FDonaldsonResProFinal

Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of wildlife documentary
production.
1
University of the West of Scotland
Broadcast Production: 2015/2016
Research Project: Honours Dissertation
“People will not protect what they don’t understand”
-(Doug Allan, 2015)
Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of
wildlife documentary production
By
Fiona Donaldson
BA (Hons) Broadcast Production
B00211648
Supervised by
Dr. Kathryn Burnett
Word Count:
Approx. 11,052
Roughly excluding Data, Tables and Bibliography Approx. 4,000

Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of wildlife documentary
production.
2
FORM 4: FINAL SUBMISSION Research Project: Broadcast Production Honours Dissertation
To be completed in full and bound into dissertation after title page.
Surname: Donaldson First Name(s): Fiona
Banner No. B00211648 Session: 2015/2106
Research Project Supervisor: Dr. Kathryn Burnett
Dissertation Title: Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of wildlife
documentary production
Plagiarism Statement
I certify this is all my own work and have submitted this with clear knowledge of the
university’s guidelines and policy on plagiarism:
SIGN:
Ethics Statement (see Moodle for Res. Project).
I certify this submitted this with clear knowledge of the university’s guidelines and School
of
Media, Culture and Society policy on ethics:
SIGN:

Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of wildlife
documentary production.
3
FORM 2: ETHICS STATEMENT Research Project: Broadcast Production Honours
Dissertation
TO BE DOWNLOADED AND COMPLETED BY ALL STUDENTS
Name: Fiona Donaldson Banner No. B00211648
Session: 2015/2016 Programme: Broadcast Production
Research Project Supervisor: Kathryn Burnett
Title: Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of wildlife documentary
production
There can be no undergraduate research studies enrolled on this module in the School of
Media, Culture and Society that directly involve the following:
 Research on children (under 16).
 Research involvingdeception (including covert studies)
 Research that places either the researcher or the researched ‘at risk’, (e.g. studies must be
conducted with due consideration for personal safety, health and respectful conduct).
All students must read carefully the UWS ethics guidelines and ensure that they speak with their
supervisor about their own research intentions and where appropriate clarify in writing where there
appears to be any problem in abiding by these guidelines. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure
that they have read and understood these guidelines and that they will undertake to abide by them. In
the submission of your Research Project you will be required to sign an ‘Ethical statement’ (see Form 4).
You must ensure your have made yourself fully aware of the following guidelines before you can
sign and submit this statement.
MY STUDY INVOLVES CONTACT WITH HUMAN INFORMANTS/PARTICIPANTS:
YES
IF ‘NO’ THEN PLEASE ASK YOUR SUPERVISOR TO CONFIRM THIS AND SIGN BELOW AND
FORWARD IT TO THE MODULE CO-ORDINATOR. YOU MUST ALSO SIGN.
IF ‘YES’, THAT IS YOU INTEND TO INTERVIEW INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, RUN FOCUS GROUPS,
OBSERVE PEOPLE, OR ADMINISTER QUESTIONNAIRES, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF DATA
COLLECTION FROM HUMAN INFORMANTS/PARTICIPANTS YOU MUST SEEK FULL ETHICAL
APPROVAL BY FILLING IN THE UWS ETHICS FORM. Please link to Moodle now and download
this form, complete and to this Form 2 here.
I have clear knowledge of the university’s guidelines and School of MCS policy on ethics and I will
undertake to conduct my research study accordingly. I have attached a complete UWS Ethics
form accordingly.
STUDENT SIGN Fiona Donaldson
SUPERVISOR SIGN

4
MCS Research Ethics Committee
APPLICATION FORM FOR ETHICAL APPROVAL (MCSREC1)
N.B. The UEC Guidelines for Ethical Research with Human Subjects must be read prior
to the completion of this form. Notes for each section of the application are provided
under Section 2 (pp. 11-12) of the Guidelines.
1 Name of principal investigator Fiona Donaldson
School/Address Broadcast Production, UWS Ayr
Position Student
2 Name of supervisor/director of
studies (for undergraduate/
postgraduate applications only)
Kathryn Burnett
School/Address UWS Ayr
Position Supervisor
3 Title of Study – Wildlife Documentary: A study of the challenges and successes of
wildlife documentary production
4 What is the primary purpose of this study?
Original research 
Audit 
Undergraduate project 
Postgraduate project 
Other (please detail) 
5 Has the proposed study been submitted to any others ethics committee? No
Has approval been given? N/A
6 Briefly, what is the justification for the research? What is the background? Why is this
an area of importance?
Undergraduate honours degree study.
7 Give a brief summary of the purpose, design and methodology of the planned
research, including a brief explanation of the theoretical framework that informs it.
My aim in this research project is to investigate and explore the production of wildlife
documentaries. I will study the history and the changes in production through time, the
reasoning behind filming and the issues that arise within these productions. I will be
constructing my study using qualitative research methods, such as purposeful
sampling, allowing me to select specific people for interviewing. My aim is to interview
around 6 chosen subjects in the field of wildlife documentary. In the interviews
conducted, my aim is to find out more about the production and if this is a reason why
the programs are becoming more popular, if they are. I also aim to cover issues in this
area of work and how they tackle these.
8 Does the research involve any physically invasive procedures? Are there any known
hazards associated with these procedures?
None as known.

5
9 Will individual or group interviews/questionnaires discuss any topics or issues that
might be sensitive, embarrassing or upsetting, or is it possible that criminal or other
disclosures requiring action could take place during
No.
10 (a) Does the research involve any deception regarding aims and objectives?
No.
(b) Will the research participants be debriefed? When? How? By whom?
No.
11 How will potential participants in the study be (i) identified, (ii) approached and (iii)
recruited?
Identification is based on purposeful sampling and selected with relation to the subject
of study. All subjects will be approached by email and recruited by their consent to
proceed to face-to-face interviewing.
12 What measures have been put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data? Give
details of whether any encryption or other anonymisation procedures will be used and
at what stage.
N/A. Unless requested by participant.
13 Who will have access to the data and what steps will be taken to ensure data remains
confidential?
Full consent from participants will allow data to be used within my undergraduate
dissertation. The information will be stored on one password protected laptop and
subjects can be anonymous if requested.
14 What is the potential for benefit to research participants?
The participants will not be paid. I would only suggest potential benefits as being, the
participant being able to tell their story in relation to the study and share their views on
some topical issues within the area of study.
15 Will informed consent be obtained from the research participants?
Yes


No 
If yes, give details of who will obtain consent and how it will be done. Give details of
any particular steps to provide information (in addition to a written information sheet)
eg videos, interactive materials. Please note that a copy of the subject information
sheet must be included with this application.
Informed consent will be given and obtained by me. Emails will be sent to selected
participants informing them of the project and my desire for them to participate.
If consent is not to be obtained, please explain why not.

6
16 Will a signed record of consent be obtained?
Yes.
17 Will subjects be informed that they can withdraw at any time from the study?
Yes.
18 Will the participants be from any of the following groups? NO
Children under 16 
Adults with learning disabilities 
Adults who are unconscious or severely ill 
Adults with a terminal illness 
Adults in emergency situations 
Adults with mental illness (particularly if
detained under Mental Health Legislation)

Adults with dementia 
Adults in Scotland who are unable to
consent for themselves

Those who could be considered to have a
particularly dependent relationship with
the investigator.

Other (please detail) 
Please justify their inclusion.

19 Are there any special pressures that might make it difficult for people to refuse to take
part in the study (eg the potential participants are students of the investigator)?
No.
20 Will the study result in financial payment or payment in-kind to the applicants/to the
department? Please specify amounts etc. involved.
No.
21 Where will this research take place?
Interviews will take place in most convenient and safe location and time for participant
or over Skype/phone if unable to meet in person.
22 Please describe any other ethical considerations, which need to be taken into account
by the MCS Research Ethics Committee?
None
23 Please indicate which documents are enclosed with this application:

7
Subject//participant information sheet/leaflet 
Consent form 
Copy of protocol 
Letters to participant 
Letter to parents/guardians/gatekeepers etc. 
Letter of ethical committee approval or other
approvals

Other relevant materials (please indicate) 
The information supplied above is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate.
I have read the notes to investigators and clearly understand my obligations and the
rights of subjects/study participants, particularly in relation to obtaining valid consent.
Signature of Principal Investigator:
Date:
Signature of Supervisor/
Director of Studies (if applicable):
Date:

8
Acknowledgements
This page is dedicated to those whom I would like to offer thanks during this
process.
To my project supervisor, Dr. Kathryn Burnett, who has supported me when in
need, yet allowed me, completely to my own devices, to run freely with this
project, without this, I fear I would not have enjoyed this process as much. Dr
Burnett gave me motivation throughout this project with her enthusiasm for my
ideas and groundwork and without that I am unsure if I would have been able to
complete the process to the best of my ability.
I would also like to give thanks to my six participants, for without them, this
would not have been possible. I am so lucky to have been in contact with such
talented, and resourceful people who, without even realising, have managed to
shape my future in ways I hadn’t even considered. For that I am thankful.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and classmates who pushed me
on in times of doubt and kept me smiling until the final deadline. They made me
remember why I chose this path in education and reminded me where I would
be heading in the next steps forward.
Thank you
ForGrandma Granny – from whomI inherited my strength x

