{"id":1396,"date":"2017-01-08T21:26:17","date_gmt":"2017-01-08T21:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1396"},"modified":"2017-01-09T13:53:11","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T13:53:11","slug":"please-david-attenborough-for-natures-sake-no-planet-earth-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1396","title":{"rendered":"Please David Attenborough: For Nature\u2019s Sake, No Planet Earth III"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Planet Earth II: Official Extended Trailer | BBC Earth\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/c8aFcHFu8QM?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<h3>BBC production genius, big budgets and the gentle charisma of David Attenborough were combined to take the BBCs hallmark nature spectaculars to new heights in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/programmes\/p02544td\">Planet Earth II<\/a>. <\/em>It is more awe inspiring, more immersive, more cinematic than ever before.\u00a0 Yet for nature\u2019s sake there should be no <em>Planet Earth III<\/em> on the same model.<\/h3>\n<p><em>Planet Earth II<\/em> goes too far in supplying high-dose nature therapy at the sofa, without showing how nature needs help, how it can be helped, or helping viewers to help. \u00a0Given his age, the BBC may fear <em>Planet Earth III <\/em>may be unimaginable without David Attenborough\u2019s magic touch but the rest of the cast may soon anyway be unavailable: the natural world celebrated in these BBC statement movies is simply vanishing.\u00a0 The BBC could go on doing \u2018more with less\u2019 but <em>Planet Earth III<\/em> on the same basis would be a descent into virtual reality.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1401\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide3.jpg\" alt=\"slide3\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide3.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide3-300x225.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/>Most of the world\u2019s wildlife has disappeared over the time the BBC has been making natural history films.\u00a0 It is time to rethink the model.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Success of Planet Earth II<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>When the BBC\u2019s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/programmes\/p02544td\">Planet Earth II<\/a> aired in Britain before Christmas, it immediately became the UK\u2019s most-watched natural history programme <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/nov\/07\/planet-earth-ii-bbc1-most-watched-natural-history-show-for-15-years\">for 15 years<\/a>.\u00a0 It is being sold around the world, and a few days after it went online at Tencent in China, the first two episodes <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/dec\/09\/bbc-planet-earth-iii-producer-david-attenborough\">had been downloaded<\/a> 61 million times.<\/p>\n<p>The millions of viewers who watch TV nature mega-series such <em>Planet Earth II<\/em> presented by David Attenborough, probably assume they must help save nature.\u00a0 Such popular programmes are certainly a vote for \u2018liking wildlife\u2019, and make presenters famous. \u00a0An academic study described them as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/Natures-Saviours-Graham-Huggan\/dp\/0415519144#reader_0415519144\"><em>Natures\u2019 Saviours: Celebrity Conservationists in the Television Age<\/em><\/a><em>.<\/em> \u00a0\u00a0Yet when conservation professionals and media analysts have tried to discern some sort of media-cause and conservation-effect, the answer has never been very clear.\u00a0 The issue has long been debated within the nature and media circles.\u00a0 That debate has now been reinvigorated by strong criticism of <em>Planet Earth II<\/em> by a fellow BBC Producer.<\/p>\n<p>BBC Executives were <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/dec\/09\/bbc-planet-earth-iii-producer-david-attenborough\">reportedly<\/a> \u2018thrilled by the huge audiences watching the programme\u2019, especially as \u2018more than 2 million of the 12 million total weekly UK audience are in the prized 16-34 age range, meaning the programme has attracted more young adult viewers than The X Factor\u2019.<\/p>\n<p><strong>On New Year\u2019s Day<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I imagine they were less than thrilled on New Years Day 2017 when Martin Hughes-Games, presenter of BBC programmes such as <em>Springwatch<\/em>, took aim at the new nature mega-series in \u00a0<em>The<\/em> <em>Guardian<\/em> with \u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2017\/jan\/01\/bbc-planet-earth-not-help-natural-world?CMP=share_btn_tw\">\u2018The BBC\u2019s Planet Earth II did not help the natural world\u2019<\/a>.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1399\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide1.jpg\" alt=\"slide1\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide1.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide1-300x225.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Hughes-Games, wrote:<\/p>\n<p><em>I fear this series, and others like it, have become a disaster for the world\u2019s wildlife. These programmes are pure entertainment, brilliantly executed but ultimately a significant contributor to the planet-wide extinction of wildlife we\u2019re presiding over.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The justification, say the programme makers, is that if people (the audience) become interested in the natural world they will start to care about the natural world, and will be more likely to want to get involved in trying to conserve it. Unfortunately the scientific evidence shows this is nonsense.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>For instance, the World Wide Fund for Nature and Zoological\u00a0Society of London\u2019s authoritative <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.livingplanetindex.org\/home\/index\"><em>2016 Living Planet Report<\/em><\/a><em> has concluded that between 1970 and 2012 there was a <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2016\/oct\/27\/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns\"><em>58% decline of vertebrate population abundance worldwide<\/em><\/a><em>. This encompasses the period in which Attenborough\u2019s outstanding natural history series have been broadcast (starting with Life on Earth in 1979). The prime factor in this destruction is humankind\u2019s insatiable need for space \u2013 destroying and degrading habitat at an appalling rate \u2013 coupled with species over-exploitation, pollution, invasive species, climate change and rampant\u00a0poaching.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Yet these programmes are still made as if this worldwide mass extinction is simply not happening. The\u00a0producers continue to go to the rapidly\u00a0shrinking parks and reserves to make their films \u2013 creating a beautiful, beguiling fantasy world, a utopia where\u00a0tigers still roam free and untroubled, where the natural world exists as if man had never been.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>By fostering this lie they are lulling the huge worldwide audience into a false sense of security<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Opinion amongst <em>Guardian<\/em> readers was divided:\u00a0\u00a0 many agreed with Martin Hugh-Games but some Attenborough devotees were outraged at such sacrilege.\u00a0 Over 1000 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2017\/jan\/01\/bbc-planet-earth-not-help-natural-world?CMP=share_btn_tw\">comments<\/a> were posted within a few days, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2017\/jan\/03\/do-david-attenboroughs-programmes-help-or-hinder-the-natural-world\">letters followed<\/a>. \u00a0\u00a0\u2018ryanallan2010 \u2018 declared the <em>Planet Earth II<\/em> \u2018perhaps the finest TV show ever made. Perfection hosted by God himself\u2019, while \u2018BookwormFoundInBrick\u2019 \u00a0denounced Hughes-Games as \u2018a mediocrity desperately seeking attention\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>Several media friends of mine agreed with the argument but said \u2018Attenborough was the wrong target\u2019.\u00a0 No doubt they were thinking about how programming decisions get made. \u00a0\u00a0When I sampled opinion amongst long-standing environmentalists, I found almost universal agreement: Hughes-Games essentially has it right.\u00a0 Few doubt that the overall effect of decades of nature broadcasting on conservation has been positive but their view is that the nature spectaculars are now more of a hindrance than a help.\u00a0 Reluctantly, \u00a0I have to agree.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1400\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide2.jpg\" alt=\"slide2\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide2.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Slide2-300x225.