Martin Hughes-Games suggested that TV nature programmes show a Utopian view of nature and are far removed from reality. Though I can see where he is coming from as reported in the Guardian, I am not sure it's so simple.
Firstly, I would have to say that I cannot recall a time when I wasn't interested in nature (and science in general for that matter), so I cannot say whether my interest in nature programmes started with some non-specific interest that then grew into where I am now, or whether watching these media outputs was due to the interest I already had - I suspect the latter is closer to reality, which would support Martin's suggestion (with n=1 - clearly not representative!) as it wasn't the influence of the programming that has taken me on the path of supporting conservation - in all probability, it would have happened anyway.
Secondly, as a child, I was interested in nature, not conservation - I am not sure I fully appreciated the meaning of the word in my early years, though I did join the YOC (Young Ornithologists Club - see about half way down this page). I did understand the concept of rarity and extinction and could recount examples (and, I think, still have some of the books), such as that of the passenger pigeon and great auk, but this was in my teenage years. It was while at secondary school that I read everything I could on dolphins and even a book by Gerald Durrell (My Family and Other Animals) was involved in the curriculum somewhere, though I can't recall exactly where. I was told by one teacher that I would grow up to be a very boring person because I only read factual books, never willingly reading fiction - that teacher was probably right!
So, does Martin have a point? - maybe, but I would say that wildlife on TV has to attract audiences, which means it has to be spectacular in some way - if a programme was basically a lecture, few, other than hardened nature enthusiasts, would watch - so there has to be story telling, skilful editing and using the latest tech, but I would argue that, though these programmes may not have produced armies of conservation supporters, they may have helped turn at least some nature lovers into supporters of conservation. At the very least, many of these programmes, and the stars and crews behind them, will have raised awareness, which is often the first step.
I can see that it is often the mega-stars, such as pandas and lions that get the limelight and recognition, but then other, less 'sexy' (if I can use that word) organisms are often then shown and gain some recognition. It is wasn't for the medium of TV, I doubt so many would have heard of people like George McGavin, who shows the beauty and importance of invertebrates, not only in special programmes, but also others, such as the One Show.
