Mermaids: The Body Found

[Trebuchet]

Did anyone here have the stomach to watch all the way through this nonsense, shown over and over on Animal Planet a couple of days ago? I couldn't stand it. Clearly fiction but there's no disclaimer that I ever saw. The credibility of Discovery Communications keeps sinking lower and lower.

[John Mendenhall]

And if we complain openly we'll produce the Streisand Effect. Something needs to be done that doesn't generate any publicity for Discovery Channel. Private notes to the advertisers that you will no longer be purchasing their products might work.

Excuse me, I have to do some emails.

Regards, John M.

[Van Rijn]

I didn't see it, but I just googled it. Here's one example of a review where they aren't too happy with it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/show...he-waters.html

He suggests there might have been some kinda-sorta disclaimer, but not clear or specific.

Snopes has an entry on it too:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/supernatural/mermaids.asp

The Snopes article points out they even have a fake mermaid website, where, if you go to it, they claim it was taken down by the DOJ (I'm not linking the site, I don't want to give them more hits).

Here's a press release from the source:

http://press.discovery.com/ekits/mon...s-release.html

I notice a lot of sneaky language in it. For instance:

The film blends real-life events and phenomena with the story of two scientists who testify they found the remains of a never-before-identified sea creature.

where "story" is hinting its fiction but might not be taken that way in a quick read. A lot of the press release is like that, but if you read far enough, they finally get to it:

Mermaids: The Body Found makes a strong case for the existence of the mermaid, a creature with a surprisingly human evolutionary history, whose ancestral branch splits off from a shared human root. The film is science fiction, using science as a springboard into imagination and centering the story on the following real-world events:

(Emphasis added). Yet if you read a bit further, it gets into more sneaky language. It's pretty bad. If they did this on April 1st, or maybe Halloween, I might not be too concerned, but this is a step too far.

[Trebuchet]

I almost posted the question in Conspiracy Theories; it had everything but black helicopters. Or maybe it did, I couldn't stand watching it all. I did watch the end to see if there was any disclaimer in the credits. None that I saw.

The lead-in to the movie was River Monsters, with Jeremy Wade, which is almost as fictional.

[LookingSkyward]

This just makes me sad - when I had TV, I loved Animal Planet

[Ara Pacis]

I like River Monsters. At least the animals are real.

[Fazor]

The commercial was too disgusting for me to even pay attention to it for the 30 second spot it occupied. Didn't see the show itself.

I remember when one could learn about animals on Animal Planet, see history on History, and find out about science on Discovery and TLC. Anymore, those channels have about as much academic credibility as MTV. Oh well, at least I still have PBS.

[captain swoop]

I thought it was great. A good old fashioned spoof docu.

[Trebuchet]

I thought it was great. A good old fashioned spoof docu.

Except that more than a couple of people will take it seriously. As Animal Planet seems to have intended. Perhaps they had to go to mermaids because their sister networks had used up all the UFO conspiracy shows.

[KaiYeves]

Sadly, this seems to be becoming a favorite tactic of Animal Planet's-- Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real fooled my brothers when it first aired. (As did Extraterrestrial, even though that had a disclaimer and was established as taking place in the future.) I really think this sort of thing diminishes their credibility immensely.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, speculation is fun, but, especially on a network watched by children and expected to contain factual, educational content, speculation needs to be clearly described as such.

If John has any ideas about who in particular to address complaints to about this, I would like to follow his lead.

[novaderrik]

i never heard of it until i saw this thread.. and i haven't bothered to check it out in the day or so since that happened..

did they name the "mermaid" body that they found "Ariel"? because that would make it kinda awesome..

[Jeff Root]

I watched TV over the weekend but didn't see this or any
promos for it.

From what I read here, I don't see how it is different from
any other fiction.

Though it probably would have made me angry if I'd seen it.

Gregory Peck said that a good actor is a convincing liar.
I'd say that good fiction is a convincing lie.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Fazor]

From what I read here, I don't see how it is different from
any other fiction.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

It's not different from any other fiction, except that it is presented in a misleading way to make it look like it's not fictional. That's my issue with these shows appearing on a network that portray themselves as nonfictional, educational television without copious disclaimers to make it clear that the show is pure fantasy.