9
CONTENTS
Chapter one: Introduction 10
Chapter two: Literature Review 13
Chapter three: Methodology 21
Chapter: History of informants 27
Chapter five: Analysis 31
Chapter six: Conclusion 53
Chapter seven: Bibliography 57
Chapter eight: Appendices 60

10
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Wildlife documentary productions cover many animals and nature related topics
and issues with the main objective of such productions being to inform. With
documentary categorised as informative it is my aim in this research project to
discover if this is still the case in our ever growing and constantly changing,
technology orientated world. This research project will investigate and explore
the makers behind some of the most successful wildlife documentary
productions in the past 10 years and aims to discover their views on issues
within this style of filmmaking that I consider to be important and with a need to
be discussed and clarified. This study will look at issues surrounding wildlife
documentary productions, including animal privacy, the balance of education
and entertainment, raising awareness and the future of wildlife documentary
productions. Using a phenomenological approach, gathering qualitative data and
conducting an analysis of this data, I will aim to cover the above mentioned
issues and topics to gain some perspective from industry involved specialists,
that will allow me to compare and contrast the different views on wildlife
documentary productions and discover more about this style of filmmaking.
Through semi structured interviews with industry specialists an analysis will be
formed around the reasoning and views of these people that have dedicated their
careers and well being, sometimes with their life in danger, to make such
programmes.
The book chapter by Morgan Richards ‘Greening Wildlife Documentary’, in
‘Environmental Conflict and the Media’ (2013), discusses issues and challenges
similar to that of this study. It has been most useful in research relating to these
aims and has helpful facts and claims that will support my research. Richards’s
research and opinions on wildlife documentary have been valuable in this study.
They have created a pathway of guidance for the research aims I planned to
undertake and have become an important basis for me to relate to, something I

11
will discuss further in Chapter two. The opening quote in this book chapter is
essentially the most effective way to set the tone for the internal argument I find
myself having and now from research, can see it is one that others struggle with
too.
“The loss of wilderness is a truth so sad, so overwhelming that, to reflect
reality, it would need to be the subject of every wildlife film. That, of course,
would be neither entertaining nor ultimately dramatic. So it seems that as
filmmakers we are doomed either to fail our audience or fail our cause.”
— Stephen Mills (1997)
The cinematic and breath-taking shots in sequence are enough to make a viewer
gain interest but is there a certain loss in educational intake in these
documentaries because of the filming and level production is so powerful that
they have become more for an eye pleasing audience rather than those of more
educational outlook. Growing technology, editing and filming techniques are
pushing productions to produce higher quality images, which may be a reason
behind programmes having more of an entertainment value then educational.
This can be seen with Disney. “Disney’s breakthrough lay in its ability to
dramatize the natural world and bring wild animals and nature to life using full
colour cinematography…bringing wildlife into the mainstream.” (Richards,
2013) This study will discuss these developments throughout productions and
also the change in technology and how this effects the outlook of the final
production as it is broadcast on television or now more enticingly, on newer
mediums.
In interviews conducted, the aim is to discuss some of the main issues within
wildlife productions. There will also be questions asked to help find out more
about the production aims and to study how they are being received through
broadcasting. The interview analysis will uncover the specific reasoning for such
programmes through the eyes of the filmmakers and the decisions producers
and cameramen make, perhaps to allow the filming, with a storytelling style,
involving environmental issues within wildlife. Generally such documentaries
are made for and assumed to be of educational value. Richards stated “Wildlife

12
documentary has come to assume a key role in the public understanding of
science and environmental issues, generating popular awareness and helping to
shape public engagement with environmental politics and conflict.” (Richards,
2013) An aim of this study is to find out if wildlife documentaries succeed in this
educational aim or if the audience has simply received them as entertainment
programmes.
Another source I have relied upon throughout research, is the work of Derek
Bousé in his book ‘Wildlife films’ and his journals, ‘False intimacy: close-ups and
viewer involvement in wildlife films’ and ‘Are wildlife films really “nature
documentaries”? His work tackles some of the issues I took into account in my
research aims. Bousé states “It is easy to make entertaining pictures educational,
but to make educational pictures entertaining is a more difficult problem.”
(Bousé, 2000). There seems to be a struggle for balance within these types of
programmes and this will be discussed further in the analysis stage, as will the
work of Bousé in Chapter two.
Wildlife documentary has evolved over time, just like the worlds wildlife itself.
The progression has always been there but been steady. One of the first places
this genre spanned from was with the documentation of hunting animals in the
wild with Theodore Roosevelt in his motion picture, “Roosevelt in Africa”.
According to Mitman, the aim of the trip was to hunt, capture or kill animals in
the name of science while being filmed, in hopes this film would educate the
public on the world they lived in. It was not easy to access and film everything
they needed, so the use of photographic stills was used throughout the film.
Mitman confirms that “…Kearton spliced in a flash-picture still of a lion…”
(Mitman, 1999), which viewers complained it lacked life. Roosevelt’s failure to
fake the scenes needed to capture audiences, gave others the pathway to fill this
gap in the market by providing the same films as Roosevelt but with staged and
faked scenes that the public wanted. Mitman stated “As the Roosevelt film
proved, audiences craved drama over authenticity.” (Mitman, 1999) The work of
Gregg Mitman is also another influence into understanding where the targeted
issues may have stemmed from and I will discuss this further in Chapter two.

13
Chapter 2:
Literature Review
This chapter will discuss the academic literature and research that will be used
to define and create the knowledge and analysis for the research to build itself
upon.
Documentaries have always been seen as scientific or educational programs, a
specific genre with a specific audience. “ ’Natural history film’ and ‘wildlife film’
began to show up in trade journals around 1913. At first shot for ‘educational
purposes’.” (Bousé, 2000). There has always been a scientific educational
approach in documentary making, for the purpose of its aims in finished
productions, to inform and to educate. “Several studies have accounted for the
positive effect educational films and documentaries have on learning.” (Barbas,
Paraskevopoulos and Stamou, 2009).
In the introduction chapter, reference was made to one of the key thematic areas
of education vs. entertainment in an opening quote from the book chapter by
Morgan Richards ‘Greening Wildlife Documentary’, in ‘Environmental Conflict and
the Media’ (2013) and research aims relied heavily upon the work of Derek
Bousé and Gregg Mitman. Within this Chapter and also in Chapter three the key
thematic areas will be highlighted and discussed further, in relation to research,
supporting sources and intended analysis aims.
With a keen interest in wildlife documentary productions, I was naturally happy
to research the many varied books, documentaries and journals about these
productions in general. The difficulty came in researching the best-suited
theories for my intended approaches and aims and the more in depth
discussions about my key thematic areas. I used case studies as a guide on how
to research and analyse my findings. I also used journal libraries including

14
‘Taylor & Francis’ and ‘Sage Journals’ as well as utilising the well-stocked
university library and online articles surrounding my research.
‘Greening Wildlife Documentary’ by Morgan Richards, highlights one of my key
thematic areas and discusses how some productions have gone beyond
documenting educationally and turned to filming cinematically as a method of
production. This pushes the balance of education and entertainment over the
line towards more of an entertainment value. According to Richards “The
exclusion of environmental issues in wildlife documentary is a feature of the
generic constraints of the wildlife genre.” (Richards, 2013)
It is suggested that wildlife documentaries and series have become more
aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, which in turn is pushing the educational
and scientific factors underneath how the series looks to the viewer, which is a
result of some producer instructions for film crew as specified, “filming
instructions…related not to education but to documentary filmmaking.” (Bousé,
2000) It seems that it is not possible to have one without the other in many
genres but specifically documentary. The distinctive line that used to show the
clear-cut areas of education and entertainment separately is quickly merging
into a grey area forming more aesthetically pleasing television to retain audience
attention yet still educating those who are willing to listen and follow a series.
The work of Robert Dingwall and Meryl Aldridge in their case study ‘Television
wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of
evolution’ has been beneficial to the research especially regarding one of my key
thematic areas in question, education vs. entertainment. In their studies,
Aldridge and Dingwall, came to a conclusion that the change in balance, of
education and entertainment, may actually be what this genre needs for the level
of information intake to be higher, they said, “the most surprising and counter-
intuitive finding, however, is the extent to which high prestige, blue chip
programs may actually be less effective than conventionally less highly regarded
alternatives at conveying both the practice and the outcomes of science to mass
audiences.” (Aldridge and Dingwall, 2006)

