Since January 12, 2012 nearly 160 common dolphins stranded at the Cape Cod, USA. Only few were rescued and the rest died on their own or were euthanized. We believe that the media coverage of this event is extremely biased, does not provide all available scientific data and omits very important information as well. Just today 3 more common dolphins were found dead, this time in Ocean City, NJ and we believe that these dolphins should also be considered a part of Cape Cod mass stranding. We reported earlier on a common dolphin spotted in Ocean City lagoon on February 10 and believe this is the same dolphin that was found dead along with 2 others. Furthermore there were two large whales strandings on January 25 (minke and humpback) one in North Carolina, another on Florida’s Atlantic coast that can be also related to the Cape Cod event.
We have been reporting on Cape Cod mass stranding since its beginning and collected a good sample of media articles devoted to this event. Below is the analysis of information provided to the public by rescues, authorities, government officials, etc. Fifteen articles have been randomly selected for the analysis to see what is presented to the public.We analyzed key themes and the frequency of how often they were mentioned. This analysis only includes written articles (n=15), not video reports.
|
Key Themes |
# of times mentioned in n=15 media articles |
|
Stranding cause is unknown |
11 |
|
This stranding is out of ordinary |
11 |
|
Cape Cod is a hot spot for strandings |
8 |
|
Dolphins are social/they follow the leader who is sick or disoriented |
8 |
|
Cape Cod topography contributes to stranding |
7 |
|
Strandings have been happening at the Cape Cod for centuries |
4 |
|
Stranding is due to food resources |
4 |
|
Stranding is due to weather, climate change |
4 |
|
January through April is a typical stranding season |
3 |
|
Acoustic disorientation (problems with echolocation) |
2 |
|
Dolphins get disoriented at the Cape Cod |
2 |
|
This stranding event is perfectly normal, happens every 10-20 years |
2 |
|
Geo-magnetism |
2 |
|
Acoustic disruption |
1 |
|
Disease is not a factor |
1 |
|
Navy sonar |
1 |
|
Bacterial or viral infections |
1 |
|
Noise interferes with dolphins’ echolocation |
1 |
|
Fluctuations of the North Atlantic oscillation |
1 |
|
Navy Exercise COMPTUEX |
0 |
|
Navy Exercise BOLD ALLIGATOR |
0 |
|
UK Cornwall common dolphins mass stranding in 2008 |
0 |
|
Minke/humpback whales strandings |
0 |
This analysis shows that some themes are more prominent than others and that some themes are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all. Interestingly, some themes that are frequently mentioned by the media do not have much empirical research done to support the commonly held belief. For example, very little is known about how dolphins navigate or how their echolocation works in very shallow water, and yet it is cited often when it comes to mass strandings. But perhaps the most important aspect of this analysis is what was not mentioned even once in these 15 randomly selected articles. Something to think about…..
Resources used in analysis:
I appreciate your concern and agree with your conclusion but, for the sake of accuracy, would like some points cleared up, please.
1) You don’t describe how you chose your “random sample” of news items.
2) You don’t comment on the conflicting reports such as “This stranding is out of ordinary” c.f. “This stranding event is perfectly normal, happens every 10-20 years”
3) Several of the categories seem to have considerable overlap. Can we assume that different sources chose different phrases or that one source used several?
e.g.
Acoustic disorientation (problems with echolocation) / Acoustic disruption / Noise interferes with dolphins’ echolocation /
These may all be related to “Navy sonar” and the exercises you mention. How did you decide to separate them?
Just as alarming as the choice of what to leave out is the media’s interpretation of the data itself.
By: Simon on February 14, 2012
at 5:00 am
“Just as alarming as the choice of what to leave out is the media’s interpretation of the data itself.”
We do not see it as alarming as you’re implying it to be and here is why.
1. The sample was randomly chosen from the Google News search for “beached dolphins+Cape Cod”, “stranded dolphins+Cape Cod”. We tried to include articles from the beginning of the event to the most recent one.
2. The conflicting reports such as “This stranding is out of ordinary” c.f. “This stranding event is perfectly normal, happens every 10-20 years” are exactly what is given to the public and also reflect bias in media’s coverage and frankly strange things to tell to the public because they are, indeed, conflicting.
3. When you say that categories overlap we do not agree, because these categories are too ambiguous to overlap. For example acoustic disorientation could be due to being in shallow water and not sonar like you imply. Acoustic disruption is a vague term which can be pretty much anything. Noise interferes with echolocation can be also many things including shipping, sonar, airguns. So to put it all together with Navy sonar is not exactly a right thing to do. Because when you talk about Navy sonar, you do not beat around the bush with all these ambiguous terms but say it as it is. This ambiguity only adds to the biasing reporting on this unfortunate incident when everybody is trying desperately not to talk about the Navy connection at all costs.
