Blackfish until, perhaps, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules on SeaWorld's OSHA appeal sometime in the coming months. In the time since the first two pieces of this series hit the blogosphere, Blackfish has moved from near-nightly airings on CNN to on-demand availability on Netflix. Additionally, the film has stayed in the headlines due, in no small part, to the recent media attention surrounding the decision of several musical acts to cancel their appearances at SeaWorld in an apparent act of protest. It is clear that the “Blackfish effect” is powerful both in its message and its longevity. But what is its message exactly? And do the facts presented in Blackfish support that message in a fashion that lives up to the claim of its director, Gabriala Cowperthwaite, that the film is nothing more than a Blackfish itself plainly belies any contention that the film is anything other than a piece of animal-rights advocacy – one sided in both fact and presentation. So here we are (a little later than originally planned), the final piece of this series, and my last foray intountil, perhaps, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules on SeaWorld's OSHA appeal sometime in the coming months. In the time since the first two pieces of this series hit the blogosphere,has moved from near-nightly airings on CNN to on-demand availability on Netflix.Additionally, the film has stayed in the headlines due, in no small part, to the recent media attention surrounding the decision of several musical acts to cancel their appearances at SeaWorld in an apparent act of protest.It is clear that the “Blackfish effect” is powerful both in its message and its longevity.But what is its message exactly?And do the facts presented insupport that message in a fashion that lives up to the claim of its director, Gabriala Cowperthwaite, that the film is nothing more than a “truthful, fact driven narrative” that errs “on the side of the journalistic approach”and is, in fact, “not at all advocating for anything.” My belief is thatitself plainly belies any contention that the film is anything other than a piece of animal-rights advocacy – one sided in both fact and presentation.





In the first two pieces in this series I looked at the people involved in Blackfish, many of whom have undisclosed (and sometimes radical) animal-rights agendas, and the filmmaking techniques used to steer the viewer toward one, and only one, position. To finish, I thought we should take a closer look at Blackfish’s substance - the claims it makes and its overall message.





Remember, Blackfish is being passed off by its director as erring “on the side of the journalistic approach.” That means that its statements should comply with journalistic standards: they should be fact checked, unambiguous, and not misleading. Why is that important? Because if the film conveys a false factual impression or is inaccurate or untruthful as to even a single point, it can (and does) degrade the credibility of the film as a whole. To continue the analogy from Part 1 of this series, this film is, in essence, the star witness in the Court of Public Opinion's trial of SeaWorld. The audience must, therefore, assess its credibility as to the facts presented, just as it would any other witness. A falsehood, even a little white lie, calls into question the rest of what the film says. If the film lies about little things, the audience - the jury in the Court of Public Opinion - has a right to wonder whether the film is lying about bigger things too.

Did SeaWorld REALLY Not Tell Its Own Trainers About John Sillick?





As you may recall, Mr. Sillick is the trainer that was seriously injured in 1987 when a killer whale jumped out of the water and landed on him while he was riding another whale during a show. The video footage of this event is shown in the film and it is tough to watch. The film makes the argument that, in the immediate aftermath of this incident, SeaWorld effectively concealed its occurrence from its trainers. Here’s what Samantha Berg says in the film about this issue:



The first claim I want to look at has to do with the story of John Sillick.As you may recall, Mr. Sillick is the trainer that was seriously injured in 1987 when a killer whale jumped out of the water and landed on him while he was riding another whale during a show.The video footage of this event is shown in the film and it is tough to watch.The film makes the argument that, in the immediate aftermath of this incident, SeaWorld effectively concealed its occurrence from its trainers.Here’s what Samantha Berg says in the film about this issue:





“John Sillick was the guy who in 1987 was crushed between two whales at SeaWorld of San Diego. Now, even though I’d been working at SeaWorld for 6 months , I had no idea that that had even happened. I never even heard that story. And the SeaWorld party line was that … it was “trainer error.”

That sounds pretty bad doesn’t it? At the time of the incident, SeaWorld did not even bother telling its own trainers who were working with killer whales and who might have known Mr. Sillick about a significant incident resulting in his life threatening injuries? Wow. But does Samantha Berg really know what SeaWorld told its trainers in 1987 about the injury to John Sillick? No. There is no way she could. Why you ask?





