Shark Bite Reporting and The New York Times.

Abstract

Simple SummaryThis brief report looks at the language used by The New York Times to report on human-shark interactions and whether they go beyond the phrase “shark attack”. “Shark attack” is a phrase that holds a powerful psychological position in the mind of the public and directs the way sharks are talked about in society. However, it raises concerns because the phrase “shark attack” tells a one-dimensional story of shark behavior, which is often misleading. Data shows that between 32–38% of reported shark “attacks” have no injury at all. As a result, scrutiny of media reporting on different types of human-shark interactions is important. This study found The New York Times still uses shark “attack” language but has begun to layer it with more scientifically accurate shark “bite” and “sighting” narratives that convey less sensational stories. This is part of a growing trend to incorporate a broader lexicon that explains that not every interaction with sharks’ results in injury or fatality.The social and political dynamics around human–shark interactions are a growing area of interest in marine social science. The question motivating this article asks to what extent media reporting by The New York Times has engaged beyond the lexicon of “shark attack” discourse to describe human–shark interactions. It is important because different styles of reporting on human–shark interactions can influence the public’s perceptions about sharks and support for shark conservation. This media outlet is also a paper of record whose editorial style choices may influence the broader media landscape. I review reporting language from The New York Times for 10 years between 2012 and 2021 (n = 36). I present three findings: first, I argue that The New York Times has had an increased frequency in use of the term “shark bite” to describe human–shark interactions. Secondly, I find that shark “attack” is still used consistently with other narratives. Third, there appears to be an increased use of “sightings; encounter; and incident” descriptors since 2020. The implication of this is a layered approach to reporting on human–shark interactions that diversifies away from a one-dimensional shark “attack” discourse.