15
This case study highlights one of the many differences between blue chip
programmes and other wildlife related series that have been made. One main
difference being whether or not there is presenter heavily involved in steering
the programme or not. “Wildlife programming is dominated by two sub-genres:
‘blue chip’ and ‘presenter-led.’ ” (Aldridge and Dingwall, 2006) Blue chip
programmes attempt to avoid all aspects of human culture, focussing purely on
the nature and wildlife. These productions aim to obtain audiences through
interest and learning, using what they see on screen as a hook. It is generally not
presenter lead to push the focus in one direction or another. The story is not of a
presenter and their journey but instead it is within the filming process and
scientific learning objective.
“Bousé defines blue chip as dealing with mega fauna; in an environment
of visual splendour; using a dramatic storyline; and marked by the
absences of politics, people or historical reference points. Presenter-led
or “adventure” features expanded human presence; more human/animal
interaction; dynamic editorial approaches; low costs; and quick
turnaround.”
-(Aldridge and Dingwall, 2006)
Presenter lead programmes are seen to be of “lower creative status than blue
chip with its high production values and conspicuous investment in science.”
(Aldridge and Dingwall, 2006) These two sub genres are not to be completely
separated, as it is still a fact that “blue chip programs can feature presenters”
(Aldridge and Dingwall, 2006). Sir David Attenborough is one of the main
contributors to many different wildlife and nature programs, blue chip and
presenter lead. His symbolic presence contributes to their status and his
participation views these programmes to be trustworthy of accuracy and
authenticity in the eyes of audiences. This is a type of trust that audiences may
have in nature, wildlife and real world events and most likely the news and
“research in audience trust in the accuracy of factual genres reveals an
interesting link between new and nature/wildlife programmes.” (Hill, 2005) The
news being a public service leads audiences to trust this factual content, which is

16
similar in that of wildlife and nature programming and because some of the most
successful series have been narrated by David Attenborough, he has become the
trusted voice of such programmes.
The debates in wildlife documentary filmmaking naturally pull towards the
education vs. entertainment issue but in my research I have found that there are
further debates that cover many topics, a main one that creates a key thematic
area in this research project is the worry that filming could be an invasion of
animals privacy “…the BBC acknowledges that ‘audiences are increasingly
concerned about the possible impact such filming might have on the wildlife and
their surroundings’…” (Mills, 2010) This is an on going debate as the need to
educate and raise awareness on wildlife and our planet is strong and accepted by
a wide audience within these documentaries and series productions. For this to
happen cameramen must think of innovative ways to over come the issue while
still retaining footage the desire, “…the heart of the documentary project is the
necessity for animals to be seen.” (Mills, 2010)
Although is may seem that this debate will never be settled, there is good cause
to support the reasoning behind filming wildlife and nature, for without the
education supplied by these programmes, the world may not valued as much as
it needs to be, Mills supports this by adding, “This is shown by the rationale that
often supports wildlife documentaries and the invasion of spaces by humans and
their recording technology; that showing humanity the wonders of the world is
one way to encourage environmentalism and this promotes a duty of care
towards animals.” (Mills, 2010)
On the other side of this argument there is the general fact that animals are very
intelligent and the intelligence of animals should never go unnoticed, nor should
the fact that their ‘natural behaviour’ may be affected during filming “the mere
presence of the camera can change animal behaviour – not to mention the careful
post-shot editing that has often served to heighten the ‘animal-drama’.” (Bagust,
2008) Not to affect the animals during filming is an aim that any cameraman and
production crew will have and strive to achieve throughout every production.
“Even wildlife film-makers do not get as close to animals as it appears. … With

17
long lenses, often from great distances. What defines a close-up…the framing
variable – that is, the size of the object relative to the frame.” (Bousé, 2003)
It can be suggested that there may be potential wildlife hot spots and wildlife
around the world that are being over exposed and exploited by many filmmakers
attempting to achieve the same results in filming for different productions.
Throughout many wildlife documentary productions, it has been believed that to
obtain the footage needed, some productions will go over the mark to get what
they need “…the point of Woodard's exercises was not to uncover scientific data,
but rather to film staged "dramatic" confrontations.” (Bousé, 1998) This is
another issue that can fall under the argument of animal privacy and rights.
Within the analysis chapters, I will be able to discuss this issue further with the
assistance of views and opinions from industry specialists, taken during
interview process, that have to deal with these issues in the work life every day.
During research into Disney’s True-Life Adventure films (1948-1960) I found a
good basis of argument supporting the use of over dramatized and glossy
finished productions. It is thought to be more useful for children in classes and
enhances the awareness of the natural world. Although perhaps not entirely
informative and full of educational aspects, these productions from Disney have
simplified the learning process for those who had maybe never been interested
in knowing more about wildlife and the natural world. It has proven beneficial to
this study as there is questioning over authenticity, privacy, animal rights,
audiences deception and loss of educational and scientific aspects.
Disney produced a specified format of wildlife documentary that brought it to
mainstream cinema and audiences for the first time. “True-Life Adventure series
were influential and innovative; they were also thoroughly anthropomorphic
and sentimental.” (Richards, 2013) This approach to wildlife filmmaking was not
necessarily new or ground breaking but it was in the way the Disney was able to
“…dramatize the natural world and bring wild animals and nature to life using
full colour cinematography and lavish musical scores – the full theatrical works,
designed to bring wildlife into the mainstream.” (Richards, 2013) What got
Disney noticed more and set their True-Life Adventures apart from the other

18
wildlife films out there was the “glossy finish and sense of drama… gave them a
commercial edge” (Richards, 2013) The fact that Disney was already an
established brand made the success slightly easier and they were able to link
their “Disney live action short with a Disney animated feature.” (Richards, 2013)
Audiences were more attracted to these films as “they were entertaining and
educational, but not too scientific.” (Richards, 2013) It made learning more
accessible in their own homes in a simplified format and gave families a sense of
real nature without boring or scaring them. This also opened the pathway for
raising world awareness to the public. “Disney established film as an important
propaganda tool in the enlisting of public support for environmental causes”
(Mitman, 1999). Raising awareness is another key thematic area in which this
research project, from the beginning, aimed to discuss and this will be supported
further in the analysis chapters, with the interview data from industry
specialists. Disney uncovered the market that would benefit the most from these
films. “The studio sent mass-market mailings to grade school and high schools
teachers…announcing the release of a True life adventure and the local theatre”
(Mitman, 1999). They also sent out educational pamphlets to classrooms to
accompany each film and this marketing strategy proved effective. Although for
Disney’s True-Life Adventures to be successful within this market and expand to
cover family values, the most natural of animal events had to be cut for fear of
affecting or offending audiences. “Footage of baby seals being trampled to
death…left on the cutting room floor.” (Mitman, 1999) While still intending to
create a way of learning that entertained, Disney could only achieve this by
careful editing and narration “to help soften violence” (Mitman, 1999), as Disney
wanted to present a “sentimental version of animals in the wild” (Mitman, 1999).
This research creates a more balanced argument than which we started with.
The views of industry specialists also give us this same balance within the
analysis chapters further on in this research project.
Within the education vs. entertainment argument we are able to cover the
challenges that filmmakers come across when planning for future productions.
The changes that must be made and the need to keep the industry fresh and
alive, drive new ways of filming, editing and promoting wildlife and the natural

19
world. It seems that with the ever-growing choice of programmes produced by
the ever-growing mediums of broadcasting there are demands for more from
productions, bigger, better, more unique. “Become increasingly subject to the
demands of ratings-conscious schedulers.” (Kilborn, 2006) Wildlife
programming is no exception to this. Wildlife program makers need to keep up
with these demands by developing new ideas or reinventing those already
achieved. It had been said that, “these are lean times for natural history
programming. The genre has been pushed to the verge of extinction in many
primetime slots and is being squeezed everywhere by broadcasters’ dwindling
budgets.” (Keighron, 2000) It’s a constant cycle of challenges to come up with
new innovative ideas, achieving one and developing it to broadcast and then to
have to go back to the drawing board after the hype of interest around your new
production dies down after being watched, re watched and watched again, the
pressure and demand to come up with something else soon comes back around.
At what point do these demands begin to jeopardise the aims of program
makers? And at what cost do these productions give to be noticed? “In order to
survive, wildlife program making must dress itself up more and more in the
clothes of the other entertainment formats, with which it is now competing for
slots in the schedule.” (Kilborn, 2006) This is clearly an issue that will always
surround wildlife programming but it makers have overcome this before and
will continue to, with new technology and access to wildlife creating their new
innovative ideas. The future of wildlife documentary productions creates the
final key thematic area to be discussed within this project. Over time the clear-
cut line and balance between educating and entertaining has become blurred to
allow for greater change at expanding an audience and obtaining interest. “The
question is therefore not whether TV wildlife will become part of the TV
entertainment machine. It clearly already has.” (Kilborn, 2006) If this genre is to
survive it is clear the makers must keep up with the growing demands and the
changing technology that could be the answer to the challenges of developing
new ideas. The very future of wildlife film making might well lie more in
exploiting the new ways of distributing and broadcasting that material as
Keighron says, “Just as the early bird catches the worm, the forward-thinking

20
natural history program-makers will catch the rights to exploit their footage –
across all platforms, in all formats” (Keighron, 2000).
Throughout this study it is important to me that the key thematic areas are made
known and recognised during every stage of research and analysis. These
thematic areas will stand out more in the analysis chapters of the project, as they
will be sectioned into their own sub headings allowing me to create discussion
between my research so far and data collected from different industry
specialists. Silverman stated “in qualitative thematic analysis, we seek to
understand participants meanings and illustrate the findings by extracts which
depict certain themes” (Silverman, 2014). These “themes” are our key thematic
areas, those being the main theme, education vs. entertainment, and connecting
themes, raising awareness, animal privacy and the future of wildlife
documentary productions. These are the four main areas discussed in interviews
and within research. These were areas that were given stand alone questions
during the interview process, with some probing questions in-between to keep
the interview open and semi structured allowing natural flow of conversation
and detailed accounts. This will be further discussed within the methodology
section in Chapter three.