Because Samantha Berg did not work at SeaWorld in 1987. This fact is never mentioned in Blackfish, but it takes only a few minutes online to discover that If Samantha Berg did not start working until 1990, she could not have known what SeaWorld told its employees in 1987. She wasn’t there. This fact is never mentioned inbut it takes only a few minutes online to discover that she didn’t start working at SeaWorld until 1990 If Samantha Berg did not start working until 1990, she could not have known what SeaWorld told its employees in 1987.She wasn’t there.

So is Samantha Berg just outright lying in Blackfish? While possible, I think it is pretty unlikely given how easy it is to check the real facts. So what is going on here? Assuming Ms. Berg is not actually lying, why does it look like she is? I see two possibilities:

·

Possibility No. 1 : Gabriela Cowperthwaite took her words grossly out of context to make it appear that Samantha Berg had personal knowledge about what SeaWorld said / did in 1987 and thus to make it appear that SeaWorld had never told its own trainers, such as Ms. Berg, about John Sillick. If this is what happened in the editing booth, Gabriela Cowperthwaite is just lying to the audience – an act that would clearly be the antithesis of erring “on the side of the journalistic approach.” But there is another possibility.

P ossibility No. 2: Samantha Berg is trying, inartfully and ambiguously, to say that she had been working at SeaWorld for six months – starting in 1990 – before she found out about John Sillick’s injury three and a half years earlier. That would be consistent with statements she has made to other media outlets, but that’s not actually what she says in Blackfish.





My guess is that Samantha Berg and Gabriela Cowperthwaite would point to Possibility No. 2 as being correct. But, assuming that’s the case, does that mean that the film is not lying to or misleading its audience about this rather inflammatory issue? No it doesn’t.





As a matter of journalistic honesty, Ms. Berg’s statement is, at best, far too ambiguous to be presented without clarification by a responsible film-maker concerned only with presenting a “fact-driven narrative.” Gabriela Cowperthwaite had to have known the kind of damning indictment that Ms. Berg’s statement was levying at SeaWorld, and, in the interest of journalistic integrity, should have done something to clear up the reasonable inference the audience would draw from it – i.e. that Ms. Berg was recounting her experience as a whale trainer in the days, weeks, and months following Mr. Sillick’s injury and was never told that it had even occurred. Remember, the film never tells its audience when Samantha Berg worked for SeaWorld, so the audience has no reason to believe she was not there in 1987. If that was not the factually correct and / or intended message, responsible journalism requires clarification so that the audience is not misled. But if you are making an advocacy piece that pursues an agenda, then this ambiguity serves the argument well. But telling the story through the use of a false inference …. well, that’s not really “fact-driven narrative,” is it?





Now, I suppose some may argue that this is really making too much out of a minor point in the film. - an assertion that gets only a few seconds of screen time. But, the import of this ambiguity cannot be measured by screen time. This is an important component in Blackfish's narrative that SeaWorld conceals the truth from its trainers and deflects negative attention from its whales. As presented, the audience feels outraged at SeaWorld’s apparent corporate callousness about the injury to one of its trainers and its apathy about the safety of its other trainers displayed by Seaworld’s decision not to share "the truth" of this incident with them. But if presented honestly and clearly, if the audience knows that the timeframe Samantha Berg is talking about is more than three years after Mr. Sillick was injured, then the outrage falls away and the audience says to itself, “So what? Why does it matter that SeaWorld did not tell one of its new employees about an incident that occurred at another park three years earlier?” Think about it in a more typical employment context: When someone is hired to work on an assembly line around dangerous equipment, is it routine to sit down and go through all the workplace injuries that have occurred over the last three-plus years within the plant, much less at other plants? I doubt it. Why should SeaWorld be any different?





Now, I can already hear some of you saying, “But she was a killer whale trainer. She should have been told about this injury regardless of the fact that it was three years earlier and regardless of the fact that it was at another park.” And, if that were true, I would be inclined to agree. But what if Samantha Berg was not a killer whale trainer? Wouldn’t that change things pretty significantly?