By: strandednomore on February 14, 2012
at 2:08 pm
Sorry to be ambiguous. Devil’s advocates are often misunderstood.
I was referring to “the media’s interpretation of the data itself” not to *your* interpretation.
I merely wished to point out some weaknesses in your *presentation* that could give REAL opponents (of whom I am not one) opportunities to deny your conclusions, and some points that could be MORE significant if presented collectively.
For example: to “these categories are too ambiguous to overlap” I would say they are too ambiguous to distinguish between and hence should all go in one category. But do such ambiguous comments deserve a category anyway?
What would be interesting to know is whether these several different terms are different writers’ various ways of expressing one problem or different problems referred to by one writer. The former would count as plural items in a single category while the latter is only one item in one category.
I’d be inclined to show how *the media* (not you!) fail to represent the data accurately by stressing that writers come to totally opposite conclusions in some cases and leave things ambiguous when they don’t know what to call it.
“1. The sample was randomly chosen from the Google News search for “beached dolphins+Cape Cod”, “stranded dolphins+Cape Cod”. We tried to include articles from the beginning of the event to the most recent one.”
This does not explain how you randomly chose the articles. Without such an explanation opponents can easily dismiss your choice as cherry picking.
E.g. “We chose every third relevant article from the results of a Google search for “xx”, every day for the period date1 ~ date2. from the first 100 hits” etc. You need also to be careful of biasing the data by choosing a smaller portion of the data from days when there were lots of hits than from days when there were few. Fewer hits means fewer readers means less influence on the public. You also need to explain how and why you cope with duplicate reports; many news companies will refer to the same item from AP or Kyodo, which will affect the balance of the concepts and terms reported.
Good luck!
Simon
By: Simon V on February 16, 2012
at 3:35 am
The ambiguity is most likely used to try and avoid talking about the Navy, sonar, etc. When someone says that stranding is due to “acoustic disturbances” everybody will scratch their heads, saying what exactly is that? The writers are most likely working with what rescues and govt. officials give them, it is very hard to imagine that the authors of these articles have any extensive knowledge on the subject, but instead just parroting what they are told. The saddest thing that they are parroting complete and utter bs. For example PBS (!) published the article today where the “expert” (who is amazingly a manager of the Stranding Investigations Program at Mote Marine Laboratory) told the media complete nonsense like this: “Stranded dolphins usually die from the sudden onset of gravity…They’re designed to be buoyant, and pressure from gravity on land can crush their bodies, causing organ failure”. Now the PBS is naturally clueless so they took it and published. Any other person even slightly familiar with cetaceans biology and diving physiology would say, wait a minute. These animals dive on regular basis and expose their bodies to much greater pressures compared to their own weight (tiny common dolphins). In fact their bodies are designed to withstand such pressures. Next, the person would say that “dying from gravity” is not exactly what necropsies show in case of mass strandings (another topic for a future blog). But alas, the media publishes what they are told, because they are clueless, do not ask any questions and perpetuates idiotic assumptions about strandings that have zero truth to them.
As for random selection, you have a point, but still we picked the articles from the Google search just like any other regular member of the public would do while searching for the info. Because no member of the public picks “every third relevant article”. If we were to do a scientific study then yes, it would be the way to go. For this blog it was just an attempt to show what the public gets in terms of mass stranding coverage.
By: strandednomore on February 16, 2012
at 11:36 pm
“If we were to do a scientific study then yes, it would be the way to go. ”
I beg your pardon. Your inclusion of such scientific style as noting (n=15) led me to assume that’s what you were attempting. So I must reverse my position and compliment you on what (for a blog item) is a pretty good article.
m(_ _)m
I agree entirely with your comments on ambiguity. We suffer from the same problem here in Japan in that details of the slaughter of dolphins and other cetaceans are frequently misappropriated, misquoted and misunderstood, before being plastered all over the internet, sometimes with deliberate intent to mislead. The “Tsunami donations used to fund whaling!” hoax was one of those.
I am involved in translating Japanese documents on conservation matters. If I can be of help, please find me among Kirsten’s friends on FB.
By: Simon V on February 17, 2012
at 2:12 am
[...] groups. The rescue teams are at the scene when the news breaks about a beaching. They are the paid experts who guide the media and keep the navy and oil industry from taking any blame. They are always saying that, “We don’t know why whales beach themselves.” At [...]
