Has Animal Planet effectively "Burned its Bridges"?

[iCandiBallPythons]

Has Animal Planet effectively "Burned its Bridges"?
By EricWI
Thu, June 23 2011 at 10:10
A recent posting on the Kingsnake.com Herp Law forum by the user "Mystic1, owner of the website "Mystic Reptiles", highlights his personal communications with Robert Reed of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) regarding his appearance on Animal Planet's recent and extremely sensationalized and speculative "Man Eating Super Snakes" program. It reveals quite a telling scenario.

What does Mr. Reed have to say about the show?

First off, Mr. Reed agrees with the notion that this program was quote "sensationalized", and that he has expressed his strong disappointment in the production company in which Animal Planet sought and utilized for this program. The quote can be seen here:

I completely agree that the Animal Planet show was sensationalized, and I've already strongly expressed my disappointment to the company that produced the show for Animal Planet


Mr. Reed also admits to being unaware of Animal Planet's heavily sensational nature and largely self serving, "ratings over reality" philosophy it has adopted ever since its re launch.

At the time I was interviewed I had no idea that the show would be so strongly skewed towards over-emphasizing the risks to humans, and I didn't learn the title of the show until it was announced the week before the show aired.


Mr. Reed concludes on the matter by stating his belief that Animal Planet has "effectiely burned its bridges with most of the folks conducting research on exotic herps in Florida.

I think Animal Planet has effectively burned their bridges with most of the folks conducting research on exotic herps in Florida.


A copy of Mr. Reed's entire response can be seen below.
I was so pissed after watching that show, I emailed Mr Reed and politely, yet critically, gave him my feedback. Instead of paraphrasing, i'll just copy his reply here (his permission granted) and you can form your own opinion.


***********
Hi Chris;
Thanks for your email. I completely agree that the Animal Planet show was sensationalized, and I've already strongly expressed my disappointment to the company that produced the show for Animal Planet. We were originally told that the show would be a documentary on Python sebae in Florida and its native range, and so I agreed to be interviewed. The questions that I was asked were on the subjects of basic python ecology and the history of research on invasive herps. At the time I was interviewed I had no idea that the show would be so strongly skewed towards over-emphasizing the risks to humans, and I didn't learn the title of the show until it was announced the week before the show aired. I think you're absolutely correct that they're only interested in ratings and income, and that a balanced presentation of the available evidence wasn't a priority. After talking to colleagues who were also featured on the show and who were appalled by the content of what actually aired, I think Animal Planet has effectively burned their bridges with most of the folks conducting research on exotic herps in Florida.

Re: bans on snakes and regulatory agendas, I can only say that it's dangerous to assume a motivation for someone based on limited knowledge of the person in question. Starting in 1987, I've kept multiple species of giant constrictors. I have never publicly offered any opinion, pro or con, on any of the proposals to limit trade in these species. In fact, as a USGS employee I'm prohibited from making recommendations on any proposed policy, since our agency is supposed to stick to science.

Feel free to pass my reply to other folks if you think it would be helpful. I've been smeared repeatedly by some in the pet industry, with a level of sensationalism and dishonesty that is at least equal to what you saw in the Animal Planet show. I'm frankly tired of the rhetoric at both extremes, and it's been so polarizing that we're left with few productive discussions.

Regards,
Bob

"In conclusion, it should be quite indicative that a television program must truly be bad when even your own "interviewees", and even Mr. Reed himself for that matter, come to criticize the program afterward for promoting shameful misinformation, sensationalism, and wild speculative rhetoric regarding African Rock pythons and Burmese pythons thriving and possibly hybridizing in the Everglades. I can only hope that the producers at Animal Planet and Discovery Network have come to recognize such reprecussions of their own programming, and place them in their "think tank" when considering future programming, although I somehow doubt that. Certainly not when gargantuan ratings and profits are to be had. I also somehow doubt that we will be hearing the same from Representative Robert Rooney (R-FL) any time soon on the matter as well."