Most of us have never interacted with a shark outside of an aquarium. The closest I got was begging my mom for a shark tooth necklace at a little store in California when I was nine. Or maybe the closest I got was watching “Jaws” when I was 12; it depends on what you mean by “shark” and, I suppose, “interacting.” This is what I am interested in: The way that our socially constructed idea of sharks has bled through the water and turned the actual real-life sharks into stereotypes. If I was interacting with sharks on the screen, how far is that portrayal from my perception of sharks at the time? What happens when your interaction with the idea of a shark affects an actual shark itself?
Sometimes, the ideas we absorb are subtle. For example, shark tooth necklaces can be analyzed as an assertion of the wearer’s dominant masculinity over the already hyper-masculine shark: a token of the moment when Chief Brody kills the shark and saves his town and an emblem of man’s godlike ability to conquer the extreme power of nature. They do not necessarily symbolize those things (I wanted a shark tooth necklace because I saw some boys wearing them), but when we have these beliefs in the first place, it is hard not to think about the meaning of a shark tooth necklace for post-“Jaws” American masculinity. When we internalize the idea that sharks are this terrifying, aggressive force that we have to fight to subdue, it has an effect on conservation policies, or the lack thereof. This is why it is necessary to create and popularize more neutral, educational shark media.
The perception of sharks as extremely dangerous has a lot to do with the media, which has a lot to do with money. According to Cinephelia Beyond, “Jaws” made almost 500 million dollars at the global box office in 1975, which would have been nearly three billion dollars today. The creators of “Jaws” profited off of an exaggerated and highly stereotyped view of the animal that added to the thrilling nature of the film. In a real-life example of this phenomenon, there is much evidence showing that New Zealand news media of sharks has remained exaggerated since 1989, per Marine Policy. The authors cite the predominant and consistent use of emotive language rather than prescriptive language in shark-related articles. They conclude, “The overuse of emotive terms had led to shark bites being presented and viewed as a criminal act, with sharks themselves being viewed as intentionally malicious.” The newspaper companies and journalists responsible for painting this image of sharks may be responding to the idea that the more extreme an article is, the more likely it is that someone will pick up the newspaper, leading to more profit for the company.
Despite the negative media portrayals of sharks, there is evidence that this is not always the case, especially recently. For example, an article published in Marine Policy noted that in 2014, there was a breakthrough in the language of the news media with an increase in frequency of the terms “fin” and “finning” (referring to the detrimental human practice of harvesting shark fins) over “shark attack.” This is a clear example of centering the harm done to sharks and the influence of the conservation movement that encouraged increased awareness of the dangers of overfishing. However, 2014 was just a blip in the trend, and the next year, media analysis showed a return to the old harmful buzzwords.
Additionally, not all news is bent on an exaggerated portrayal of shark-human interactions. A study of local news in New South Wales, Australia, aimed to gather information on whether local news outlets would reflect the socio-cultural context of New South Wales, an area committed to conservation. According to the study, “The discourse used by the media examined was not fear-laden, sensationalized or emotive, which previous studies have emphasized.” It is clear that when a community itself is more focused on the well-being of sharks, their media coverage will be less anthropocentric and more critical of the human-caused environmental factors that may lead to unwanted human-shark interactions. Thus, the negative media portrayals of sharks and the negative perceptions of sharks are related in a self-perpetuating cycle. However, we can still learn from these local news outlets about how to write about sharks in a way that is informative and constructive so that we can apply these concepts to statewide news and larger outlets.
In areas that are more out-of-touch with conservationist values and more exposed to insensitive media about shark-human interactions, repairing the human-shark relationship is urgent. The United States is uniquely positioned in terms of its relationship to sharks, as “Jaws” was produced and remains most popular in America. As such, it is important to implement certain practices in the United States in order to change the narrative about sharks. Media is a great starting place, and presents an opportunity to reach people of all ages.