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Conservation groups will not want to get into a public slanging match with wildlife film makers but with so much nature sliding so fast into oblivion, the time has come for a rethink about top-end nature TV. \u00a0\u00a0At the end of this blog I offer a few ideas on what could be done but first, \u00a0I try to consider how we got into this position and some of the factors which may need to be reconciled if something it to change.<\/p>\n<p><strong>When I Wanted to \u2018Be David Attenborough\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Back in the 1960s I was tasked with a Junior School essay on \u201cwhat I want to do when I grow up\u201d.\u00a0 I wrote that I\u2019d either like to be David Attenborough, or a helicopter pilot: I couldn\u2019t decide which.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t manage either but David Attenborough\u2019s <em>\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Zoo_Quest\"><em>Zoo Quest<\/em><\/a> books had made a great impression, and I saw some footage from his early tv series of the same name.\u00a0 Here was a grown-up who seemed to have found a way to spend all his time going out into an amazing world of nature to collect animals for zoos, and showing other people how interesting they were.<\/p>\n<p>But as I grew up it was not Attenborough who <a href=\"http:\/\/campaignstrategy.org\/howilearntaboutcampaigns.html\">made me a conservationist and ultimately a campaigner<\/a>.\u00a0 My role models were those who seemed to share my love of birds but who inspired me because they did something about threats to nature.<\/p>\n<p>Foremost was <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/person\/188\/Peter+Scott.html\">Peter Scott<\/a>,\u00a0 whose 1967 autobiography I read, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/Eye-Wind-Peter-Scott\/dp\/B0006D9CUA\"><em>The Eye of the Wind<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 Scott was also a film-maker (he made the first BBC natural history series, later called <em>Look<\/em>) but in addition had helped <a href=\"http:\/\/wwf.panda.org\/who_we_are\/\">start the World Wildlife Fund<\/a> (WWF).\u00a0 Scott famously designed WWF\u2019s giant panda logo, not just to thrill people about pandas but because it would reproduce well in black and white, as he and environmentalists like <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Edward_Max_Nicholson\">Max Nicholson<\/a> felt it would help them raise funds to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/Launching-New-Ark-President-1961-1964\/dp\/B001OV6SOQ\">actually protect nature<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1402\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/launching-of-a-new-ark-cover.jpg\" alt=\"launching-of-a-new-ark-cover\" width=\"453\" height=\"640\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/launching-of-a-new-ark-cover.jpg 453w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/launching-of-a-new-ark-cover-212x300.jpg 212w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 453px) 100vw, 453px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Scott had also started what is now the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wwt.org.uk\/conservation\/history-of-wwt\/\">Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust<\/a> (WWT) back in 1946, and through his paintings, writing and creation of visitor experiences was a relentless promoter of public awareness about conservation.\u00a0 In 1969 for instance WWT lobbied successfully against construction of a dam at the main breeding ground of pink-footed geese at Thjorsarver in Iceland.\u00a0 Descendants of <a href=\"http:\/\/monitoring.wwt.org.uk\/our-work\/goose-swan-monitoring-programme\/species-accounts\/pink-footed-goose\/\">those geese<\/a> now spend the winter where I live, and around midwinter, thousands fly over my house every night and morning.<\/p>\n<p>David Attenborough brought <em>wildlife<\/em> into millions of homes through tv but while a conservationist since boyhood, for the most part he was never a conservation practitioner. \u00a0Nor were most of his films about conservation but about nature.\u00a0 While the likes of Scott and Nicholson and even a succession of Princes such as HRH The Prince Phillip immersed themselves in committees and organisations and \u2018issues\u2019, David Attenborough\u2019s career developed mainly in TV world.\u00a0 He became <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/David_Attenborough\">Controller of BBC 2<\/a> from 1965 to 1969, where and amongst other things, he commissioned Monty Python.<\/p>\n<p>Attenborough became Britain\u2019s dominant media-celebrator of wildlife through his series <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_World_About_Us\"><em>The World About Us<\/em><\/a> from 1967 \u2013 87, and\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wildlife_on_One\"><em>Wildlife on One<\/em><\/a>, from 1977 to 2005.\u00a0\u00a0 By then he had become internationally known, inspired numerous imitators and is widely credited for establishing an entire new genre of tv.\u00a0\u00a0 He narrated and presented many other series such as <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Life_on_Earth_(TV_series)\">Life on Earth<\/a> (1979), <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Living_Planet\"><em>Living Planet<\/em><\/a> (1984), and in 2006 <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Planet_Earth_(TV_series)\">Planet Earth<\/a>, which within a year, had been sold to over 130 countries made him into a global BBC brand.<\/p>\n<p>Over those decades I became an amateur naturalist, trained and researched as an ecologist, helped start the London Wildlife Trust, worked as a campaigner for Friends of the Earth and WWF International, started a media charity to enable the media industry to help NGOs communicate better (Media Natura, now extinct), and worked for Greenpeace and have worked on many conservation campaigns since.\u00a0 So while I\u2019ve never worked for the BBC or been a film-maker I am something of a witness to the question of how much high profile nature TV has helped conservation.<\/p>\n<p>All that time, while Attenborough remained a reference point for people trying to understand what we did: \u201coh you mean like David Attenborough\u201d or \u201cdid you see &#8230; ?\u201d or \u201cI guess you must know Attenborough\u201d, the man himself rarely featured in anything we did.\u00a0 Sometimes this was not for want of us trying to involve him.\u00a0 The polite answer which often came back was along the lines that he felt himself to be \u2018just a film-maker\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, the BBC often proved less helpful, for example in providing footage for campaign or \u2018awareness\u2019 projects, than companies like Anglia TV, where Aubrey Buxton\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Survival_(TV_series)\"><em>Survival<\/em><\/a> (1961-2001) made rather more programmes with an overtly conservationist content (eg about gorillas, Antarctica).<\/p>\n<p>So when I worked for WWF Intl and similar groups struggling to protect \u2018biodiversity\u2019, I remember railing,\u00a0 like Martin Hughes-Games,\u00a0 against the unintended consequences of wildlife-spectacle tv, of which Attenborough\u2019s series were pre-eminent.\u00a0 I met many people disappointed when their experience of visiting a nature reserve did not live up to the intense cornucopia of wildlife presented on TV but a greater frustration was that the big audiences were shown fantastic wildlife living in forests which seemed to go on forever but which off-screen, were fast vanishing.\u00a0\u00a0 Now, unless conservation action is dramatically stepped up, the problem is vastly more acute: we are in the end game for nature.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why It\u2019s Big Business<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Natural history programme making has become a big business because it gets ratings.\u00a0\u00a0 The relative ease with which films made in the \u2018classic\u2019 all-nature format can transfer across languages and cultures, has helped create a global market.\u00a0 \u00a0Plus if we are shown only nature, with no signs of human activity, the programmes have a longer shelf-life, and viewer research tends to show that immersive, amazement-generating spectacle is what entertains and retains the biggest audiences.<\/p>\n<p>The BBC has made itself a global leader in \u2018blue chip\u2019 nature tv, although as Morgan Richards has pointed out, the formula of spectacular nature in\u00a0 \u201cprimeval wilderness\u201d can be <a href=\"http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/cm\/lb\/5617726\/data\/greening-wildlife-documentaries-data.pdf\">traced back<\/a> to Disney\u2019s <em>True-Life Adventure films <\/em>(1948-1960)<em>, <\/em>which also \u2018set the precedent for wildlife documentary\u2019s persistent marginalisation of environmental issues\u2019.\u00a0 Today Disney is looking again at the market, one which only organisations with big budgets can play in because of the time, travel, research and development, technology and marketing involved in making such wildlife epics.