21
Chapter 3:
Methodology
This chapter is an account of data gathering and analysing methods used and
reasons for why these particular methods were used.
In relation to the case study and literature read and discussed in chapter two, I
decided upon my methods of research and how the study should be carried out
by deciding that this would be a qualitative study as this would best serve my
purpose in research and desired outcomes. This study used relevant case study
and literature information to help base semi structured interviews with key
industry specialist within my research topic area.
This is a qualitative study with a phenomenological approach using case study
and literature research to conduct semi structured interviews with industry
specialists that have been selected through purposive sampling methods, with a
thematic analysis in mind for the collected data. I will further discuss each part of
this qualitative study in this chapter under their own sub headings. To gain the
most reliable and relatable information possible, industry specialists for the
interviews will include Doug Allan; underwater cameraman, Nigel Pope;
producer of ‘Hebrides: Islands on the edge’ and John Aitchison; cameraman and
author of ‘The Shark and the Albatross (Travels with a camera to the ends of the
earth.)’ Within this qualitative study, the aim is to source information by
conducting interviews with specifically selected industry specialists in fields of
wildlife camera work, production work and those involved in the makings of
wildlife productions in any form. It is with great passion that I research further
into wildlife documentary productions and this passion is one hopefully shared
with the chosen industry specialist as it is said that “the generativity of the
interview depends on both partners and their willingness to engage in deep
discussion about the topic of interest.” (Marshall and Rossman, 2016) In theory
to interview in person is the expectation in my research but it is in good practice

22
to keep in mind that it may not be possible with some of the selected candidates;
therefore the possibility of Skype or telephone interviews must be looked into.
Having to conduct phone interviews does not affect this particular study greatly
as “telephone interviews in qualitative researches are somewhat common”
(Lechuga, 2012). Telephone interviews will benefit this project just as much as
face to face interviews as I need not be in a particular environment with my
chosen interviewees for my desired outcome of information. While a field study
would have been greatly affective and worthwhile, it is not practical nor does it
greatly determine desired results within the interview process.
My interview questions had been clear to me at the start and only varied slightly
in word choice during interview process as the semi-structured approach
allowed for free direction of conversation throughout the interview. With the
research aim in mind and with use of literature from chapter two, I was able to
draft the right set of questions suited to my study. I aimed to have between 6-8
questions as I was interviewing only 6-8 industry specialists with intentions of
more in depth, conversational answers as opposed to short and questionnaire
type results. The final set of questions resulted in having my four key thematic
areas within them and two more probing questions, one to open up the
conversation at the beginning and the other to keep conversation flowing easily.

23
Interview Questions
Start off by asking about their interest in wildlife/nature/documentary
production? Where it came from? How it has grown? Their story of producing
how they are where they are?
(Key) Ask about their opinion on education vs. entertainment
(Key) Ask about this form of TV/broadcasting for raising awareness, the
issues?
Ask about the general process of
sourcing/filming/producing/editing/broadcasting and their involvement or
any changes within these elements over time?
(Key) Ask about animals privacy, how they respect them in their
environment, how this is portrayed. Talk about the issues raised about
intrusion.
(Key) The future of wildlife documentaries/TV shows? Next steps? Their own
future?

24
Qualitative Interviews.
As already specified, this is a qualitative study that will use qualitative research
to gain information regarding the research aim and subject in question to
construct a reliable conclusion. After finalising the research aim, exploring case
studies and literature and advice from my project supervisor, Dr Kathryn
Burnett, I knew that it was a qualitative study that I wanted to conduct to help
my investigate and explore wildlife documentary and the challenges and
successes of wildlife documentary production. Qualitative research suited my
study because I am interested in finding out the ‘how’s’ and ‘why’s’ of a subject
and it provides me with answers to questions that I am interested in. What I
needed to know in the end result lay in questions based on feelings and personal
situations that needed to be supported with ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions rather
than questions that resulted in numerological answers and stats. The four
methods within qualitative and quantitative research, according to Silverman,
2013, are, Observation, Textual analysis, Interviews or Transcripts. In qualitative
research the Observation method is “fundamental to understanding another
culture.” The textual analysis method “understands participants’ categories.” The
interview method is “‘open ended’ questions to small samples” and finally the
Transcript method is “used to understand how participants organize their talk
and body movements.” (Silverman, 2013) For my research study I knew I wanted
to talk to industry specialists about wildlife documentary productions and gain
their views on some of the issues, therefore the qualitative research method of,
interviews with open ended questions to small samples, fitted extremely well to
my study and would be able to support and produce the data needed for the
results in this study. Qualitative interviewing suits my study and has produced
the desired data as will be seen further on in the analysis chapters.
Semi-structured and Phenomenological approaches
With Qualitative interviewing being my chosen research method, the next step
was to research and continue with semi-structured interviews with a

25
phenomenological approach. Semi-structured interviews allowed me to use my
set questions as a guide which did not necessarily need to be asked in any
particular order or wording and gave me opportunity to let the interviewee talk
feely with option of using follow up ‘probing’ questions as a response or change
in direction of topic. The beauty of this technique is that no interview will be the
same or have the same structure of answers. There is flexibility and in the words
of Roulston, “although the interview guide provides the same starting point for
each semi-structured interview…each interview will vary according to what has
been said” by each individual. (Roulston, 2010) Although many other interview
techniques may have worked, I decided against structured interviews as this
may have left no room for interviewees to talk freely about personal experiences
and may have confined my data to a small set of short answers. I also chose to
shy away from unstructured interviews as this would have resulted in many
interviews with no clear direction and results would have made analysis too
hard to have a clear comparison, as “talk may not generate useful data, given that
any and every topic can be introduced at any point by either of the speakers”
(Roulston, 2010).
Within this qualitative study the use of a phenomenological approach is to
highlight a focus on people's interpretations of the world and their subjective
experiences, as in this research study I want to understand how the world of
wildlife documentary production and its issues appear to others, for example,
industry specialists. Roulston stated that the purpose of the phenomenological
interviewing technique is to “…generate detailed and in depth descriptions of
human experiences.” (Roulston, 2010) These “human experiences” would be
what interviewees would be able to talk about in relation to the key thematic
areas within questions asked during the interview process and this can be
recognised within the analysis chapters further on in the study.
Sampling
In this study, from the beginning, I had chosen to interview industry specialists
in order to generate the desired results. This is what is known as purposive
sampling. I chose my sample interviewees, directly and on purpose as they

26
worked in or were part of the industry related to wildlife documentary
productions. These were the people I wanted to hear from about their
experiences in relation to the issues I desired to find out about. It was said by
Silverman, 2013, that purposive sampling “illustrates some feature or process in
which we are interested” which suits this particular research project as wildlife
documentary production and its issues highly interest me and to document
opinions and personal experiences from industry specialists only heightened my
reasoning for choosing this research aim in the beginning.
Thematic analysis
The process of analysis could only start after interviewing had taken place and I
had transcribed said interviews. During the process of transcribing, I began my
thematic analysis by highlighting my key questions and interviewee responses to
these questions and looked for comparisons or differences to support or create
balanced argument in final analysis stage. By further exploring these highlighted
key points, I was able to relate to my use of literature from chapter two and the
details of interview questions to display my key thematic areas of the research
study just as Braun and Clarke, 2006 stated, “A theme captures something
important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents
some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set (Braun and
Clarke, 2006). Later on in chapter 5 the aim is to analyse the information gained
and use this to build an understanding of the issues and change of wildlife
documentary productions, answering questions of how production has changed,
if it has, what it is that filmmakers do to maintain and increase the popularity of
wildlife documentary and what they may see changing in the future, if anything.
As Silverman said “Qualitative methods are best suited if you want to ask ‘what’
and ‘how’ questions.” (Silverman, 2014) This is best suited to the study as the
desired outcome is for current discussion on productions and up to date
information on issues and successes of such productions.

