Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sir David vs. Bear Grylls
#1
Sir David Attenborough has criticized Bear Grylls for his shows because he kills animals. Sir David has never killed an animal in his shows. There have been a number of animal kills on Bear Grylls shows.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/52...he-island/

The animals are being killed inhumanely and Sir David feels it is being done to boost ratings.
A lot of regular viewers were not happy either.

I don't know what can be done to stop this killing. Certainly not watching the shows and complaining to the network that airs it is a start. I suppose you could boycott the network or any channel that airs any Bear Grylls show.

I don't think I get any channels like that anyhow. I can check. I can always drop the channel if it has a Bear Grylls show on it.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#2
Channel 4 is a free-to-air channel in the UK. So not watching it will have little effect. However, letters from UK residents to the channel could have an effect, if enough were sent. Letters are, to some extent, more effective than emails, as they need to be opened, sorted, read by the staff (and replied to - provided the complainant requires an answer in writing).

The killing of animals for entertainment is deplorable, but sadly seems engrained in some poor examples of humans. It is disturbing, however, that this is being watched on a public free-to-air channel by millions of people. They watch celebrities killing animals and get the idea that it could be "cool" for them to emulate the idea. The whole concept is terrible.
Reply
#3
I doubt we get the program here, but maybe some services provide it. You are right complaints sent direct to the station would be the most effective response. You are right that a letter rather than an email is more visually effective. It is easy to delete emails and hit reply all. A letter does require effort even to open it and see what it is.

This tendency to make entertainment out of killing animals seems to be a sad human characteristic, one I had hoped we were outgrowing. When it is celebrities promoting the killing it is worse because people seem to think celebrities  should be imitated.

I hope the voice of a great man like Sir David will be enough to make people think and then reject people like Bear Grylls.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#4
I am glad David Attenborough has spoken up about this. People will listen to him. He himself, drew criticism a few years ago for allowing scenes of animals hunting and killing other animals for food. But that is a wholly different scenario. He was portraying the animals in their natural environment.

Bear Grylls goes too far. I question some of his "survival" techniques as well, and think that some, or maybe a large portion of what he does is sensational for the sake of it. I think he started out well, and went wrong. Maybe it's yet another case of success breeding a form of decadence? Humans seem prone to that unless they are very true to decent principles.
But it is the producers of such shows who are to blame really. Yes they care more about the shock factor raising viewing ratings, than anything else. Just greed again.
Reply
#5
I have never seen a show with Bear Grylls. I find most survival shows are ridiculous and have little to do with actual survival skills. I assume Bear Grylls is the same. His shows in the early years might have had some survival information, but that doesn't keep the ratings up. People want sensational so he has to do more and more outrageous things to keep his ratings up.

You camping on a mountainside knew more about survival than he does. He does his survival tricks with a film crew in tow and a whole lot of supplies. What he does is all about dominating the environment and showing how "powerful" he is. Real survival is about adapting to the environment and living within it as part of that environment.

When he kills things on his show it is for the shock value because shocking things boost ratings. 
I doubt he could survive if it was a real survival situation. I just wish people had better sense than to watch things like that.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#6
There are many things he does on the shows which do not make sense in a survival situation. His bushcraft skills are also not brilliant. There are many bushcrafters doing very well on YouTube. Names that have become very well-known on YouTube and who have a big following and are genuinely respected. One young man is now earning a good living for his family, by doing what he loves best -spending time in the woods with his dog! He has decent principles which don't waver, good skills, a sense of humour, and gratitude towards all those things which have allowed him to make a career out of his abilities and support his wife and child.
Bear Grylls could learn something from those young men and women.
Reply
#7
I agree. That young man on YouTube sounds like he knows something. Bear Grylls could learn something from him.

I check my TV line up and there is a Bear Grylls show in there, but not on a channel I recognize or pay for. There are always free trial channels. After a month or two you have to choose to pay for it if you want it. So I get to say no to a channel that carries Bear Grylls shows. I don't plan to watch that channel even when it is free.

People should use common sense. People who really know about survival don't need a fancy show with a film crew. They can just go out into the woods and survive.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Created by Zyggy's Web Design