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1403\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/BBC_PE_title.jpg\" alt=\"bbc_pe_title\" width=\"400\" height=\"225\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/BBC_PE_title.jpg 400w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/BBC_PE_title-300x169.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>By Source, Fair use, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=22193619<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Planet Earth I <\/em>cost \u00a38m to film and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2006\/apr\/09\/business.broadcasting1\">made<\/a> \u00a320m for the sales arm, BBC Enterprises.\u00a0 <em>Planet Earth II<\/em>, no doubt cost much more and may make even more.\u00a0 It was filmed in UHD and HDR formats (a first), made use of new 4K cameras, and involved filming for over 2000 days, more than 100 trips by six producers to 40 countries, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/oct\/29\/planet-earth-ii-bbc-sir-david-attenborough-nature-series-wildlife-animals\">and<\/a> \u2018features countless sequences that could not have been achieved without new, ultra-lightweight cameras and drones\u2019.<\/p>\n<p><em>Planet Earth II<\/em> has a score by Hollywood composer Hans Zimmer (personally I thought it was great), stunning Hollywood style cinematography (the desert scenes recalled and bettered David Lean\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lawrence_of_Arabia_(film)\"><em>Lawrence of Arabia<\/em><\/a> I thought) and was hyped in advance just like Hollywood movie.<\/p>\n<p>The \u2018package\u2019 of such programmes may say little or nothing about conservation or how to help but the film-makers are now routinely making themselves the story,\u00a0 with features about how challenging and exciting it was to make, and the new technology.\u00a0 In 2012 <em>The Natural History TV Report<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.televisual.com\/blog-detail\/The-Natural-History-TV-report_bid-393.html\">enthused<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><em>The blue chip still exists, and has pushed its production values further and further into the stratosphere with every new landmark show, making sure it\u2019s at the forefront of each advance in production technology from HD, to 3D to 4K and from time lapse to slo-mo to low light<\/em><\/p>\n<p>As in other globally competitive sectors from cars to pharmaceuticals and consumer IT, market success now depends on going-to-scale.\u00a0 Financing big-ticket productions, known in the BBC as \u2018landmark series, has led the Corporation into co-productions with competitors.\u00a0 BBC\u2019s <em>Frozen Planet<\/em> and <em>Blue Planet<\/em> were made with Discovery Channel.\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Planet_Earth_(TV_series)\"><em>Planet Earth I<\/em><\/a> was made with Discovery and NHK, and <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Planet_Earth_II\"><em>Planet Earth II<\/em><\/a> was made by three parts of the BBC including its new non-public service entity BBC Studios, plus ZDF, Tencent, and France Televisions.<\/p>\n<p>Nature is the BBC\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bbcworldwide.com\/media\/2002\/bbcw_fullannualreview.pdf\">second largest<\/a> investment genre. \u00a0Sales from BBC Worldwide a commercial part of the BBC, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/mediacentre\/worldwide\/2016\/bbcw-announces-new-pre-sales-for-planet-earth-2-ahead-of-mipcom\">returned \u00a3222.2m<\/a> to the coffers in 2015\/6.\u00a0 This helps the Corporation fend off demands from Conservative politicians to abolish the licence fee, a constant worry of BBC managers and the governing BBC Trust.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bbcworldwide.com\/media\/2014\/bbcw-201516-annual-report-final-incl-signatures.pdf\">BBC strategy is to achieve three things<\/a>:\u00a0 \u2018to increase focus on premium, world?class content; to grow global brands; and to effect a gradual transformation to digital products and services\u2019.\u00a0 The logic of high-end nature mega productions is framed by this context, which means any change to the winning formula faces many more obstacles than simply persuading David Attenborough himself.\u00a0 After the series was previewed to the media, Esther Addley <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/oct\/29\/planet-earth-ii-bbc-sir-david-attenborough-nature-series-wildlife-animals\">wrote<\/a> in <em>The Guardian:<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>It is a measure of how important Planet Earth II is to the sometimes embattled BBC that at a packed screening in London this month for national and international press, the warm-up man was <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/tony-hall\"><em>Tony Hall<\/em><\/a><em>, the broadcaster\u2019s director general. <\/em><\/p>\n<p>For all those reasons, the Corporation is probably hoping that the debate sparked by Martin Hughes-Games will go away but the conservation community should not let that happen.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u2018Almost Like A Drug\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Martin Hughes-Games has expressed similar concerns before.\u00a0 In October 2015 before the start of the programme Autumnwatch, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2015\/oct\/30\/autumnwatch-style-wildlife-programmes-dont-help-conservation-says-presenter\">he said<\/a> big wildlife shows had created \u201ca form of entertainment, a utopian world that bears no resemblance to the reality\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><em>\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve been doing this for 35 years and we always used to say what Sir David [Attenborough] used to say, which was that by making people aware of wildlife and conservation issues \u2013 that\u2019s the first step \u2013 they will get involved,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s been the plan but clearly that has not worked; we have failed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1404\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/autumnwatch-presenters.jpg\" alt=\"autumnwatch-presenters\" width=\"640\" height=\"265\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/autumnwatch-presenters.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/autumnwatch-presenters-300x124.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Presenters of BBC <em>Autumnwatch<\/em>: Martin Hughes-Games (left), Michaela Strachan and Chris Packham.\u00a0 <em>photo Jo Charlesworth\/BBC NHU<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In May 2016 when <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/springwatch\">Springwatch<\/a> was back, Games <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/may\/24\/wildlife-shows-not-reflecting-reality-of-natural-world-springwatch-presenters\">said<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cI fear those beautiful seductive programmes are not balanced by a clearer idea of what is going on and the loss of habitat &#8230; It\u2019s almost like a drug. We love it and we come back and we lose ourselves in the beauty of these places, not realising that the habitats they are being filmed in are getting tinier and tinier. We don\u2019t reflect that.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This year Hughes-Game\u2019s argument was reported and sharpened in an article by a <em>Guardian<\/em> journalist , and framed in terms of rivalry: \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2017\/jan\/01\/planet-earth-ii-david-attenborough-martin-hughes-games-bbc-springwatch?CMP=share_btn_tw\">Planet Earth II &#8216;a disaster for world&#8217;s wildlife&#8217; says rival nature producer<\/a>\u2019,\u00a0 It was then widely re-reported in other media.<\/p>\n<p>As long ago as the 1980s, the BBC Natural History Unit was under similar public criticism for the way its compelling output portrayed nature without much reference to threats to nature.\u00a0 For example from <em>The Listener<\/em> in 1983:<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;Paradoxically, wildlife on TV may be piling up new problems for the conservationist lobby<\/em><em> rather than helping it. After all if we see countless host of creatures, crammed into one Technicolor half hour through the unseen wonders of TV technology and editing, then they can&#8217;t be that endangered can they?&#8221;<\/em> (Listener, 3.11.83 quoted by <a href=\"http:\/\/discovery.ucl.ac.uk\/5188\/1\/5188.pdf\">Gail Davis<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>In 1987, \u00a0\u2018environmental issues\u2019 were climbing high on the social agenda and the then Head of the Natural History Unit <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/person\/231\/John+Sparks.html\">John Sparks<\/a> made the case for the BBC\u2019s approach in \u2018Broadcasting and the Conservation Challenge\u2019, in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.banc.org.uk\/\"><em>Ecos<\/em><\/a>, a magazine mainly read by conservation professionals.