To be put off nature programs because of their preaching?

[Rantagonist]

I used to love watching nature progs on telly, but over the last few years, whenever I've seen anything about nature on TV there's always an accompanying guilt trip about how the species they're talking about is in imminent danger.

It's not that I think the message shouldn't be made, and I understand people need a prod sometimes to be made aware of the problems, but what's happened to being able to watch them without being left with a cloud of depression?

Is guilt and banging on the best way to get the message across? It doesn't make me feel empowered or with any hope that I can personally do anything about it.

Turn off the sound.I am always in awe of nature progs,the time and effort that must have gone into capturing that polar bear catching that fish,or whatever.I don't even begrudge the doom and gloom extinction stuff...cos it is TRUE.We are seriously fucking up our planet.

I think it's a crucial message and needs to be made, though I do see your point about the cloud of depression.

There are positive things that can be done (some more obvious than others) eg support a conservation/wildlife/environment charity or organsisation (but then the programme makers can't exactly say join Greenpeace/WWF because that's being partial and/or political), writing to MP, joining lobbying organisation, adpating own lifestyle to one that is more environment-friendly etc. But I agree, it can sound terribly preachy.

You can do something about it, honest

Mavis, that's exactly why I used to love watching them, the films and animals truely are amazing, but the preaching seems to have taken away the awe and just left guilt in its place.

But rantagonist, would it not be a little odd for the programme makers to show you all these truly amazing animals without mentioning the small fact that they are facing extinction?

Exactly zeph. Tis a pretty major fact.

Are film makers obliged now to have that message in their films? It doesn't seem acceptable for them to show the natural world without having something to say about the negative side?

I'm not saying I want a happy/rainbows/rose tinted view of it all, but I've heard the message and I understand, I don't need it in every single program.

I understand what you mean, rant, but I just don't see how you could make a programme about polar bears, say, without mentioning their prospects for survival. Programme makers are not obliged to say anything, I'm sure, but you must agree that it would give a very false impression to show lots of pictures of frolicking cubs while omitting the fact that their habitat is disappering.

I think it would be pretty hard to do a film with highly photogenic cuddly animals and not have that message tbh. Most large animals are in danger from one thing or another - and because they are at the top of the food chain, they are dependent upon a whole ecosystem underneath them. Tigers polar bears etc really don't have much time left. You can't really talk about polar bears without discussing melting ice sheets and climate change; you can't talk about tigers without looking at human population growth, hunting and destruction of habitat.

What if the program was about children, and all program makers felt that in order to make an objective program they must include things like abuse, torture and neglect?

I know making a prog about children isn't the same as making one about animals, but I want to watch a prog about animals and nature, not have political messages forced down my throat about population growth and hunting.

Well if it was a programme about abused and neglected children then they would indeed need to mention abuse and neglect. Similarly a programme about endangered animals can't help but mention the fact that they are endangered. Perhaps you could solve the problem by only watching programmes about animals that are not threatened with extinction.

OR... you could try actually finding out if there's something that you could do to help in stead of wallowing in your pathetic middle-class guilt.

lol at middle class. Was that addressed to anyone in particular, MrsCrocoduck?

um...yeah...thanks for that insight mrscroc, my passion is for civil liberties, so any spare time I have is for that.

Zeph, I meant any prog about children, I've yet to see any nature or animal mentioned without the doom and gloom.

YABU

Animals don't exist to charm us or lift us out of depression.

I love nature docs (unless they feature insects, yuck) and I think that it would be shameful to tell us all about an animal and how it lives without mentioning the challenges faced by the species.

If you really can't stand it, watch it and listen to the radio.

All nature programs aren't like that anyway. Take Spring/autumnwatch. There may be mentions of some species being in decline, and climate change, but theres a lot of common, numerous creatures - huge flocks of knott or starlings for instance. And they also encourage people to do things locally to help wildlife.

Dig a pond or put up bird feeders or make a logpile (doesn't take long) Join the WWT and/or RSPB and see wonderful creatures here for real instead of on TV, while they help support conservation worldwide.

Yes Springwatch/Autumnwatch a good suggestion. Kate Humble is always delightfully cheerful.

That might suit your viewing needs, rantagonist, and protect you from too much bad news.

The only thing I worry about, in relation to the 'preaching' in the progs, is how easy it is to become crushed by despair when watching them.

DS2 is massively entranced by the animal world and drinks up all these stunning nature programmes. Of course it is right that they should educate him about the threats to nature. But those threats are so overwhelming, so depressing, that I worry for his sense of joy.

I have consciously started to emphasise the small successes that there have been in countering species loss, habitat loss, etc. And I also emphasise the love and determination of all those wonderful activists and experts who do what they can to protect animals.

YABU - some people might only watch one or two nature programmes ever, so the message has to be in all of them.

Your wish for the warnings not to be in all of them is a bit like suggesting that the health warning on cigarette packets should only be on some of them - or perhaps they should be removed entirely because everyone knows they make you sick and smokers would like to enjoy their ciggies without being faced with the depressing truth of their dangers

This may actually be one of the most bizarrely self-indulgent AIBUs I've read (and that is saying something).

The reality of the situation is too massive to be ignored. If that sticks in your throat, well... it should! 'Accompanying guilt trip'? Unbelieveable. Really. If you still want to enjoy lovely nature programmes in several decades time, then it's wise to be grateful that the message is being put across.