[Jeff Root]

Can you be specific about the "misleading way"?

Why does this program need a disclaimer while other
programs do not?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Extravoice]

Check my location. You can't fool me twice.

[NEOWatcher]

Can you be specific about the "misleading way"?

Why does this program need a disclaimer while other
programs do not?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Because the channel advertises itself as a certain way, or has had the history of advertising it a certain way, or has a pattern of presenting it a certain way.
This program needs the disclaimer because it is not in line with that way.
Either put out the disclaimer or re-brand the channel (like Spike did).

Other channels (such as the big networks, or cable channels like FX) have a mix of things already, so they wouldn't need to.

ETA:
A mermaid is not an animal. It is a fictional character

(not this particular topic but to illustrate...)
In my mind "History" does not mean "somebody made a claim in the past" nor does it mean "Fiction/RealityShow at a historical site"

[novaderrik]

this kind of reminds me of a thread i started last fall about the Thanksgiving episode of South Park..

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ght=South+Park


it's true because it's on the History Channel..

[novaderrik]

i just saw an anti evolutionist on another board use this show as evidence that the theory of evolution is a bunch of crap.. so, yeah, there are people out there that can't tell the difference between a real science show and a show done for entertainment..

[TJMac]

This makes me think of a show on the Nat Geo channel that I watched a bit of last weekend. A film documentary about a lioness and her cubs, with a voice over narration done by (I think) Jeremy Irons.

After a herd of water buffalo crashes through the bushes where the lioness leaves her cubs, maiming one, and apparently killing the other, we are told that the lioness goes after the herd, and selects the Bull of the Herd to take down. Then we get a tight camera angle as it shows her hanging on a skinny cow.

The herd chases her off, and there is more blather about her rejoining her pride, and with one pounce, becoming the alpha female, then leading all the lions back to the buffalo herd. We are then shown the whole group attacking the same cow. (Discernible by the bleeding nose with a large flap of skin left from the first attack.) The narrator goes on how there is some mystical force of justice as the lioness is determined to kill the bull that led the herd.

The whole time I am yelling at the TV, "It's NOT a bull! ITS A SKINNY OLD COW! CAN ANYONE NOT TELL THAT?! WHY ARE YOU LYING???" At which point my spouse offered to have me sedated.... (Does one need to be a farmboy to know the difference between a male and female bovine?)

Then at the end, an impassioned plea for help to save the lions, due to the rapid decline in numbers for the last few decades. I could only sit and sputter. Why would I watch an obviously fabricated story, and then choose to believe their 'facts' at the end? Not that I am callous to the plight of those big cats, I just think its an ignorant way to go about trying to get contributions.

TJ

[publiusr]

i just saw an anti evolutionist on another board use this show as evidence that the theory of evolution is a bunch of crap.. so, yeah, there are people out there that can't tell the difference between a real science show and a show done for entertainment..

Or a jenny Haniver for that matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Haniver

A lot of those floating around.

[nosbig5]

Ha! Really?

Mermaids are not real

[Moose]

The House Hippo, a 90s Canadian documentary that seems strangely relevant now.

[KaiYeves]

Ha! Really?

Mermaids are not real

The same "Ocean Facts" section of their website contains questions people ask about the Bermuda Triangle and the possibility of finding Atlantis in Google Earth images, so I wouldn't say it's terribly unusual for them to address fanciful ideas people may have about the ocean in such a way.

[Selenite]

All these "learning channels" that have gone off the rails in the lurid search for richer ratings were touted, at one time, as replacements for the quality educational and cultural programming of public broadcasting. You don't hear that particular drumbeat much anymore.

[Trebuchet]

Now the National Geographic Channel has joined in with "Chasing UFO's". I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it yet.

[Noclevername]

Now the National Geographic Channel has joined in with "Chasing UFO's". I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it yet.

I used to play that same game with a flashlight and a cat. Jump here! Jump there! Did you "catch" it? Better luck next time!

[Trebuchet]

Aaaand it's on again tonight, this time on the Discovery Channel. They have no shame.

I did watch (sort of) Chasing UFO's the other day. Complete nonsense.