\u00a0 \u00a0Sparks \u00a0acknowledged that: <em>\u2018for many years the BBC concentrated mostly \u2013 but not exclusively \u2013 on an Arcadian wild world interpreted with in a framework of sciences\u2019 <\/em>and he sometimes got letters complaining about the lack of reference to destruction of nature in the BBC\u2019s output.\u00a0 But surveys, he argued, \u00a0showed tv nature programming <em>did<\/em> lead some people towards more engagement with nature.\u00a0 and figures suggested nearly a million people might have been made more available to join conservation projects as a result [read John Sparks full article <a href=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Sparks-article-Ecos.pdf\">here<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>Moreover his part of the BBC was indeed trying to cover environmental issues. \u2018<em>The Natural World<\/em> looked at the nuclear winter and the fate of the world\u2019s topsoil and sweet water\u2019, while three documentaries had \u2018celebrated the recent <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Brundtland_Commission\">Bruntland Report<\/a> under the series title of \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt2466692\/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl\">Only One Earth<\/a>\u2019\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018Celebrated\u2019 is probably not a term the BBC would use now.\u00a0 Subsequent decades of attack by climate sceptics have left it scared to appear pro-environmental.<\/p>\n<p>Sparks also explained \u2018In 1983 I devised \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/film\/130\/Nature.html\"><em>Nature<\/em><\/a>\u2019, which for four years was the only series on BBC Television dedicated to issues affecting the natural world, and which received an audience of between 2.5 \u2013 4.5 million\u2019. \u00a0This was an environmental news\/ current affairs magazine programme, which ran for over <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/film\/130\/Nature.html\">400 episodes<\/a> but according to Gail Davis, <em>Nature<\/em> was not seen as a success in the BBC Natural History Unit.\u00a0 It compared unfavourably with ratings of the high-tech new offering of <em>Supersense <\/em>which used innovative ways of filming (and trained \u2018wild\u2019 animals) to wow viewers, and attracted audiences of over 10m.\u00a0 One of her pseudonymous interviewees said:<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;Nature I thought of, but then I thought that it hasn&#8217;t really done anything. It should have done something but it hasn&#8217;t. I don&#8217;t think that it has really had an effect. [&#8230;] I suppose the only thing that I can say about it, is it probably did a disservice in that people are terrified of now touching the environmental subjects within the Unit, because they know that they are going to get low viewing figures. Whether that is the fault of Nature, or whether the fault of changing climates, I don&#8217;t know. I&#8217;d like to say it had had an effect. It was the only conservation programme that we put out&#8221; (Jenny, interview 21.7.95).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1406\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/tony-soper-Nature.jpg\" alt=\"tony-soper-nature\" width=\"448\" height=\"358\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/tony-soper-Nature.jpg 448w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/tony-soper-Nature-300x240.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>Tony Soper presenting BBC&#8217;s Nature magazine programme. from: http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/film\/130\/Nature.html<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Nature was eventually taken away from the nature film makers and finally closed in 1994.\u00a0 In Davis\u2019s words:\u00a0 \u2018rather than a milestone in the development of the Unit, several people suggested it was a millstone\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>Gail Davis <a href=\"http:\/\/discovery.ucl.ac.uk\/5188\/1\/5188.pdf\">referenced<\/a> Andrew Neal, who became head of the Unit in 1989:<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8221; It was a devastating blow.<\/em><em> People in the Unit believe passionately that they should be making environmental programmes because they&#8217;re out there every day seeing what&#8217;s happening to the wildlife and to the planet&#8221; (quoted in Venue, 23.10.92).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The bruising folk-memory of the <em>Nature<\/em> \u2018failure\u2019 may be one reason why the Natural History Unit fell back on Attenborough\u2019s traditional recipe of safe celebration of nature through marvellous pictures with only oblique, almost whispered moral generalities about our responsibility to look after it.\u00a0 In 1984 David Attenborough <a href=\"http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/cm\/lb\/5617726\/data\/greening-wildlife-documentaries-data.pdf\">summed up<\/a> his and probably thus the default BBC rationale like this:<\/p>\n<p><em>My job as a natural history filmmaker is to convey the reality of the environment so that people will recognise its intrinsic value, its interest, its intrinsic merit and feel some responsibility for it. After that has been done, then the various pressure groups can get at them through their own channels and ask them to send a donation to, let us say, the World Wildlife Fund<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At any event for the most part major BBC nature programmes, have made only tangential reference, \u00a0and then mainly verbal rather than visual reference, to the threats to and destruction of nature, and mainly steered away from engagement with conservation projects or organisations.\u00a0 It\u2019s the pictures that count on TV.\u00a0 In 1997 Gail Davis <a href=\"http:\/\/discovery.ucl.ac.uk\/5188\/1\/5188.pdf\">wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><em>The style of blue-chip natural history films was explained to me by John Sparks, series<\/em><em> producer of the <\/em>Natural World <em>when I interviewed him in 1995.\u00a0 John Sparks is reputed to have<\/em><em> coined the phrase, &#8220;blue-chip&#8221;: &#8220;It just means basically that kind of film, you know, which has got no people in it.\u00a0 Lovely, natural history.\u00a0 Nature in the raw. Beautifully filmed. High production values, good editing, good photography that sucks you into a place&#8221; (John Sparks, interview 13.6.95)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>An \u201cOoh\u201d, \u201cAh\u201d, \u201cYuck\u201d or \u201cClick\u201d \u00a0Film ?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 1989, conservation-minded film-maker Stephen Mills authored another article in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.banc.org.uk\/\"><em>Ecos<\/em><\/a> \u2018The Entertainment Imperative: Wildlife Films and Conservation\u2019 (<a href=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Mills-article-Ecos.pdf\">here<\/a>) subtitled \u2018Why wildlife films don&#8217;t always please conservationists\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 BBC commissioners he said, used this \u2018unwritten convention\u2019 to categorize programme ideas:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018An &#8220;ooh&#8221; film is about pandas or koala bears, and it shows how they spend their whole lives cuddling their young without the interference of social workers.\u00a0 An &#8220;aah&#8221; film makes you gasp with wonder.\u00a0 It describes how the peculiar fly orchid is pollinated by just one species of insect &#8211; and shows you the process from inside the flower. The &#8220;yuck&#8221; film shows in sticky detail the slimy sex-life of the large yellow slug Limax pseudoflavus, and it lasts for half an hour. The &#8220;click&#8221; film is the slimy sex-life of Limax pseudoflavus part 2, including a treatise on the need to conserve the species in Stow-on the-Wold: the click is everyone turning off their televisions\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Mission To Amaze<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Few people, observed Mills, watched natural history tv \u2018to exercise their brains\u2019. \u2018At least 80 percent said they watched simply \u201cfor the photography\u201d.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0TV natural history, noted Mills \u2018enhances reality &#8230; it shows you things you really wouldn\u2019t see\u2019.<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018Every year the amazement factor is jacked up a notch or two.\u00a0 A kingfisher diving into the river is no longer good enough.\u00a0 Now you must deliver it hurtling into the champagne ice bucket at a Buckingham Palace Garden Party.\u2019\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n<p>This increased costs which raised the stakes in terms of required ratings.