27
Chapter 4:
History ofinformants
My first interview began with producer Nigel Pope, whom I managed to
interview in person at his office in Film City, Glasgow. Each interview opened
with the question of how they informant became to work in this industry and
their background relating to wildlife. Nigel began by explaining that he first
began work for The RSPB on nature reserves and then on children’s television
relating to wildlife and nature and that wildlife had been a part of him all his life.
“Somehow the person who was the producer on the ‘Really wild show’,
which used to be a popular children’s TV wild show, got in touch with me.”
“I was always passionate about it since I was a really small boy… I was just
very young in a push chair and that was the beginning of it really, it never
left me, so it’s been with me all my life.”
Nigel went on to talk about his most recent success, ‘Hebrides: islands on the
edge’, which has been a passion project that Nigel continued to work on over two
years.
“There are things you do which are just passion projects. And one of those
was the Hebrides: Island on the edge series. Where I’d wanted to make a
series about the west coast of Scotland for years, as it’s a place I really love,
and I’d spent some time up here as well.”
Nigel openly talked about some of the challenges he has found recently and the
investigation in detail over such issues will be discussed further in the next
chapter during analysis.
“Engaging audiences is getting harder and harder, the whole broadcast
landscape has radically changed.”

28
The remaining five interviews all took place over the phone as participants were
on filming locations, or simply situated to far to travel for interview purposes.
John Aitchison was first interview over the phone and this seemed to work just
as well being face to face with Nigel Pope and did not jeopardise the research
study. All informants were asked the same opening question.
John Aitchison is a wildlife filmmaker who works for the independent production
company Otter Films Ltd. He is also the author of The Shark and the Albatross
(travels with a camera to the ends of the earth), published recently in the UK by
Profile.
“When I left university I went to work for the RSPB, they used to make 3 half
hour films every year about birds, so it was a really good place to work.”
“From really quite young, as early as I can remember, but it didn’t dawn on
me until I was a teenager that I could get a job like this and so the job side
of it came later and it wasn’t very clear on how to get a job into this area.”
John also worked on the programme, ‘Hebrides: Islands on the edge’, with Nigel
Pope and he talked about how his position in a production may vary depending
on the story.
“I do whole programmes or work on programmes where I have been
involved in the idea, so then Id be wearing another hat which is more a
producers hat, but I might be filming on that programme, as well like ‘The
Hebrides: Islands on the edge’ and sometimes there is an in between
situation where I might come across an idea or a story which the producers
of the programme haven’t seen…I’ll be sent out to go and film that thing
because I got it to them, that happens occasionally as well.”
Doug Allan is a freelance wildlife and documentary cameraman who films both
topside and underwater. He contributed to series like, ‘The Blue Planet’, ‘Planet
Earth’, ‘Life’, ‘Human Planet’ and ‘Frozen Planet’, from which he has made over 70
filming trips.

29
“Well really I wasn’t one of these people born to be a wildlife filmmaker.
Wildlife filmmaking came along eventually after my degree. My first passion
was diving and that took me to a degree in marine biology.”
“So I went to the Antarctic when I was 24 years old and it made a serious
impression on my life, I went there once, then I went there twice, and then
back again and it was a very special place, I saw filming as a way to show
people just how spectacular it was and it was really no more than that.”
Mateo Willis has worked on a number of blue-chip productions over the last five
years including ‘Life Story’, ‘Wild Arabia’, ‘Frozen Planet’ and ‘Human Planet’. He
was part of the camera team for the ‘Frozen Planet’ episode “To the Ends of the
Earth" which won Emmy and BAFTA awards for cinematography.
“I had grown up in different parts of the world including Africa, where I’d
come across wildlife cameramen who were working on projects for the BBC
and that sort of thing so I had had an introduction to the business when I
was young and then I moved into camera work and television work later on
in life and it just seemed to be a natural fit.”
“I started off shooting for the ‘making of’ productions on the big blue-chip
series, like ‘Frozen Planet’ and ‘Human Planet’ about 6 or 7 years ago…film
the little 10 minute making of for the end of the programmes. Then that
way I got contacts with producers and other cameramen.”
Michael Pitts specializes in filming underwater and is regarded as one of
Britain's leading underwater cameramen. He has received Emmys for
cinematography on two BBC landmark series: David Attenborough's 'Private Life
of Plants' and 'Blue Planet'.
“Well I start out quite a few years ago, I was actually working as a
commercial diver in West Africa, I was always interested in diving, but I saw

30
the marine life that lived by the oil rig and so I decided to make a little
film…permission from the company I was working for, to be able to actually
spend the odd evening or afternoon diving on the oil rig which was covered
in corals and fish, the further out the rigs, the better the clarity of the water
but that’s how I got my first interest.”
“I was trying to get into filmmaking and they said, “If you have a proper
camera, we will commission you.” I had to buy a camera.”
Raymond Besant is a wildlife cameraman and photographer from the Orkney
Islands. He specialises as a long lens wildlife cameraman, filming a wide range of
programmes for the BBC Natural History Unit and BBC Scotland, most recently,
'Highlands - Scotland's Wild Heart' with Maramedia for BBC Scotland.
“It was an interest growing up and watching wildlife documentaries, birds
were my favourite. I grew up in Orkney, so there were always lots to see. I
got into photography as a teenager; just recording things I was seeing in
terms of the wildlife.”
“The interest in wildlife was always there. By the time I was in my late
twenties, I was thinking, if I really wanted to be a wildlife cameraman, I
really needed to get my finger out and figure out a way to make that
happen.”
From the beginning, sourcing my industry specialists took some time but once I
managed to interview my first three participants, they were able to recommend
previous co-workers to me and I maintained contact with 8 or 9 overall
participants and selected the 6 most appropriate to my study. This chapter has
allowed for an introduction to my participants and their passion for wildlife and
their backgrounds. The next chapter will discuss in more detail the key thematic
areas during this research study and informants views and opinions throughout
the interview process.

31
Chapter 5:
Analysis
This chapter will explore further, the key ideas and themes from within the
interviews and that also relate to academic literature form chapter two. The key
thematic areas recognised for discussion in interviewing were; Education VS
Entertainment, Animal Privacy, Raising awareness, Changes and Audience, and
The future of Wildlife documentary. Each area will be discussed using comments
and statements raised within interviews by interview participants, Doug Allan,
John Aitchison, Nigel Pope, Mateo Willis, Michael Pitts and Raymond Besant.
Each of the interview participants work within the industry of nature and
wildlife documentary and have worked and still work within many series,
documentaries and television shows, such as ‘The Frozen Planet’, ‘The Hunt’,
‘Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter watch’, ‘Hebrides; Islands on the edge’ and ‘Blue
Planet’. This research project aims to investigate and explore the makers behind
some of the most successful wildlife documentary productions in the past 10
years and aims to discover their views on issues within this style of filmmaking
that I consider to be important and with a need to be discussed and clarified. The
outcome of interviews has allowed previous statements and discussions to be
either supported, or argued or has introduced new theories to the discussion.
The analysis will look at key thematic statements and opinions from all interview
participants and compare and contrast these views while being linked to
academic resources from research.
Part 1: Education VS Entertainment
Education VS Entertainment is one of the main areas researched within this
study, it is the discussion of how documentary may have changed in order to
maintain popularity or how audiences respond to glossy images rather than
educational information, or even how filmmakers get their ideas commissioned

32
to begin with. The main interview question was what do you think of the balance
between education and entertainment?
“I think the information content in a lot of wildlife films is less than it used
to be. I think that sometimes there are a lot of wildlife films, in my
experience, where storyline has given way to spectacle…with documentaries
20 years ago trying to teach ecology, the study of interrelationships of
animals whereas if you take ‘The Hunt’, even ‘The Frozen Planet’, they are
just really films about places, there is not the same intricacy of
storyline…Above all it has to be, it should be entertainment, it has to be
entertainment, but I think the level of information and the level of concepts
that we should be trying to get over could be much higher than it is… It
seems that is it the picture that is most important, it is not the information,
and it is all about the spectacle rather than story.” (Doug Allan)
Mateo Willis agrees with Doug Allan on the balance of entertainment over
education content within the programme.
“I think that they have slanted towards the entertainment side rather than
the educational…you need to have something that is generous enough that
will allow enough people to watch it because it has to have a critical mass
behind it.” (Mateo Willis)
Although Mateo also makes the good point of the change in times with
broadcasting mediums and how new, diverse ways of educating, are already in
place. Something I touched on during research, in chapter two. The very future of
wildlife film making might well lie more in exploiting the new ways of
distributing and broadcasting that material as Keighron says, “Just as the early
bird catches the worm, the forward-thinking natural history program-makers
will catch the rights to exploit their footage – across all platforms, in all formats”
(Keighron, 2000).