By: GOVERNMENT COVER-UP OR SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE? « dolphinfriend on February 15, 2012
at 6:51 pm
I just wrote a comment when I attempted to share this article. It seemed of reasonable length but it never reached my time line. I did ask if anyone could find an article/picture showing the USS James Williams a sonar laden ship conducting active firing in the area adjacent to the general Cape Cod area dated Jan. 12. Would submit that to Simon he seems intent on discounting anything you have to say, possibly he could account for the exact location of this ship or any other in the vicinity. If in fact it was present it would appear that it may have been associated with a fleet operation. Based on what I have read for the NOAA Permit for the Boston Naval Complex, this would make this activity a violation as only 1 ship is allowed to be active in that complex at any given time.
By: Ed Johnson on February 15, 2012
at 11:53 pm
Here is this link. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=64784
The photo caption says: “120112-N-NL401-141 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Jan. 12, 2012) The guided-missile destroyer USS James E. Williams (DDG 95) fires the Mk-45 5-inch/62 caliber lightweight gun during a live-fire shore bombardment exercise. James E. Williams is part of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, which is underway conducting a composite training unit exercise (COMPTUEX). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Daniel J. Meshel/Released)”
The article also says that “The exercises offer Sailors valuable experience operating the many different areas of the destroyer’s assets; including weapons, navigation, and radar systems.” A lot of potential disturbance for marine life. Also USS James E. Williams is most likely not the only ship involved in Comptuex as they keep mentioning Enterprise Carrier Strike Group. In another article (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=61515) this group involves other vessels, in fact a lot of other vessels: “Enterprise, along with embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 1, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 12, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 2, guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), and the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry (DDG 52) and USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) are scheduled to return to Naval Station Norfolk.”
And again it could be not just sonar. We have unofficial tip that in Cornwall the helicopter noise produced during the Royal Navy exercises could have been a contributing factor. They need to disclose where and what exactly took place during Comptuex. When it started, where the vessels were, how many, what they were doing, etc. Slim chance, but without this information Comptuex absolutely cannot be discarded as a potential factor contributing to Cape Cod stranding.
By: strandednomore on February 16, 2012
at 1:08 am
Well said Stranded No More! We are dealing with a media black out at every corner in the road. I have one question for Simon. What is your relationship with the United State Navy and the Oil and Gas Industry?
By: Kirsten Massebeau (@blog4cetaceans) on February 16, 2012
at 4:02 am
Hi, Kirsten. We’ve met on FB.
I have no relationship with the military of any country. What makes you think I do? To think so means you must have misread or skipped part of my previous posts.
The only connection I can think of is that I am strongly opposed to the plans to landflll the dugong habitat in Okinawa to build a US Marines base.
I was an oceanography major (over 30 years ago) but didn’t go into the field precisely because all the jobs going were in the undersea prospecting industries. In fact I was “unpopular” with some of my instructors because of my comments regarding the effects of the noise of seismic surveying on wildlife.
My comments on this survey are intended simply to eliminate its vulnerabilities and produce something which can be quoted to other scientists.
By: Simon V on February 16, 2012
at 3:52 pm
“Would submit that to Simon he seems intent on discounting anything you have to say, possibly he could account for the exact location of this ship or any other in the vicinity. If in fact it was present it would appear that it may have been associated with a fleet operation.” This was my comment to what Simon had said in his first posting. So it is open mouth and insert foot, event at 72 and still eating shoe leather. After reading his second which did not occur until a moment ago, what an asset he is such a critical thinker, makes me think I should just stop and do nothing on issues such as these. However that is the easy way out. I am a rather poor writer and make many mistakes but the greater damage would be if I said and did nothing, a path many have taken on this issue.
I just received an email suggesting that I take a look at the currents in the Cape Cod area. It was pointed out that the currents upstream are responsible for the strandings like the Nova Scotia area. In that area particularly off the SW coast a significant amount of oil exploration is underway and could be responsible for the dolphin deaths. On the other hand I read in one of the permit applications for the COMPTUXZ JTFEX THAT THE PERMIT EXTENDED ALL THE WAY TO THE 45 PARALLEL. That could mean activity all the way to the Canadian border and include the SW part of Nova Scotia.
What to believe, how about a satellite map pinpointing all ships during the entire Comptuex operations, too much to ask for sure.
By: Edward Johnson on February 22, 2012
at 7:52 am