\u00a0 The BBC was embarking on its mission to amaze, impress and stupefy natural history audiences.<\/p>\n<p>TV natural history was progressively pulled away from real life nature.\u00a0 By accident rather than design, audiences were primed to consume nature through screens.\u00a0 The small screens of 1980s tv sets meant close-ups were important.\u00a0 Viewers expected them and real outdoor nature very rarely offered the same experience.<\/p>\n<p>At one nature reserve the RSPB had \u2018opened up the nest of a great-spotted woodpecker, putting glass in front so people could watch from a hide as the birds went in and out of the tree\u2019.\u00a0 But the RPSB also set up a video camera to relay live pictures into the hide. \u2018Visitors settled themselves in front of the TV monitor \u2013 and ignored the real-life events that were happening a few feet further away behind the glass\u2019. \u00a0I have seen the same thing happen elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Moral Bind<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 1997 Mills, who contributed films such as <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org\/film\/182\/Tiger+Crisis.html\">Tiger Crisis<\/a> to the BBC, published a far more despondent article in the <em>Times Literary Supplement<\/em>:\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/cm\/lb\/5617728\/data\/pocket-tigers-article-data.pdf\">&#8216;<em>Pocket Tigers: The sad unseen reality behind the wildlife film<\/em>&#8216;<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018Pockets\u2019 referred to pockets of surviving tiger habitat. \u00a0He described capturing footage of a beautiful and terrifying encounter with a tiger which ended as it left the track he was on and disappeared into the forest.\u00a0 What the film did not show was that:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018when the tiger left the track, it was because he did not wish to cross the railway line that chops in half this particular relic of forest, and that he turned away to avoid the raucous tinny radios stabbling out from the village up the line\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>For a journalist, the answer might be to report the reality but what are nature film makers ?\u00a0 Documentary makers (and if so of what type ?), entertainers, advocates, or something else ?<\/p>\n<p>\u2018All over the world\u2019 said Mills:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018we frame our pictures as carefully as the directors of costume dramas, to exclude telegraph poles and electricity pylons, cars, roads and people.\u00a0 No such inappropriate vestige of reality may impinge on the period piece fantasy of the natural world we wish to purvey\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The wildlife film-maker, wrote Mills, is \u2018in a moral bind.\u00a0 Put simply, he makes his living out of nature; nature is disappearing.\u00a0 If he says too much about that he loses his audience.\u00a0 If he does not, he loses his subject.\u2019\u00a0 Mills ended:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018The loss of wilderness is a truth so sad, so overwhelming that to reflect reality, it would be the subject of every wildlife film.\u00a0 That, of course, would neither be entertaining nor ultimately dramatic.\u00a0 So it seems that as film makers we are doomed either to fail our audience or fail our cause\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Helping Viewers Feel Better<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 2016 David Attenborough himself described such \u2018blue chip\u2019 wildlife programmes as a \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/dec\/01\/planet-earth-ii-a-form-of-therapy-for-viewers-says-attenborough\">form of therapy<\/a>\u2019 for viewers craving a respite from their concerns about the future of the planet.\u00a0 Where once the rationale was to prime the audience\u00a0 do good by supporting conservation, now it has morphed into making the audience feel good.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0He pointed out that when in 2001 his programme <em>Blue Planet<\/em> first aired on the day after 9\/11, it dramatically exceeded expected ratings as it was broadcast at a moment when \u201cas a nation we craved refuge from the horror and uncertainty\u201d.\u00a0 The motivation, he argues is that audiences are \u2018reconnecting with a planet whose beauty is unblemished\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0How this helps conservation is harder to see.<\/p>\n<p>This new rationale is maybe the natural end state for the TV nature blockbuster.\u00a0 It accepts that blue-chip nature programmes are not just escapism but more like an anaesthetic which leaves the audience \u2018stunned\u2019, and no longer having to worry about what is happening to nature.<\/p>\n<p>Ironically, over the years in which the Attenborough team brought nature spectaculars to their current potency, a growing body of evidence has shown that exposure to nature is indeed \u2018good for\u2019 people, psychologically and physiologically.\u00a0 Author Richard Mabey wrote about how it helped him fight depression in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/Nature-Cure-Richard-Mabey\/dp\/0099531828\"><em>Nature Cure<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 Richard Louv has led a popular movement to recognize <a href=\"https:\/\/www.childrenandnature.org\/about\/nature-deficit-disorder\/\">nature deficit disorder<\/a> and \u2018Vitamin N\u2019, the importance of first-hand experience of nature in child development. \u00a0Doctors such as <a href=\"http:\/\/www.intelligenthealth.co.uk\/prevention-is-best-medicine\/\">William Bird<\/a> who has worked with the RSPB and Natural England and the NHS, have demonstrated how just being in or seeing \u2018greenery\u2019 and even more so \u2018becoming lost\u2019 in nature, reduces stress and improves health.<\/p>\n<p>All that is a reason to \u2018prescribe nature\u2019 and design buildings, places and lifestyles to include it but unless it is converted into real-world experiences, it helps people not nature.\u00a0 \u00a0Moreover,\u00a0 the research that Louv and others are acting upon shows that <em>physical real-life<\/em> immersion in nature, and being able to read and recognize, relate to and understand it (ecoliteracy if you like or in old fashioned terms, actual natural history), is necessary for it to have a profound and lasting <a href=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=375\">effect on young people<\/a> so they grow up \u2018hard wired\u2019 to love it and want to protect it.\u00a0 That makes engaging with <em>real <\/em>nature more like Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, something which empowers people rather than a liquid cosh of synthetic nature-fentanyl to temporarily suppress anxiety.<\/p>\n<p>Campaigners, marketers, advertisers, fundraisers and motivational trainers also know that first sedating your audience is not a great way to get them to contemplate action.\u00a0 If natural history TV programming is to lead to action that makes a difference, the visual content needs to be designed accordingly, and that could be done.<\/p>\n<p>There is a market for TV-nature as therapy.\u00a0 As E O Wilson pointed out, all human beings start out \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Biophilia_hypothesis\">biophilic<\/a>\u2019.\u00a0 We need nature.\u00a0 After watching James Cameron&#8217;s\u00a0 Avatar with its utopian planet Pandora, some movie-goers <a href=\"http:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2010\/SHOWBIZ\/Movies\/01\/11\/avatar.movie.blues\/\">got withdrawal symptoms<\/a> and were depressed because they could not live in tune with nature along with the fictional Na\u2019vi.\u00a0 If real nature continues to vanish, this could be the future of BBC Natural History programming.<\/p>\n<p>Some nature film producers already complain about the sums they are charged for filming in National Parks and Nature Reserves in developing countries, even though that can obviously help conservation (a point the BBC could make a virtue of by explaining it). \u00a0\u00a0Maybe the BBC, Disney and the like will end up running their own parks to film in ?\u00a0 Or possibly just resort to CGI and reworking old material.<\/p>\n<p>Webby Awards for instance, reports <a href=\"http:\/\/webbyawards.com\/news\/matt-walker-editor-bbc-earth\/\">The Story of Life app<\/a>, which:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018released on iOS and Android on November 17, 2016, contains more than 1,000 of the greatest moments in television history, from more than 40 landmark natural history programmes. The culmination of over a year\u2019s hard work by BBC Earth and our co-producer AKQA, it is offered to audiences globally as a gift from the BBC and Sir David. It can be downloaded from <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/app\/id1124476992?ls=1&amp;mt=8\"><em>Apple<\/em><\/a><em> and <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/play.google.com\/store\/apps\/details?id=co.uk.bbc.storyoflife\"><em>Google Play<\/em><\/a><em>\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Was There An Alternative ?