33
“What we have nowadays is programmes that are perhaps slightly less
educational but they often come with packages underneath them that
provide more information that what we would have had before…now it is
more up to the audience, if the audience wants more then they can go and
find that information. I don’t think you can force-feed them education, I
don’t think this is the right way to do it.” (Mateo Willis)
Raymond Besant makes comment that relates to Morgan Richards’, ‘Greening
Wildlife Documentary’, when he states, “the exclusion of environmental issues in
wildlife documentary is a feature of the generic constraints of the wildlife genre.”
(Richards, 2013) This book chapter was heavily relied upon during chapter two
and has proven relevant in relation to the interview analysis.
“I think there is almost a reluctance to get involved educating in the
conservation side of things because it can be quite difficult to explain
something so simply about things that are really quite complicated so you
don’t want to dumb down the subject… I think when people watch it, they do
find it genuinely amazing and interesting but I’m not sure that they then
take it any further. I think that there is that balance between trying to
engage with people who aren’t necessarily that bothered with the animals
or environment because I think a lot of these projects and programmes are
appealing to people that are already interested.” (Raymond Besant)
The distinctive line that used to show the clear-cut areas of education and
entertainment separately is quickly merging into a grey area forming more
aesthetically pleasing television to retain audience attention yet still educating
those who are willing to listen and follow a series. Bouse states that “It is easy to
make entertaining pictures educational, but to make educational pictures
entertaining is a more difficult problem.” (Bouse, 2000) This is something that
Nigel Pope touched on and made good reference to.
“The best way that anybody learns anything is by engaging in
entertainment. I think it is increasingly important to try and engage people

34
and you can engage people by entertainment. So actually I don’t think its
possible to do education without entertainment…Attenbourghs ‘Life on
earth’, which was in 1979, 40 years ago, look at that and although bits of it
feel dated, the way its shot, the way Attenbourghs’ in vision a lot, in a way it
actually feels a bit like a lecture, but the thing that makes it so watchable is
the good story and that’s he is a good storyteller… education and
entertainment go hand in hand if you want to educate someone, its got to be
entertaining, and if its an entertaining documentary its not really a
documentary without some meaningful factual content.” (Nigel Pope)
Growing technology, editing and filming techniques are pushing productions to
produce higher quality images “to dramatize the natural world and bring wild
animals and nature to life using full colour cinematography…bringing wildlife
into the mainstream.” (Richards, 2013) This is an area of discussion that John
Aitchison recognises and relates to when he comments.
“It is possible because they are so spectacular looking that they could dilute
how educational they are…you could say that some of these films are there
to be spectacular and don’t have much content, for instance one trend at the
moment is not to say where the animals are, maybe only say which
continent they are on. If the programme is about a type of habitat like
grasslands the producers seems to think that the audience is less confused if
they are unaware of where in the world these different sequences are
filmed, so the grasslands is all one place, and in my view that is entirely the
wrong thing to do, the more information that is included… in terms of
where they are is quite a fundamental thing and might not do any harm at
all to say its Africa or in the Serengeti that this happens, because it does
happen so you could say there has been some dumbing down.” (John
Aitchison)
Even the loss of simple information like where a place is can have an effect on
the usefulness of the programme. If an aim for these programmes is to educate
and raise awareness then it is unsuccessful because the audiences don’t know
where the endangered animals or places are. Although there is also the other

35
side of this agreement that may say, if people know about these places and see
them shot beautifully then they will want to visit and build on these areas and
exploit the beauty and this is something to be discussed later in the analysis
within the raising awareness section.
Michael Pitts explains the on going debate he seems to have and one that I, too
can relate to, as on one hand these programmes, according to Bouse, “…they have
become an entertaining art” (Bouse, 2000), but on the other hand have “come to
assume a key role in the public understanding of science and environmental
issues, generating popular awareness and helping to shape public engagement
with environmental politics and conflict.” (Richards, 2013)
“Look at programmes like, ‘The Hunt’, it is absolutely beautifully shot, you
see everything in super slow motion and everything, but the bottom line is
that the producers will say we are showing you something that you would
never ordinarily see… but really you watch them and it is glossy
entertainment as a opposed to education. People watch that and think that
looks absolutely beautiful, you get lulled into it, the lovely music, and its
scenic and you’re in this remote location but it is entertainment. On the
other hand I suppose you are trying to win over people, it is like running an
advert on TV, you must sell the product.” (Michael Pitts)
Doug Allan is worried about the programmes that need to be made, are the ones
that no one is willing to commission and that there is a responsibility by the BBC
as a public broadcast service. These programmes are of high educational values
that regard conservational issues that need to be acknowledged.
“We are just having the biggest climate change and probably the most
important climate change ever, show me a single programme on BBC1 or
BBC2, in the last 6 weeks that has dealt with the climate change. There isn’t
one. That, in my eyes, is a terrible, sad aggregation of responsibility and
public liability that the BBC is showing. The BBC is a public responsive
organization, they have a duty to show any issues and educate people and in

36
this case, I think, they have utterly and lawfully failed… I still think it shows
a total lack of courage at the top and a total lack of imagination at the top
for them to be saying that they don’t think they could make something
interesting or because the public isn’t interested. Well they should be doing
their part to make the public interested, because they are highly important
issues.” (Doug Allan)
It seems that the entertainment value has perhaps gone too far already and that
the BBC may stuck in a loop, having to fund programming and needing to make it
more entertaining so it can be viewed and sold more widely in order for them to
fund the next important issues. It now seems as if they make aim to make money
to fund and commission a worthy helpful programme but are too afraid it wont
be as successful and popular as something more entertaining and they don’t
make enough money to budget for the next programme.
The general outcome of this theme is that, although the balance is important
there are valid points made on both sides of the scale. Education and
entertainment do seem to need one another to survive within broadcasting and
even if this balance shifts from time to time, more so recently towards
entertainment, there are newer ways to share the burden of completing all aims
of production. After the production of BBCs blue planet and planet earth, there
has seemed to be a spike for these types of television programmes “48% of the
UK population watched at least 15 minutes of ‘Frozen Planet’ (2011), a
remarkable figure considering the fragmentation of audiences brought about by
the rise of digital broadcasting and online media.” (Richards, 2013) This rise of
digital broadcasting and online media seems to be the direction these wildlife
series are heading in. Hosting information on more accessible mediums allows
audiences to gain information when they want it. The downside to this is it may
only be of interest to those who already take on board what the documentaries
and series are made and aiming to do. Therefore by removing information from
something to make it more entertaining and offering the information elsewhere,
there is a chance that the information on a separate medium is completely lost
and audiences then see only the entertainment factor of the package, allowing

37
them believe all is well within the planet when in actual fact the reason the series
is being broadcast was initially intended to educate audiences of the problems
and dangers the nature world faces.

38
Part 2: Animal privacy
Animal privacy is an important factor within wildlife filmmaking. It is an on
going issue and will always be at the front of filmmaker’s minds. The main
interview question regarding this theme was, how do you feel about animal
privacy and what do you do in order to maintain respect of the animals and
environment?
It is clear that “the BBC acknowledges that ‘audiences are increasingly concerned
about the possible impact such filming might have on the wildlife and their
surroundings’.” (Mills, 2010) It is also clear that from the interview data, it can
be said that each participant has their own set of ethics as well as those enforced
by employers.
“Well when you go into a rainforest or you go underwater, just by that you
are disturbing that environment and you have to do it in a way which you
are respecting what lives in that forest or on that reef, you don’t start
breaking bits of the coral off or walk on the coral. You just have to treat it
with respect, its like being in a china shop like you wouldn’t go in there like
a spinning top.” (Michael Pitts)
It is also an obvious aim that it is natural behaviour that you are looking to film
so you need to aim for that and that “the mere presence of the camera can
change animal behaviour – not to mention the careful post-shot editing that has
often served to heighten the ‘animal-drama’.” (Bagust, 2008)
“I think it partly comes down to the individual involved and how they feel
about how far they will go in order to get a shot so I think I’m always pretty
wary and aware of the effects of disturbance because it can be quite subtle
sometimes… if they are doing well then they either get advice form RSPB or
someone that knows that areas that knows that particular bird or animal
that could say ‘it would be better if you just stayed a certain distance
away…you are really looking for is natural behaviour and that is not going

39
to happen if you are right on top of the animal or too close and I think
generally wildlife cameramen have a pretty good knowledge of wildlife
overall, they have an interest.” (Raymond Besant)
Although Derek Bousé makes a valid point in this argument that does not bode
well for the integrity of wildlife filmmakers and he states that “evasive filming
techniques that allow filmmaker to probe, to prod and to reveal are not
discouraged, providing for entirely different kinds of behaviours to be
shown…usually without objects from either subjects or the audience.” (Bousé,
2000)
“We tend to work with a strict set of ethics, which is partly dictated by the
organisation we work for, so say the BBC or other big independent
companies we work for, but I think what you will also find is that the
majority of cameramen will have their own set of ethics, that has stemmed
from an upbringing around wildlife, watching the animals ever since they
were kids and all the cameramen I have worked with have a pretty clearly
defined sense of what is acceptable and what is not. The holy grail of wildlife
filming is to capture natural behaviour that is not modified by human
presence, now obviously to a certain extent your never going to get pure
natural behaviour because by the mere fact of having a camera there you’re
putting something into the animals environment that is not natural…I think
there is always a fine line, you’ve got to be very careful and always keep the
animals welfare at the front of your mind and the need of your production
should never overwhelm the rights of the animal you’re filming, if you know
what I mean. The animal always comes first, in every respect. I don’t see it
as a problem and certainly as time has gone by there is more emphasis
placed on ethics and I think that is a good thing, its more and more at the
forefront of peoples minds.” (Mateo Willis)
Bousé states in his book, ‘Wildlife Films” that, “many wildlife shots are routinely
obtained through concealment, that might be seen as unethical if dealing with

