The New York Times uses “shark bite” language more often when reporting on shark “attacks.”

A new study published this week in the journal Biology has found an increase in the use of the phrase “shark bite” in reporting by The New York Times about shark “attacks.” Why does that matter?

The type of language The New York Times uses when it reports on shark “attacks” is important for three reasons:

1. The more people think sharks intentionally “attack” people, the less they support shark conservation. Shark “attack” is harming sharks.
2. Between 32–39% of reported shark “attacks” have no injury. Shark “attack” is misinforming the public.
3. Surveys show that about 66% of the public thinks “shark attack” as a phrase is too sensational. Shark “attack” is being rejected by the public.

This debate began with a question raised at the Sharks International Conference in Cairns, Australia in 2010 by Dr. Christine Ward-Paige to me about whether I thought this was accurate language. The response to this question was developed into a TED Talk (The myth of the rogue shark) and since then has been a bit of a passion project for me.