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the 1980s and 1990s it seems to have become conventional BBC wisdom that the \u2018blue-chip\u2019 model of natural history film-making could not be combined with environmentalism.\u00a0 Yet others did so, for instance Michael Rosenberg who produced the influential Channel 4 series <em>Fragile Earth<\/em> which ran from 1983 \u2013 1992 and received many awards.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1407\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/agland-korup.jpg\" alt=\"agland-korup\" width=\"640\" height=\"333\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/agland-korup.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/agland-korup-300x156.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>Phil Agland&#8217;s rainforest filming platform in Korup. from: http:\/\/www.wildfilmhistory.org<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The British Film Institute guide to British film history <a href=\"http:\/\/www.screenonline.org.uk\/tv\/id\/554089\/\">says<\/a>: \u2018its simple and direct philosophy was to show a world that was intricate and beautiful but easy to destroy\u2019, adding\u00a0 \u2018the programme awakened our wonder at the continuous creativity of our fragile planet, while forcing us to confront the implications of the extermination of species on a scale equivalent to a genocide of nature\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>An anonymized BBC Natural History Unit member told researcher Gail Davis in 1995 that <em>Fragile Earth<\/em> \u201cwas a huge landmark &#8230; those films were brilliantly produced\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0When he died in 2015, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2015\/nov\/23\/michael-rosenberg\">newspaper obituary<\/a> recalled that the reason Rosenberg moved to Channel 4 was because he was \u2018frustrated with the BBC\u2019s rather negative attitude towards environmental stories\u2019.<\/p>\n<p><em>Fragile Earth<\/em> films by Phil Agland and other directors helped directly inspire conservation projects such as for the Korup Rainforest.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Today Agland is still using film storytelling to help conservation, for example <a href=\"http:\/\/www.saving-spoon-billed-sandpiper.com\/portfolio\/phil-agland\/\">with the project by WWT and other groups<\/a> to save the iconic Spoon-Billed Sandpiper from extinction.<\/p>\n<p>Why the BBC mostly remained at arms length from conservation is something of a mystery.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/discovery.ucl.ac.uk\/5188\/1\/5188.pdf\">Gail Davis found<\/a> Natural History Unit staff blaming the commissioners and the commissioners blaming a lack of ideas from the staff.\u00a0\u00a0 Alastair Fothergill, Unit Head at the time, suggested an institutional problem: a lack of clarity \u2018about how environmental problems should be covered\u2019 in the BBC as a whole.<\/p>\n<p>Davis also spoke to long-term BBC producer Richard Brock who agreed \u201cthe Unit does not do enough on conservation &#8230; we are doing what I call escapist natural history\u201d.\u00a0 Brock also left the BBC.\u00a0 In 1995 he quit to set up Living Planet Productions and pursue a project <em>Winners and Losers<\/em>, tracing the fate of species recorded in the 1950s in 60 (now 70) new films.\u00a0 Remarkably, Brock has used his own BBC pension to fund the project, which can now be found on <a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/brockinitiative\">Vimeo<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/brockinitiative\">Youtube<\/a>.\u00a0 Rather than made for TV, his films are <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Richard_Brock\">made to be shown for free in the communities<\/a> where wildlife is directly threatened, and where it may be saved.\u00a0 See also <a href=\"http:\/\/www.brockinitiative.org\/\">http:\/\/www.brockinitiative.org\/<\/a>, which includes good wishes from his old colleague David Attenborough.<\/p>\n<p>The BBC itself has experimented.\u00a0 It has had moments when it even \u2018nature\u2019 programmes tackled environment head on, such as David Attenborough\u2019s <em>The State of the Planet <\/em>(2000),\u00a0 \u2018a smaller three-part series &#8230; the first wildlife documentary to deal comprehensively with environmental issues on a global scale\u2019 (Morgan Richards, \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/cm\/lb\/5617726\/data\/greening-wildlife-documentaries-data.pdf\">Greening Wildlife Documentary<\/a>\u2019).<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1409\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/da-state-of-planet.jpg\" alt=\"da-state-of-planet\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/da-state-of-planet.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/da-state-of-planet-300x169.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>David Attenborough does environmental impacts in 2000 on State of the Planet.\u00a0 from: http:\/\/tv-shows.prettyfamous.com\/l\/29547\/State-of-the-Planet-With-David-Attenborough<\/em><\/p>\n<p>On the 50th anniversary of the Natural History Unit in 2007 it broadcast <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Saving_Planet_Earth\"><em>Saving Planet Earth<\/em><\/a><strong><em>,<\/em><\/strong> comprising nine celebrity-presented documentaries on conservation struggles to save animals. \u00a0At the same time it launched its own charity, \u2018the BBC Wildlife Fund\u2019 and raised \u00a31m with a BBC telethon fronted by Alan Titchmarsh.\u00a0 \u00a0A second live telethon <em>Wild Night In<\/em> followed in in 2010 presented by <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kate_Humble\">Kate Humble<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chris_Packham\">Chris Packham<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Martin_Hughes-Games\">Martin Hughes-Games<\/a> featuring conservation projects which had benefited from the support of the BBC Wildlife Fund, raising another \u00a31 million.<\/p>\n<p>In the UK the BBC can also point to the achievements of the <em>Springwatch<\/em> stable of programmes fronted by the same team.\u00a0 There is not enough space to discuss them in detail here but they have done a lot to engage audiences with real-world nature, and get big audiences.\u00a0 Similarly, working with Natural England from 2005 \u2013 2010 it backed <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/breathingplaces\/\">Breathing Places<\/a>, <\/em>a mix of programming and outdoor nature activities, which aimed to move TV nature audiences out of the \u2018BBC bubble\u2019 and into real world projects.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The BBC Dilemma<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Having embarked on its present strategy the BBC faces unresolved quandaries and dilemmas.\u00a0 It has been consistent in developing it\u2019s natural history output but inconsistent both in its approach to whether nature films make any connection to conservation, and in its coverage of the environment across the BBC (which has of course included a host of other coverage such as on <em>Horizon<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>This may reflect divergent views within the BBC, \u00a0which by media standards it is a vast enterprise.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At one end there are ardent conservationists such as <em>Springwatch<\/em> presenter <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2015\/sep\/01\/chris-packham-slams-shameful-silence-of-britains-conservation-charities\">Chris Packham<\/a>, who has been attacked by the shooting lobby for opposing persecution of protected birds of prey.\u00a0 At the other are overtly sceptical or hostile executives like Peter Barron, editor of <em>Newsnight\u00a0 <\/em>in 2007.\u00a0 During one of the BBC\u2019s periodic bouts of angst about climate change coverage, \u00a0he<a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/blogs\/theeditors\/2007\/02\/how_green_should_we_be.html\"> blogged<\/a>: \u00a0\u2018is it our job to encourage people to be greener? I don&#8217;t think so\u2019 and \u2018I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the BBC&#8217;s job to try to save the planet\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>As a whole though, the BBC has erred away from advocating for conservation.<\/p>\n<p>All broadcasters are sensitive to public mood and interests, and environmental coverage has flowered at times when environment was a \u2018rising issue\u2019 and \u2018hit the headlines\u2019 because of activism and\u00a0 political attention (for example when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared herself a \u2018friend of the earth\u2019 in 1989, and when David Cameron\u2019s team adopted greenery as part of a project \u2018detoxify\u2019 the Tory brand in 2006).