40
human subjects instead of animals.” (Bousé, 2000) An example of this is the use
of hides for filming birds as John explains.
“I think it is really important and we haven’t got any right to go somewhere
and disturb or work in a business to the detriment of any animal at all…if I
am deciding what to do, how to film something, the very first priority is, will
it affect the animal? We use hides a lot for that reason when filming birds,
there are ways to use hides which are minimally disturbing… some are very
sensitive to the reflections in the glass in the lens, you’ve got to be really
cautious and if its obviously not working then I immediately pull out and I’ll
move the hide. Its vital to do that.” (John Aitchison)
Nigel Pope raises the point of over crowding in some popular filming locations,
which is worrying for the animals and the environment where they are filming
and also the fact that these locations may then become a popular area for
tourists and it has been said, “human movement around the world for leisure
purposes is seen to have significant environmental effects, particularly as ‘In
many cases it is the non-human members of our ecological community that are
hardest hit by tourism.” (Mills, 2010)
“Well we wouldn’t achieve the level quality we achieve if we went around
disturbing animals in their natural environment, what we are trying to film
is them naturally anyway so our ethical code is pretty rigorous and the way
we film stuff is generally using scientists or experts or people who see this
stuff day to day so you know we don’t just walk up and start chasing stuff
around because that wouldn’t produce the results we’re after… I think it has
gone a bit too far because certain spots have turned into wildlife
filmmakers’ circus. There is so much programming being created that yeah I
think ethically some production companies and producers are pushing it a
bit and trying to get more content out of a place that just can’t handle it.”
(Nigel Pope)

41
Doug Allan has similar thoughts and brings into consideration the use of new
technology for filming to create distance between filmmakers and the animals,
just as suggested by Bousé when he states “wildlife filmmakers regularly use
long telephoto lenses to get close ups, often resulting in an illusion of close
proximity to the subject.” (Bousé, 2000)
“You might find people thinking, ‘well a scientist does it so its ok’, but there
are some scientists whose morals and whose respect for wildlife and welfare
for the subject is clouded by the fact that it if for science so they need to get
what they went to get. It is a very grey area it depends on your own morals
and respect. If someone were really intrusive that would raise the issue. The
BBC insists that if anyone is unhappy that there is a way of raising those
issues. There are always going to be grey areas. I think that with new
technology like the cineflex camera is wonderful stabilised camera system
that allows you to unobtrusive… on the other hand the public are expecting
more and more intimate views of what we film, and it may just be that we
need to look at each case and each animal individually with their different
reactions and environments. If you are really unhappy about the effects of
filming then you notify the producer and tell them what is happening and
your concern.” (Doug Allan)
This theme was one that all the interview subjects agreed on when it comes to
filming and respecting animal privacy. It seems that being passionate for wildlife
has given them their own ethics but also the companies they work for share the
similar ethical code for filming the animals and environments. They regard
animal privacy and respecting the environment highly within their careers and
know how important is to maintain this and pass this way of working on to other
filmmakers and the audiences. Mills raises a question that I myself hadn’t
thought much about but now see it would have been a more critical question in
the interview process. “The question constantly posed by wildlife documentaries
is how animals should be filmed: they never engage with the debate as to
whether animals should be filmed at all.” This statement is one I regret I did not

42
pursue further as I feel it may have opened up even more discussion from
participants, as filming animals is 90%, if not 100% of their career.

43
Part 3: Raising Awareness
It has become clear that raising awareness is a big aim for this form of
programming and that it is an element most filmmakers will try to succeed in
making known. The main interview question regarding this theme was, what do
you think about raising awareness and do you think these programmes achieve
this?
Mills stated “Wildlife documentaries are therefore understoodas an ethical way
to ‘raise the audience’s awareness of the world around them and teach them
about the environment’.” Something most interview participants will agree on.
“I think that more so recently that they have tried to get the conservation
message as well as the fun side of it so they do quite a mix of different style
of things on the watches…’Winterwatch’ was more like a wildlife news
programme, it was really what was happening that week and this once
concentrated on the effects that the weather was having on the winter
wildlife because there had been lots of flooding and they investigated that
and they did a programme on how planting trees could help.” (Raymond
Besant)
Michael Pitts thinks that it is the younger generation that has been targeted and
that people are taking more notice of the world we live in and this may speak
truth as for raising world awareness to the public, “Disney established film as an
important propaganda tool in the enlisting of public support for environmental
causes” (Mitman, 1999).
“People say younger people are more aware now, all age groups actually,
older people now look at it and you look at what is happening to the world,
the changes that are taking place and I think everybody is more aware now
that we have a very precious planet. The barrier reefs series, I’ve just
worked on, the big one with David Attenbourgh, just won its first big award,
that programme really dealt with what is happening on the great barrier

44
reef. We all think of the great barrier reef is this beautiful reef and even that
is under pressure and the reef you see now is 50% less than what it was in
1960, because of how much coral has died, it is incredible. It looks beautiful
but actually so much of it has already gone.” (Michael Pitts)
When talking about “popular arts, for example film,” Curtis said, “Such features
make the arts a valuable tool to raise awareness and highlight particular issues.”
(Curtis, 2011) Willis agrees there is some notion of raising awareness but he also
notices that it is not a final fix, it is only a link in the chain and more could be
done to help.
“I think that the more we can perhaps share the mystery and wonder of the
natural world the more care and attention it has. I think as we become
more urbanised, people lose touch with the natural environment to a
certain extent and one of the few ways that we have in connecting with
wildlife species is with watching them on television and most of these
animals, none of us will ever get to see, because they live in the deepest of
oceans or polar regions or tops of mountains or deepest jungles and so to
see the behaviour and stories I think this allows us to understand a little bit
more about what is happening in the natural world. So when it comes to
appreciation of it and therefore perhaps taking some steps to conserve it, I
think they have some affect, I don’t think it is a one stop solution, I think it is
part of the toolbox to going in some way to doing something about it. I don’t
think there is any doubt that the natural world is in trouble, it is certainly
the one thing I have seen from growing up in it as a kid, now I go back to
film a lot of these places and there is just a shear number of people on the
planet, there is no two ways about it, everything has so much greater
pressure on it.” (Mateo Willis)
This is a point that Doug Allan also goes on to discuss and it is a catch-22 that is
in the industry and looks to always be in the industry. The aim is to make people
aware of the problems on this planet but to do this filmmakers need to show off
these problems and the planet which means stress and pressure can be put on

45
these specific areas when filmmakers go to capture their needed footage, but if
they were to refrain from doing anything at all the situation would only worsen,
quicker.
“People around the world need to be shown the wonders of the world in
order to appreciate it, people will not protect what they don’t understand, I
think there is an element of truth in that… what usually happens is that
when we show people wonderful things, more people want to see those
wonderful things for themselves, which brings more pressure on the remote
wild areas of the planet, and you feel like you can’t share this because if you
do people will go and build hotels there and I think by showing nature and
all its wonder and how wonderful it is like it has no problems, then people
don’t actually think that there is problems and you can always add on at the
end, a bit of news, that it looks like there are problems and it is hard to
integrate that into wildlife series and you don’t see things like that because
they would fade very quickly and if you show those issues that you’ve filmed,
you give it a very short shelf life and you make it harder to sell on television.
The fact that they may do some good is neither here nor there and I don’t
think they do any good and they must be blinding people from the real
issues.” (Doug Allan)
Unfortunately Doug Allan has made the most controversial point within this
study of this theme and it is one that is contradicting to his own career and work
he has done before but this shows that he has credit in being able to point out
these issues because he knows that these programmes may not working they
way they had expected or hoped and even having the opposite effect. This
something that is also pointed out by Mills in saying “it is shown by the rationale
that often supports wildlife documentaries and the invasion of spaces by humans
and their recording technology; that showing humanity the wonders of the world
is one way to encourage environmentalism.” (Mills, 2010) This is the reasoning
behind making such a footprint on the environment. It seems that a little
pressure on the world from filmmakers to help raise awareness is better than
the world having no awareness at all. It is a small price to pay and sacrifice that

