-Bellon , D., 2020. Do David Attenborough documentaries help the natural world? New research gives cause for hope. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/do-david-attenborough-documentaries-help-the- natural-world-new-research-gives-cause-for-hope-125077 [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 153. Anon, #BluePlanet2's Most Fascinating Facts. BBC America. Available at: https://www.bbcamerica.com/blog/2018/01/blueplanet2s-most-fascinating-facts [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 154. Anon, Blue Planet II: New Series: BBC Earth. BBC Earth. Available at: https://www.bbcearth.com/blueplanet2 [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 155. Anon, Get Involved: How can you help?: BBC Earth. BBC Earth. Available at: https://www.bbcearth.com/get-involved/ [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 156. 11:44, 8th N.2017 @, 2017. Viewer demand: Blue Planet II vs Planet Earth II. TBI Vision. Available at: https://tbivision.com/2017/11/08/viewer-demand-blue-planet- ii-vs-planet-earth-ii/ [Accessed September 19, 2020].

Page 73

157. Calderwood, I., 2018. 88% of People Who Saw 'Blue Planet II' Changed Their Lifestyle. Global Citizen. Available at: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/88-blue-planet-2-changed-david- attenborough/ [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 158. McIntosh, S., 2017. Blue Planet II: 22 things to know about the new series. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41692370 [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 159. Gell, F., 2019. The Blue Planet effect: the plastics revolution is just the start | Fiona Gell. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/25/plastics-revolution- marine-life [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 160. Anon, 2020. Has Blue Planet II had an impact on plastic pollution? BBC Science Focus Magazine. Available at: https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/has-blue- planet-ii-had-an-impact-on-plastic-pollution/ [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 161. Anon, 2017. Blue Planet II. IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6769208/ [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 162. Anon, The most popular all-time TV shows in the UK: Media: YouGov Ratings. Media | YouGov Ratings. Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/media/popularity/all-time-tv-shows/all [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 163. Anon, Waitrose & Partners Food and Drink Report 2018-19. Waitrose. Available at: https://waitrose.pressarea.com/pressrelease/details/78/NEWS_13/10259 [Accessed September 19, 2020]. 164. Anon, 2019. 13 Facts About Steve Irwin and The Crocodile Hunter. Mental Floss. Available at: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503993/13-facts-about-steve- irwin-and-crocodile-hunter [Accessed September 21, 2020]. 165. West, L., Steve Irwin: and "Crocodile Hunter". ThoughtCo. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/steve-irwin-environmentalist-bio- 1203563 [Accessed September 21, 2020]. 166. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote: ‘Fight for the Things That You Care about, but Do It in a Way That Will Lead Others to Join You.".” Quotefancy, quotefancy.com/quote/1206861/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Fight-for-the-things-that- you-care-about-but-do-it-in-a-way-that-will.

Page 74