\u00a0\u00a0 One difference between the BBC and commercial broadcasters is that it has a complex but much closer and often fraught relationship with government.\u00a0 Consequently it is much more sensitive to the mood swings of those in power.\u00a0 Ultimately the BBC depends upon retaining political support for its survival.<\/p>\n<p>It seems to me that the BBC\u2019s rule of thumb in this area can be approximated to this:\u00a0 nature coverage is always ok and harmless (green light); connecting nature to conservation and any working relationship with NGOs is to be treated with caution (amber light); and environmentalism is potentially dangerous and best left treated as a contestable two-sided political controversy\u00a0 (red light).\u00a0\u00a0 That enables deft repositioning anywhere along the spectrum from overt green advocacy, to studied neutrality to outright \u2018scepticism\u2019,\u00a0 in order to align with the political mood of the times.<\/p>\n<p>I do not know what the current thinking is inside the BBC.\u00a0 A 2013 <a href=\"http:\/\/ibt.org.uk\/documents\/reports\/IBT-EnvironmentonTV-for-web.pdf\">analysis by IBT<\/a> (International Broadcasting Trust) heard from Matt Walker, editor of the BBC\u2019s online <em>Nature <\/em>site \u2018that those dealing with natural history\u2019\u00a0 were \u2018having a discussion internally about what role the BBC should play \u2013 are they neutral observers or should the BBC act as a vocal supporter of nature?\u2019\u00a0 \u201cFrom a public service point of view\u201d, he said, \u201cthe BBC is naturally supportive of the natural world and therefore not agnostic about habitat loss\u201d.\u00a0 Fine enough although it doesn\u2019t seem to have led to any noticeable change if the latest iteration of its halo-brand, <em>Planet Earth II<\/em>, is anything to go by.<\/p>\n<p>In November 2016 the new head of the BBC\u2019s Natural History Unit, Julian Hector, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/nov\/07\/planet-earth-ii-bbc1-most-watched-natural-history-show-for-15-years\">said<\/a> of <em>Planet Earth II<\/em>:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u00a0\u201cAudiences love Sir David\u2019s authenticity and the craft of the programme-makers that give us a window on the motivations of the animals. When so much is going on in the human world, that the natural world has an agenda all of its own, regardless, gives us a place to escape.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The problem which conservationists are increasingly left with, is that nature no longer has a place to escape to.<\/p>\n<p><strong>What Can Be Done ?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Peter Barron is right.\u00a0 Legally, it\u2019s not the BBC\u2019s \u2018job\u2019 to save the planet. Nor is it Unilever\u2019s job nor Marks and Spencer, or Sky TV (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.carbonneutral.com\/our-clients\/case-studies\/sky\">gone carbon neutral<\/a> for ten years) or a host of other corporates who are anyway doing something about it.\u00a0 So to be credible, I think the BBC can forget that argument.<\/p>\n<p>Martin Hughes-Games proposes a \u2018conservation tax\u2019 to fund 20% of \u2018natural history\u2019 commissions \u2018across all channels\u2019 as conservation oriented tv showing \u2018the reality of what\u2019s happening to wildlife worldwide\u2019, including through drama and other formats.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a reasonable option. \u00a0At least it should start a conversation. The first step is for the BBC to recognize that there is a problem, and the second to talk to people about it from outside the BBC.<\/p>\n<p><em>John Muir &#8211; Hero<\/em><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1411\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/muir-and-teddy.jpg\" alt=\"muir-and-teddy\" width=\"250\" height=\"284\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>John Muir (right) and Teddy Roosevelt, namer of the Teddy Bear, at Yosemite.\u00a0 From https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/yose\/learn\/historyculture\/muir-influences.htm<\/em><\/p>\n<p>My own first suggestion for a drama \u2013 preferably at a Hollywood epic level of course \u2013 would be one about the long-dead and therefore suitable environmental hero, John Muir.\u00a0 This Victorian Scotsman is the mainly unsung super-star of conservation. \u00a0After his family emigrated to the United States he inspired the \u2018wilderness\u2019 movement, walked across America, was the first to prove that glaciers moved, saved Yosemite redwoods, \u00a0persuaded President Roosevelt to establish a network of protected areas and founded the Sierra Club, which in turn led to Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. \u00a0The conservation movement lacks heroes known for their real achievements and Muir\u2019s life story is a \u201ccouldn\u2019t make it up\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/vault.sierraclub.org\/john_muir_exhibit\/john_muir_national_historic_site\/short_chronology_nps.aspx\">trail of extraordinary adventures<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em>Congruence \u2013 Walk the Talk \u2013 \u2018No Planet Earth III\u2019, not yet<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Second, the BBC could help itself, and help conservation, by applying a few communications fundamentals.\u00a0 For one thing, if it does actually want viewers to get any sort of conservation message, it needs to display what psychologists call \u2018congruence\u2019.\u00a0 This means that for someone or some organisation to be convincing, for us to believe they really believe a thing is important, they need to look like they believe it, sound like they believe it, and act accordingly.<\/p>\n<p>The single biggest thing the BBC could now do for conservation would be if it were to announce that the corporation is no longer making \u2018blue chip\u2019 nature spectaculars because it is concerned that they mislead people about the real state of the planet.\u00a0 If David Attenborough announced there would be no <em>Planet Earth III<\/em> until the tide was turned on destruction of the environments it showed, that would send an unequivocal signal and provoke a global social and political conversation.<\/p>\n<p>Of course that is too radical for BBC management and so unlikely unless Attenborough himself suggested it.<\/p>\n<p><em>Here\u2019s How To Help<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At the very minimum, the BBC could at least make a visible, noticeable effort to help conservation while still ploughing its existing furrow.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0In the crudest iteration, it could add a simple screen or section at the end of all its more popular (\u2018blue chip\u2019) broadcasts which don\u2019t show the reality of threats faced by wildlife, explaining what they are, and signposting viewers to help real conservation projects.\u00a0 \u201cThe wildlife you have seen in this film lives precariously in a few small pocket of habitat and is vanishing. You can help put this right by &#8230;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The BBC should also recognize that Attenborough\u2019s mental model of passing on viewers to conservation groups who will \u2018use their own channels\u2019 to recruit them has two key failings.\u00a0 First, unless the content of the programme or an accompanying \u2018message\u2019 makes the audience feel it is somehow responsible, there will be no \u2018it\u2019s about me\u2019 alignment and no result.\u00a0 Second, even if \u2018inspiration\u2019 is to flow into action, the \u2018channels\u2019 of even the best resourced NGOs, are tiny: a water pistol compared to the Niagara Falls of the BBC blockbusters. \u00a0So it behoves the BBC to actively refer connect its interested viewers to conservation projects as other broadcasters have done before.\u00a0 Digital media such as SMS, Twitter and Facebook now make this easy.<\/p>\n<p><em>Charity<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Likewise, it could also re-run it\u2019s conservation fundraising telethon but with more resource.\u00a0 The BBC Wildlife Fund\u00a0 raised almost \u00a33m and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/wild\/\">closed in 2012<\/a>.\u00a0 Not to be sneezed at but tiny compared with <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Comic_Relief\">Comic Relief<\/a> started by BBC\u2019s Richard Curtis and Lenny Henry, which at the end of the 2015 had raised over \u00a31 billion over 30-years. \u00a0In 2016 alone it <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nwemail.co.uk\/news\/national\/article\/BBC-viewers-raise-more-than-100m-for-charity-in-2016-1743654d-c545-413b-85e6-1308bf54fe63-ds\">raised \u00a3100m<\/a> for charities such as\u00a0 Barnardo&#8217;s, Cancer Research UK and Oxfam,\u00a0 and viewers were thanked by BBC Director General Tony Hall.<\/p>\n<p><em>Scandal \u2013 Not Doom and Gloom \u2013 The Optimism of Rewilding<\/em><\/p>\n<p>For another, it could consider the difference between scandal and tragedy.