A content analysis of 32 years of Shark Week documentaries

Despite evidence of their importance to marine ecosystems, at least 32% of all chondrichthyan species are estimated or assessed as threatened with extinction. In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans. Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation. However, Shark Week has received regular criticism for poor factual accuracy, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of science and scientists. This research analyzes the content and titles of Shark Week episodes across its entire 32 years of programming to determine if there are trends in species covered, research techniques featured, expert identity, conservation messaging, type of programming, and portrayal of sharks. We analyzed titles from 272 episodes (100%) of Shark Week programming and the content of all available (201; 73.9%) episodes. Our data demonstrate that the majority of episodes are not focused on shark bites, although such shows are common and many Shark Week programs frame sharks around fear, risk, and adrenaline. While criticisms of disproportionate attention to particular charismatic species (e.g. great whites, bull sharks, and tiger sharks) are accurate and supported by data, 79 shark species have been featured briefly at least once. Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts. While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.


28
Despite evidence of their importance to marine ecosystems, at least 25% of all chondrichthyan 29 species are estimated or assessed as threatened with extinction. In addition to the logistical 30 difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed 31 to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans. Shark 32 Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence 33 on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation. have reported that their words were selectively edited to make it appear that they were 106 responding to questions they were not asked, or that they found the way they were presented in 107 Shark Week programs profoundly professionally embarrassing (28,29). In 2010, in response to 108 criticism, Discovery Communications agreed to reduce entertainment programming during 109 Shark Week and present more scientifically-oriented episodes, though many of these more 110 scientific programs continued to depict sharks negatively (30).   195 or "Lair of the Mega Shark". Titles that contained the word "Jaws" were treated as negative 196 since the word was deliberately chosen based on its association with the eponymous movie.

197
Episodes from the "Air Jaws" series were not treated as negative unless other parts of the title 198 had a negative connotation, as this series already has a reputation for not being negative. The    The proportion of titles that were assessed as having negative connotations ranged from 0-75% 320 in any given year (Fig 1). During the first five years of programming (1988-1992) only two titles 321 were considered negative. In total, six non-consecutive years, (1990,1991,1992,1995,1998,

330
Title length ranged from one to eight words, with four word titles occurring most frequently. One 331 hundred seventy-three titles (64.6%) included the root word "shark". While 99 of the titles 14 332 (36.4%) did not include the root word "shark", many of these titles referred to a specific species, 333 such as "Great White Encounters" or, "Search for the Golden Hammerhead". Sixteen titles 334 (5.9%) were merely descriptive and used the format, "Sharks of xxx", where the xxx denotes a 335 location.

340
(2.6%), and "attack(s)" (1.4%). "Attack(s)" was the most frequently occurring word that has a 341 negative connotation based on the ANEW list, and "jaws" was the most frequently occurring 342 word that has a negative connotation in context (Fig 2).

358
Some words that have a negative connotation in isolation can be rendered neutral in context.

359
For example, an existing franchise entitled, "Naked and Afraid" produced episodes for Shark 360 Week in 2018 and 2020 with the title, "Naked and Afraid of Sharks". In this case the franchise 361 title already included the word "afraid" so these titles were not included in the list of negative 362 titles. However, taken in isolation, the title "Naked and Afraid of Sharks" would be considered to 363 be a negative title. Similarly, the word "monster" is recognized as negative, but a program 364 entitled "Monster Garage: Shark Boat" used the word "monster" to describe a garage, not 365 sharks. In this case the title was not classified as negative. The word, "monster" can also refer 366 to something that is very large, so programs like, "Monster Mako", can refer to a particularly 367 large mako shark. However, the word "monster" in this and similar titles was likely chosen to 368 elicit fear and titles which used words like "monster" to describe sharks themselves were 369 classified as negative despite some ambiguity around their meaning.

370
The word "Jaws'' is unique in the context of Shark Week titles. Nearly all vertebrates possess 371 jaws, so the word is not considered negative in itself. However, the 1975 movie "Jaws" caused 372 people to associate the word with a killer shark. The word thus evokes a primal fear of being 373 attacked, bitten, or eaten. Titles that include the word "Jaws" take advantage of this association 374 by indirectly suggesting that the subject is dangerous or fear-inducing, without having to use 375 words that are explicitly negative. Therefore, titles that included the word "jaws", other than "Air 376 Jaws", were classified as negative within context.

378
There has been a recent trend to amalgamate "shark" with root words that have a negative of these fabricated words would appear in the ANEW list so they were analyzed within context.

382
While the root words "apocalypse", "armageddon", and "shipwreck" are not included in the 383 ANEW list, the root word "insane" is listed and does have a negative connotation (52). analyzed by year, we found no trends in programming; episodes have not become more or less 400 focused on science or shark bites over time (Fig 4). However, we note that "research" themed  the remaining hosts/experts (20.1%) were associated with female pronouns (Fig 7).  Including species that weren't the focus of an episode but were briefly introduced by name on 570 screen, at least 79 extant (living) species of shark or species groups (e.g. "hammerhead", 571 "mako", "sevengill", "sixgill", "thresher", "wobbegong") were featured in at least one Shark Week 572 episode (Fig 8, Supplement 3). Additionally, eight extinct species and 13 species of extant non-573 shark chondrichthyans were also featured (10 batoids (rays), 3 holocephalans (chimera and 574 ratfish)). 46 extant species were featured in more than one episode, 30 appeared in more than 575 five episodes, and 16 appeared in more than ten episodes. Across all episodes, an average of 576 4.9 species appeared. 39 episodes showed just one species, and 36 of these single-species 577 episodes featured only white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias). sharks Carcharhinus leucas (9.6% of all episodes), and hammerhead sharks Sphyrnidae (8.4% 589 of all episodes) (Fig 8). Often the specific species of hammerhead was not mentioned, so all 590 hammerheads were grouped together for analysis; when species were specified, great 591 hammerheads Sphyrna mokarran were featured most often (62.3%) with the occasional 592 scalloped (21.7%) and smooth (2.9%) hammerheads (S. lewini and S.zygaena, respectively).  "The threat against humans from sharks has never been greater." "Deadly maneaters lurking in the shadows." "You can't outswim a shark, and you can't overpower it." "Great white sharks can be absolute monsters." "The New Jersey shore became a killing ground." "Sharks are the stuff of nightmares." "Sharks are mindless, monstrous killers." "Sharks are stalking and killing us from the deep." "Great whites keep returning to California to terrorize people." "A missile armed with teeth, ready to fire." 653 654 655 "The balance and health of the ocean depends on their survival." "A marine ecosystem is not healthy without top predators." "You cannot remove the top predators without affecting every link below." "Sharks are misunderstood animals." "Sharks are more valuable alive than dead." "Gentle giants" "Great white sharks are one of the most awe-inspiring animals on the planet." "Sharks are clearly intelligent, not mindless killers." "Seeing a great white breach is one of the most spectacular things in nature." "What's not to love?" 656 657 The language used to describe sharks does matter, as studies have shown that negatively 658 valenced words like "attack" can contribute to negative public sentiment towards sharks (49,74).

659
Public acceptance of predators is related to the frequency and intensity of interactions   Research or Natural History (Fig 3). Even episodes focused on bites or attacks can offer some 776 educational value when they include scientifically accurate information, though this is often 777 undermined by conflicting messages and sensationalism, as in programs which terrorize 778 viewers and then briefly mention shark conservation as the credits roll. While conservation 779 content may not be appropriate for every episode, providing actionable steps for viewers is 780 necessary in order for them to move from positive attitudes towards behavior that supports