46
apparently needs to be in place. On the other hand because these series, as Doug
stated above, are not hard hitting enough on the conservational aspect, the
audiences do recognise that the world is suffering and in danger as this
apparently would not make for good television.
Nigel Pope also recognizes that a newer, more diverse form needs to be
produced but he points out why it may not be possible.
“I mean one of the ways we are diversifying with the company is
increasingly we are working with partnerships with NGO, were making a
couple of programmes just now, for something called the peoples
partnership, and their environmental awareness docs, and hopefully they’re
entertaining too, they’re about Scotland…so its really critical actually, but it
needs some big gestures from broadcasters to make a difference and I don’t
see that that happening at the moment, I don’t see that from the BBC and I
think those broadcasters could go a wee bit further. The BBC would argue
that it’s not within their remit, but that’s a bit of grey area, I think other
people like David Attenbourgh would actually challenge on that.” (Nigel
Pope)
John Aitchison has similar views to Doug and Nigel as he points out only one
major independent movie has managed to come forward with a real impact on
what is going on in the natural world.
“’Racing Extinction’ is an independent movie and what I understand they
put on discovery that it’s the actual film and that’s a really hard hitting film
about conservation but also the beauty of nature and we could’ve done that
on television and we could have been doing that on television for 20 years
but we haven’t been, we’ve been keeping nature fascinating and then
separately nature in trouble and its not much of the latter really. It doesn’t
really give a coherent message in my view.” (John Aitchison)

47
Overall this theme had been the most interesting to discuss as it has a balance in
opinion and debate. Although they can all agree that in some way these
programmes do raise awareness but it seems that the subjects with more
experience and years on their career have already noticed the problem with
trying to raise awareness using this specific form of documentary. They have
noticed that the biggest message that they need to convey is missing. They can
see that something more needs to be done but this is hard to make possible
without the support from companies and bigger broadcasters.

48
Part 4: The future of wildlife documentary
The future and where wildlife documentary is heading is a factor that is
interesting to discuss. It opens up possibilities of new approaches, ideas and
generates discussion of multimedia broadcasting. The main interview question
regarding this theme was, where do you see the future of wildlife filmmaking and
how do we achieve this?
“I think yeah, there will always be future, with the licence fee of the BBC, but
its down to small independent production companies around the country…I
think the BBC with the licensing fees, they get money in Bristol and they still
make the big blue-chip series because the can still sell them worldwide, they
go to America, Germany, Australia, all over the place, they always sell those,
it is not a problem. It is the lesser programmes, the half hour programmes
on say six hours on birds of Britain, and those sorts of things don’t sell so
well…I think that the big blue-chip series are going to be much more
reduced…what they may well do is create links for YouTube and just do it
like that.” (Michael Pitts)
Nigel Pope agrees in the sense that it seems is may no longer be as confined to
television and has the potential to move with times onto more popular mediums
and recognises that there are demands for more from productions, bigger, better,
more unique and “become increasingly subject to the demands of ratings
conscious schedulers.” (Kilborn, 2006).
“Well Netflix have just commissioned one of the most expensive natural
history series ever, Amazon are watching very carefully to see what
happens, so yes I am sure there is a future for it. How it expresses itself in
terms of the shape of what is commissioned and how it is created and where
is ends up, I don’t know but yeah I think there is a market for sure.” (Nigel
Pope)

49
Raymond Besant also agrees that online is a place where everything seems more
important and noticed and it is a good way forward for the future and maybe
‘online’ something that could help save budgets as Keighron states, “the genre
has been pushed to the verge of extinction in many primetime slots and is being
squeezed everywhere by broadcasters’ dwindling budgets.” (Keighron, 2000).
“There is still a lot of content being made and I think what you’ll probably
continue to see is these kind of blue-chip series that have the programme on
the end basically rather than messages right through those programmes,
essentially they are films about animal behaviour, I think for those top end
blue-chip films you will continue to see behaviour based films with possibly
a film at the end dedicated to conservation work that is going on with the
animals in the series. I think as far as programmes like the watches go, I
think they’re probably actually a really good vehicle for getting people
involved with wildlife conservation because they have not just the
programme now but they have ‘Unsprung’ afterwards, specific things, you
have an entire team dedicated to online content so as well as the
programme, there is always stuff being updated on twitter and Facebook
pages. That is a really powerful way of getting messages across and if you
look on Twitter I think they have thousands of followers so it seems a good
vehicle to me to promote issues.” (Raymond Besant)
Although according to Richards “The landmark format proved to be a hugely
popular format. ‘Life on Earth’ attracted average UK audiences of 15 million – an
exceptionally high figure for a documentary at that time on BBC2 – and an even
larger global audience.” (Richards, 2013) Times have changed and the move
from television broadcasting to online content seems ever more likely now but
Mateo Willis is adamant that won’t make too much of a difference and that there
will always be a place for these programmes no matter what happens.
“I think that as long as there is always a natural environment, then there
will always be a market for it, there is always a need or desire from an
audience to watch natural history programmes. There is always a certain

50
element of the population that are going to want to watch natural history
programmes because they are entertaining, because they take you to a
different world that you have no experience of, because they are
educational, for a multitude of reasons. I think that the way we make the
programs and the scale and size that we make the programmes will change,
it is very much an industry that is in transition at the moment because there
are so many changes… It is not a stable industry and who knows what will
happen but there will always be a market for them.” (Mateo Willis)
John Aitchison thinks these programmes will grow more globally depending on
the intentions of filmmakers and commissioners. He has also pointed out that
Britain seems to be a bigger target for wildlife filmmaking and that audiences
seem to already be interested but what stands out in his eyes is that it is places
out with the UK that need to be gripped and influenced by these programmes to
really make a difference.
“There are two things there and one is, what the programme makers do and
the other is what the audience or commissioners do…they each have a
different aim in terms of how popular they want the thing to be, in terms of
style but also in their expectation of how many people are going to watch it
so a programme on BBC1 will be much more liked on the information than a
programme on BBC2, the one on BBC4 might have a much more intense
concentration level required where you might be listening to someone talk
about photosynthesis or something which they almost would never touch on
BBC1 their themes are going to be about hunting or babies or growing up so
in the future I think probably those divisions will stay but I suspect that as
they reach, they expand, so now if programmes made on BBC1 used to be
aired on BBC1, in the UK and online might be sold abroad on what channel
it can at that time and then in time I think it is just going to be available
globally and people can pay for it and download it and that will be that. I
suppose the most poplar programmes that will determine the trend will be
the ones that are globally popular and appeal to a much broader range of
people and to be honest the most broad range of people in the world know a

51
lot less about and a lot less interested in and care less about wildlife than
people in Britain do on average, I think. In our history in this country it has
been one of animal welfare and tolerance of animals and interest in natural
history.” (John Aitchison)
It is now apparently common knowledge that “The British have rediscovered
their age-old passion for wildlife” (Moss 2012), as John discussed when talking
about the future of wildlife programming and that it is outwith the UK that need
to become interested and gripped by such programmes.
Doug Allan stands by his views on how informative these programmes are or are
not and would like to see more education then entertainment within these
programmes, something that will actually help make people aware and make a
difference.
“Well we have beautiful, voluptuous pictures and they are becoming lovelier
than they have ever been, we are seeing more and more of these films of the
natural world and maybe we will just keep on reinventing the wheel. What
I’d like to see is a better and newer story telling technique and storytelling
being developed along with high end filming of wildlife. I would like to see
more documentaries commissioned about the issues and more scientists and
their work. I would like to see a higher level of information. The place where
you can go to learn about something is now not television, its radio. I think
there is a gap and BBC4 is trying to fill it and I think the commissioners in
general are still missing this. It is hard because these things need to be
simplified and charismatic to work but with more to it, they could be more
effective.” (Doug Allan)
Doug makes a good point in saying that radio is now becoming a better medium
than television for these issues that need to be raised as “radio material is
relatively cheap to produce”(Aldridge and Dingwall, 2003), but is still adamant
that companies and commissioners are not seeing this yet. This may be because,
according to Aldridge and Dingwall the “core domestic audience for Radio 4 is

52
taken to be mid-life, comparatively well-educated adults” (Aldridge and
Dingwall, 2003) and this may not be the audience that commissioners feel they
want to reach out too, as these audiences are already interested and the need to
create interest from those who do not already tune in.
Overall the theme of where the future is heading for these programmes is
something that no one can tell us for certain. It is in hope that the audiences
grow and these issues become noticed more but it comes down to the fact that
the information is not out there and doesn’t seem to getting pushed out there
yet. Therefore there will the cycle of trying to reinvent what has already been
done, trying to make series and programmes more popular online or via Netflix
but it essentially wont make a difference if the audiences are not receiving the
information and learning about the issues that need focused on.
The final comment I will make in this chapter is that the choice for a qualitative
study with a phenomenological approach has definitely been suitable. Using case
study and literature research to conduct semi-structured interviews with
industry specialists that have been selected through purposive sampling
methods has proven beneficial to this study and use of thematic analysis to
identify key themes and ideas has also determined the desired results for this
particularly open ended research study.

FDonaldsonResProFinal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to FDonaldsonResProFinal

Similar to FDonaldsonResProFinal (20)

FDonaldsonResProFinal