\u00a0 Film makers have long known that \u2018all doom and gloom\u2019 is a turn-off: healthy people stay sane by not making themselves unhappy.\u00a0 But simply adding a sotto voce, whimsical fragment of regret at the end of a wildlife spectacular, is no solution.<\/p>\n<p><em>Planet Earth II<\/em> Series producer, Tom Hugh-Jones <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2016\/oct\/29\/planet-earth-ii-bbc-sir-david-attenborough-nature-series-wildlife-animals\">said<\/a>, \u201cDavid does a very poignant wrap-up to explain that for most animals, what we are doing to the planet is a bit of a tragedy.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A <em>bit<\/em> of a tragedy !\u00a0 That is perhaps an understatement for the thousands of animal species facing near-term oblivion but whereas a tragedy is demotivational, as nothing can be done about it (a problem with no solution), once something <em>can<\/em> be done, tragedy becomes a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.campaignstrategy.org\/advanced_2.html\">scandal<\/a> (a problem with a solution that is not yet implemented).<\/p>\n<p>It is this which the BBC could attach to the bad-news that awesome, splendid and magical nature is vanishing.\u00a0 The solution could frame an entire story, a programme or series.\u00a0 Campaign groups do this all the time: having a solution which is not being put into practice gives you the psychological licence to talk more about the problem until it is but it means being connected to real life.<\/p>\n<p>The most obvious candidate is \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/www.rewildingeurope.com\/\">rewilding<\/a>\u2019: reconnecting those \u2018pockets\u2019 which leave wildlife fatally isolated. \u00a0Ecological guru E O Wilson has called for <a href=\"https:\/\/eowilsonfoundation.org\/half-earth-our-planet-s-fight-for-life\/\">half the planet<\/a> to be put aside to allow nature to survive.<\/p>\n<p>The BBC has of course mentioned rewilding but often as a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/earth\/story\/20150604-can-we-make-britain-wild-again\">\u2018controversy\u2019<\/a>.\u00a0 Instead it needs to get behind it.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rewildingbritain.org.uk\/\">Rewilding<\/a> captures the popular imagination because it is positive, optimistic and part of the nature solution.\u00a0 Perhaps Springwatch should next be based at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.knepp.co.uk\/\">Knepp<\/a>, the amazing rewilding project in Sussex with its charismatic owner Charlie Burrell.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1344\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/adur-knepp.jpg\" alt=\"adur-knepp\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/adur-knepp.jpg 640w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/adur-knepp-300x169.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>An English river being rewilded at Knepp<\/em><\/p>\n<p>But rewilding is going on across the world, and could easily form a series of international scope.\u00a0 It is full of people and nature stories with scope for the high empathy encounters which David Attenborough has done so well, as with gorillas or the memorable <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=qWSGqNBT1gc\">encounter with a blind baby black rhino<\/a> in episode 6 of Africa.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Sir David Attenborough and the Baby Rhino - Africa - Episode 6 Preview - BBC One\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/qWSGqNBT1gc?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><em>Key Target Audiences<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Third, rather than just thinking about \u2018smuggling in\u2019 conservation to genre formats (comedy, sport, drama etc), the BBC could get to grips with audience <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cultdyn.co.uk\">psychology<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The aspirational <a href=\"http:\/\/documents.campaignstrategy.org\/uploads\/maslow_groups_coms_guidelines.pdf\">Prospectors<\/a> for example, under-served by the formats of nature programming, as opposed to lifestyle, sport or game show formats and achievement dramas such as <em>The Apprentice<\/em>.\u00a0 The fact that most \u2018green\u2019 groups are dominated by <a href=\"http:\/\/documents.campaignstrategy.org\/uploads\/maslow_groups_coms_guidelines.pdf\">Pioneers<\/a> is one major obstacle to effective conservation.<\/p>\n<p>To engage Prospectors (about 30% of the population and over-represented amongst people working full time in organisations) you need to enable them to look good and feel good: for example to get \u2018good at\u2019 nature.\u00a0 The BBC can do this.\u00a0 <em>Comic Relief<\/em> does it be enabling people to become locally famous for 15 minutes.\u00a0 Producing the best nature garden with the most wildlife, or getting to be the best at navigating the landscape by knowing nature could be their sort of programmes, and have a huge positive impact.<\/p>\n<p><em>Authenticity<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Fourth, at least in my view, when it comes to a \u2018back catalogue\u2019 the BBC should remember its roots and connect its viewers and listeners with nature\u2019s unvarnished, authentic reality.\u00a0 I hear that some in the BBC perceive this as incorrigibly antediluvian but I think younger and older audiences would appreciate it. \u00a0For example Lord Reith chose a live broadcast of a signing nightingale for the first BBC Outside Broadcast.\u00a0 When I and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nightingalenights.org.uk\">thousands of others<\/a>, pressed the BBC to restart such broadcasts, Lord Hall pointed to programmes such as on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/programmes\/b01sby02\">Tweet of the Day<\/a> but these are of <em>recorded<\/em> and therefore probably long-dead nightingales.\u00a0 This is the road to the \u2018media museum\u2019 (wildlife salient in our lives but only virtually) which I argue is a<a href=\"http:\/\/documents.campaignstrategy.org\/uploads\/campaign_strategy_newsletter_92.pdf\"> growing cause of extinctions<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If on the other hand, the BBC helped encourage its audience to demand real live nature, it would be a force against extinction.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-348\" src=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Nightingale-tweet-283x300.jpg\" alt=\"Nightingale tweet\" width=\"283\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Nightingale-tweet-283x300.jpg 283w, https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Nightingale-tweet.jpg 751w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 283px) 100vw, 283px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Debt to Repay<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>We can all suffer from group-think and almost every human being is adept at rationalising what they do, in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance but it seems to me that the BBC has allowed itself to indulge in both, in a way which is unhealthy and unethical.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0When it redefines the purpose of natural history films as therapeutic escapism \u2013 which there is a market for &#8211; \u00a0it offers audiences a second-best substitute for conservation, and buries the question of whether it has any responsibility to actually help nature, whether for moral or ethical reasons, as a matter of social or corporate responsibility, or from any residual public service duty.<\/p>\n<p>David Attenborough is not the issue, nor is his commitment to nature.\u00a0 He does a lot of direct good works supporting conservation initiatives, such as for <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eadt.co.uk\/news\/sir_david_attenborough_backs_suffolk_wildlife_trust_s_1m_plea_for_broads_development_1_4748296\">Wildlife Trusts<\/a>.\u00a0 He has spoken out on climate change and a host of other issues.<\/p>\n<p>The BBC \u2018pays no rent\u2019 for nature: it has a debt to repay, and could yet really help \u2018save the planet\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>Chris Rose, January 2017\u00a0\u00a0 <a href=\"mailto:chris@campaignstrategy.co.uk\">chris@campaignstrategy.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>BBC production genius, big budgets and the gentle charisma of David Attenborough were combined to take the BBCs hallmark nature spectaculars to new heights in Planet Earth II. It is more awe inspiring, more immersive, more cinematic than ever before.\u00a0 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1396\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1396"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1396\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1417,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1396\/revisions\/1417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}