At the time Ms. Berg seems to be referring to, i.e. six months after she started working at SeaWorld, it appears that She does not appear to have started working with orcas until a year and a half into her SeaWorld tenure – and the film never says whether SeaWorld made her aware of Mr. Sillick’s incident at that time – once it was actually pertinent to her job . In fact, that is precisely the case.At the time Ms. Berg seems to be referring to, i.e. six months after she started working at SeaWorld, it appears that she was not even working with orcas. Instead, she was working with dolphins and beluga whales in another part of the park She does not appear to have started working with orcas until a year and a half into her SeaWorld tenure – and the film never says whether SeaWorld made her aware of Mr. Sillick’s incident at that time –





Blackfish leaves its audience believing that SeaWorld concealed vital safety information from its own trainers and, in doing so, it lies either overtly – by editing Ms. Berg’s statement in an intentionally misleading way – or by omission, by failing to provide the audience with the information necessary to understand what Ms. Berg was actually trying to say. Why?





Because contrary to the director’s claim, Blackfish is a piece of advocacy disguised as journalism. The story that SeaWorld didn’t tell its own trainers about a life-threatening incident is pretty damning. Far more so than the apparent truth. After all, if you were trying to portray SeaWorld as an uncaring corporate behemoth that conceals the truth from the very people who need it most, which story would you rather have in your film? This?





“John Sillick was the guy who in 1987 was crushed between two whales at Seaworld of San Diego. Now, even though I’d been working at SeaWorld for 6 months, I had no idea that that had even happened. I never even heard that story. ”

Or this?

“John Sillick was the guy who in 1987 was crushed between two whales at Seaworld of San Diego. Now, even though I was hired three years later to work in an entirely separate area of the park having absolutely nothing to do with killer whales and even though there was absolutely no certainty that I would ever work as a killer whale trainer during my SeaWorld tenure, I didn’t hear about that incident for 6 months.”

One of these makes a compelling story and casts SeaWorld in a very poor light. The other is the unremarkable truth.





Does SeaWorld Really Lie About Orca Life Expectancy?





at all advocating for anything?

This issue is particularly tricky for the audience in the film to assess accurately. Why? Because the information regarding orca life expectancy is not presented consistently throughout the film and because of the way this information is edited and presented to the audience. Here’s how this goes down:







About twenty-four minutes into the film (based on the Netflix viewing time), Howard Garrett states the following:

“They live in these big families. And they have life spans very similar to human lifespans. The females can live to about a hundred, maybe more. The males to about fifty or sixty.”

About sixteen minutes later, the film returns to the issue of life expectancy and the audience hears more from Mr. Garrett:

“Because the whales in their [i.e. presumably SeaWorld’s] pools die young, they like to say that all orcas die at twenty-five or thirty years.”

This is then followed immediately by “hidden camera” footage showing two different SeaWorld front line employees saying, “twenty-five to thirty-five years” and a third employee saying, with a conspicuous edit right in the middle of her sentence, “they are documented in the wild living to be ... [unexplained edit] ... thirty-five, mid-thirties. They tend to live a lot longer in this environment because they have all the veterinary care.”

Apparently orcas in the wild live around sixty years longer than orcas at SeaWorld ( But is that really true? And is SeaWorld really deceiving the public by spreading false information to cover up the fact that its whales systemically die prematurely? I don’t really know, but I don't think Blackfish makes that case in a "truthful, fact driven" manner either. Put all this together and it’s no wonder many in the audience are outraged.Apparently orcas in the wild live aroundlonger than orcas at SeaWorld ( that 100-year figure has really stuck with people ).But is that really true?And is SeaWorld really deceiving the public by spreading false information to cover up the fact that its whales systemically die prematurely?I don’t really know, but I don't thinkmakes that case in a "truthful, fact driven" manner either.





First, pay close attention to Howard Garrett’s first statement – the one that says female orcas “can live to about a hundred.” Notice that he is not even purporting to state an average life span for orcas. He is saying how long a female orca can live, not how long the average orca actually does live in the wild. Think about it. Humans can live to be a hundred and ten, but is it the case that the average human lives to be that old? Of course not.





