By Naomi Rose
On Friday, January 24, the ABC newsmagazine 20/20
aired a segment on Keiko, the orca star of Free Willy,
that was presented as a work of journalism. In other words,
viewers had every reason to think the segment, produced by
ABC's news division, would present the facts so that they could
draw their own conclusions, with minimal editorial bias.
But what actually aired was almost entirely editorial bias.
The segment began with host Barbara Walters stating that the
Keiko Project story was one of "good intentions that might end
up having bad consequences." It went downhill from there. By
the end of the segment, Walters was back on camera, expressing
a tepid hope for "any success that Keiko may have"
(emphasis added).
Any success? Well, if 20/20 reporters, editors, and
news executives were really interested in reporting the facts
on Keiko's reintroduction campaign, they would have found
plenty of evidence of the orca's success. In fact, The HSUS and
the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation provided such evidence to the
segment's producer and its reporter, Lynn Sherr, all of which
was ignored.
Given the information we provided, The HSUS anticipated a
balanced story. We expected the segment to document the
extraordinary progress Keiko has made in the last three years
in Iceland and Norway (documented through behavioral
observations, satellite and radio tracking data, and veterinary
evaluations), contrasted with the views of those who consider
the project an emotional waste of money. In fact, two employees
of The HSUS were interviewed for the story—President and CEO
Paul Irwin, who could provide some insight on the costs versus
benefits argument, and me, The HSUS's marine mammal
scientist.
The HSUS also provided the 20/20 producer with data
on captive orca mortality statistics, the consequences of wild
captures, and technical information on orcas in the wild. Most
important, the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation presented the
producer and Sherr a statement from six respected orca experts
who concluded that, after examining the satellite data and the
veterinary records, Keiko had been successfully foraging during
his 56-day journey across the North Atlantic this past
summer.
In short, The HSUS was confident that while the Keiko
Project's detractors would be allowed their say, the facts
would speak for themselves. And the facts would speak loudly:
That after a summer at sea, Keiko was healthy, alert, and
making consistent progress toward, at a minimum, a semi-wild
life.
But these facts never surfaced in 20/20's report.
Keiko's nearly 60-days at sea were literally dismissed, as of
no importance—Keiko's arrival in Norway after his prolonged
period in the wild was deemed "an outright rejection of six
years of rehabilitation," instead of an amazing step for an
orca who had spent 20-plus years in captivity. What's more, all
mention of The HSUS, including our interviews and our technical
information, was omitted. The producer claimed time
constraints, but in several instances, our omitted interviews
or information rebutted detracting and misleading
statements.
The most questionable journalistic misstep, however, was the
segment's reliance on Dr. Leif Nøttestad, a Norwegian scientist
whom Sherr introduced as "an expert on orcas." Nøttestad stated
that, in his opinion, Keiko's fate in the wild would be
starvation.
It turns out that 20/20's primary informational
source on orcas is actually an expert on fish—Nøttestad is not
a marine mammal biologist at all. The irony here is profound:
Sherr and the producer ignored the actual orca experts'
statement and my interview (my background includes studies of
orca behavior), which concluded Keiko was far from starving on
his own, while favoring a fish specialist.
Indeed, through strategic omissions and the careful editing
of interview responses, the segment implied that the managers
of the Keiko Project (represented in the segment only by the
Free Willy/Keiko Foundation) had never even consulted orca
experts when designing their release efforts. Sherr pointedly
questioned Dave Phillips, the chair of the Free Willy/Keiko
board of directors and the only "pro-release" interviewee on
the segment, if he had "ever ask[ed] an expert...ever [said] to
anyone, can this be done?"
Although Phillips mentioned Keiko's veterinarian (considered
one of the best orca veterinarians in the world), the segment
omitted any references to the experts' statement or to the
scientists, including those affiliated with the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, who have been consulted from the
beginning and who have participated in the Project's scientific
efforts. Indeed, Keiko's tracking devices were designed by one
of the U.S. government's leading technical experts on marine
mammal tracking.
By any measure, Keiko's journey from Iceland to Norway this
past summer was an astonishing feat. He had never been
independent (away from human caretakers) for this length of
time before, and he managed to feed himself and find his way,
on his own, to a coast frequented by other orcas. Although he
also met people on this coast and sought their attention and
company, this is hardly surprising for an animal who has had a
forced association with people for most of his life.
This same animal has also provided us with a wealth of data
on his behavior, movements, and diving patterns. What's more,
population data have been collected on the Icelandic orcas over
the past three summers during his interactions with them. All
of this information will be analyzed and presented in
scientific publications.
While we expected detractors to say the Keiko Project has
been an effort based on emotion, not science, and has been a
waste of $20 million, we also expected the 20/20 segment
to present the facts that rebut these arguments. They were
certainly in possession of those facts. We expected the segment
to outline the science that has been conducted and to clarify
that the money, spent over ten years and partially used to
build two state-of-the-art facilities, has certainly been no
more (and probably far less) than the amount spent to maintain
captive orcas at U.S. marine parks over the same time
period.
But in the end, 20/20 ignored these facts and
delivered one hugely misleading message—that the Keiko Project,
because Keiko is not yet completely independent of human care,
has been a failure. No other interpretation of the events was
considered.
This is a classic case of biased journalism, an essentially
one-sided argument masquerading as objective reporting. Keiko
and the Keiko Project deserve better. The Keiko Project has
been anything but a failure—Keiko's progress has, in fact, been
astounding, given his grim beginnings in a tiny tank in Mexico
City. The Project's valuable and unprecedented efforts could
very well benefit other orcas held captive in marine parks
around the world, and that's the information the public
needs to know.
Dr. Naomi Rose is the marine
mammal scientist for The HSUS. She specialized in orca behavior
for her dissertation and has 18 years experience in the study
of marine mammal biology.