Second, when the viewer hears the SeaWorld employees saying, in total isolation, "twenty-five to thirty-five years” – ask yourself, "What question are they answering? " We don’t know because the question is never provided. We assume we know the question because just prior to these statements the viewer hears Howard Garrett saying that SeaWorld tells its guests that “all orcas die at twenty-five or thirty years" and then we immediately hear SeaWorld employees throwing around those exact numbers. But we don’t know what question the interviewer asked of these employees. If these employees were asked, “When do all orcas die in the wild?,” (which would be a very strange question to be sure), then Mr. Garrett’s statement would have some credibility. But if these employees were asked “how long do orcas typically live?” or “what is the average orca life span?,” then the film is just misrepresenting the truth by making it appear that SeaWorld’s employees are saying something they are not. The film would be making the point that SeaWorld's employees are talking about maximum life expectancy (as Mr. Garrett did) when they are actually talking about average lifespan. But because we never hear the precise question that is being asked, the audience has no way of knowing whether Mr. Garett and the SeaWorld employees are really talking apples-to-apples or not. We don't know whether it really is true that SeaWorld tells people that "all orcas die young" just like their whales who only live "twenty-five to thirty-five years."





Blackfish never mentions to its audience). According to the Office of Protected Resources of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,, Notably,



More importantly, the NOAA data calls into serious question the central tenant of Mr. Garrett’s statements in the film: that SeaWorld is essentially robbing killer whales of decades of life expectancy. The objective scientific data, which the filmmakers themselves do not seem to dispute, just does not seem to back up that claim. If Blackfish were nothing more than a "fact-driven narrative" there would be no reason to leave out the NOAA statistics and confuse this issue as it does. But, presented in the way it is, it is very effective as a piece of advocacy intended to portray SeaWorld in the worst light possible. And this is a hugely important distinction because there is a marked difference between an orca's maximum lifespan (the 100-year figure Mr. Garret references) and an orca's typical lifespan (a figurenever mentions to its audience). According to the Office of Protected Resources of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,, “males typically live for about 30 years” and “females typically live about 50 years.” Notably, the makers of Blackfish have publicly confirmed the accuracy of these statistics - even though not mentioned in the film itself. Measured against these statistics instead of Mr. Garrett's 100 year figure, SeaWorld’s assessment of orca lifespans don’t seem to be that far off – particularly with respect to males (and again, we don’t know whether the filmmakers factored gender into their hidden camera questions of SeaWorld’s employees).More importantly, the NOAA data calls into serious question the central tenant of Mr. Garrett’s statements in the film:that SeaWorld is essentially robbing killer whales of decades of life expectancy.The objective scientific data, which the filmmakers themselves do not seem to dispute, just does not seem to back up that claim.





Oh yeah. One last really important thing. There is absolutely no evidence in Blackfish that SeaWorld’s whales actually “die young” like Howard Garrett claims. Watch the film closely - it's just not there. An odd omission, don’t you think? Don’t you think that if Gabriella Cowperthwaite, or any of the people interviewed in the film, actually had evidence or data that SeaWorld’s whales “die young,’ it would have been prominently featured? In the absence of evidence, though, the film uses a neat trick to convince its audience that SeaWorld’s whale do, in fact, “die young.” Mr. Garret tells the audience SeaWorld covers up the fact that its whales "die young" by telling the public that all orcas die at the same age as SeaWorld's whales. When we then immediately hear SeaWorld employees presumably saying that the lifespans of orcas in the wild is twenty-five or thirty-five years, the audience assumes that this is just SeaWorld's way of covering for the fact that only its whales die at twenty-five or thirty-five years old. But where’s the evidence that any of this is really true?





SeaWorld’s orcas are. The statistic seems to take into account every orca in captivity ever – including those held by irresponsible owners in conditions far worse than anything at a SeaWorld park today. If the argument is that SeaWorld's whales "die young," then the audience has a right to know just how long SeaWorld's whales actually live on average without lumping in all the other facilities that have ever existed since such statistics began being recorded. So how long is that? In the wake of the film’s release, the filmmakers have stated that “ In captivity, most orcas die in their teens and 20s and only a handful have made it past 35, ” but, even assuming this unattributed statistic is accurate, this does not say what the average lifespan oforcas are.The statistic seems to take into account every orca in captivity ever – including those held by irresponsible owners in conditions far worse than anything at a SeaWorld park today. If the argument is that SeaWorld's whales "die young," then the audience has a right to know just how longwhales actually live on average without lumping in all the other facilities that have ever existed since such statistics began being recorded. So how long is that?





SeaWorld itself says that five of its whales are older than 30 and one is close to 50. I have been unable to find any indication (even from the filmmakers) that SeaWorld is being untruthful about these figures. Those numbers not only are consistent with the hidden camera footage in Blackfish - particularly the third employee who says that Seaworld’s whales live beyond their mid-thirties - but also appear to be generally consistent with the NOAA statistics on average orca lifespan in the wild – suggesting that SeaWorld’s whales actually do not “die young.” In fact, the only evidence Blackfish presents that SeaWorld’s whales “die young” is Mr. Garrett’s bald claim that they do. And in a film that is supposed to “err on the side of the journalistic approach,” and that is not supposed to be an advocacy piece, that is just not good enough. I have been unable to find any indication (even from the filmmakers) that SeaWorld is being untruthful about these figures.Those numbers not only are consistent with the hidden camera footage in- particularly the third employee who says that Seaworld’s whales live beyond their mid-thirties - but also appear to be generally consistent with the NOAA statistics on average orca lifespan in the wild – suggesting that SeaWorld’s whales actually do not “die young.”In fact, the only evidencepresents that SeaWorld’s whales “die young” is Mr. Garrett’s bald claim that they do.Andin a film that is supposed to “err on the side of the journalistic approach,” and that is not supposed to be an advocacy piece, that is just not good enough.



What Exactly Is The Message Of Blackfish?



There are other examples of factual assertions in Blackfish that just don’t seem to hold up to modest scrutiny, but this piece is long enough. Buy me a drink someday, and I’ll be happy to fill you in on the rest. At this point, and to bring this series to a close, I want to ask: What exactly is the message of Blackfish? Blackfish has put SeaWorld on trial in the Court of Public Opinion, and, just like a real trial, there should be a clear theme - an unambiguous message - that the jury may consider in reaching its verdict. So what is it?





Is it an anti-captivity film arguing that orcas should not be held in captivity at all? Perhaps. But, if so, why point the finger at SeaWorld in isolation and virtually igore the rest of the entire animal industry? The film barely mentions the fact that orcas are held in captivity in any number of other locations around the world (and only does so in the context of tying these facilities to SeaWorld). If this were a film about anti-captivity, wouldn’t it have been more effective to focus on the truly deplorable conditions in other facilities? Wouldn’t focusing on orcas in those facilities, even if in addition to SeaWorld’s, have been more effective in making an argument against captivity in general?





Is Blackfish intended to demonstrate that SeaWorld turns naturally friendly killer whales into killing machines bent on taking human lives out of frustration caused by their environment? If so, why does the film compare orcas to pit bulls and suggest that Tilikum shouldn't be bred because of his history of aggression to humans? If it is true that aggression toward humans is a learned behavior and not an instinctual one, then what is the safety concern with breeding Tilikum? If aggression is learned, it couldn't be passed down through heredity. His offspring would be no more naturally agressive toward humans than any other newborn orca. If that is the message, it doesn't work very well.





Or is Blackfish a film about the way that SeaWorld allegedly puts profits above the safety of its employees? The film spends a considerable amount of time persuading its audience that SeaWorld hid the truth about Tilikum’s dangerous tendencies from its trainers, put them in harm’s way intentionally, and blamed them, rather than the whales, when things went awry. But, if that's the intended message, why spend so much time on the captivity issue? Why bring Howard Garrett and Lori Marino into the film when neither speaks about the actual corporate practices of SeaWorld? Why not tell the audience more about the serious sanctions imposed on SeaWorld as a result of the OSHA hearing (sanctions currently being appealed)? If this is a film about SeaWorld being a supposed irresponsible employer, it seems apparent that it could have been a more convincing one.



