Seaspiracy... Facts or Propaganda?

Seaspiracy, a documentary directed by Ali Tabrizi and released in 2021 by Netflix, has been criticized by some for being propaganda. I decided to read some of the reviews available online and I must say that I strongly agree with what I read. Below, I will list some of the main criticisms that I read about and then give examples from the film that support my views.

Excerpts from online reviews:

A lot of the information in the documentary is either false or cherry picked to argue that sustainable fishing isn't possible. A lot of ecologists and fish biologists are pretty upset with the narrative they push.

[the film] also received a fair amount of pushback from marine organizations for being misleading, some of whom say their interviews were taken out of context.

Earth Island Institute, which manages the dolphin-safe label project, suggests this is meddling: “The recent film Seaspiracy falsely claims that the dolphin-safe tuna program is a conspiracy to benefit the global fisheries industries. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

“In fact, the dolphin-safe tuna program has provided and continues to provide massive benefits to dolphin populations around the world. Despite our efforts to provide documentation of this to the filmmakers, they chose instead to grossly distort and mischaracterize the program,” they added.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a not-for-profit group that grants certification to sustainable fisheries, also dished out similar complaints with the film.

Basically, the filmmakers make an assertion, without evidence, that MSC is paid off by the fishing industry to label products as sustainable.

The Plastic Pollution Coalition, who was also interviewed for the film, put out a statement alleging that the filmmakers “bullied our staff” and “cherry-picked seconds of our comments to support their own narrative”.

[the filmmaker claimed that] 48 percent of ocean plastic consists of fishing nets, while not including the fact that this came from a study of one ocean gyre. In fact, fishing gear represents 10 percent of ocean plastic overall

What's shocking to me is that they never interview any fisheries biologists - they interview three conservation biologists, one of whom has said on twitter that her statement was cherry-picked to support an assertion she disagrees with,

They highlight only fisheries from Japan, China, etc that are well-known to be unsustainable and have massive human-rights violations, but they don't at all mention that globally, about 2/3 of fisheries are considered sustainable - in the US, about 85% of fished stocks are sustainably fished, which is about 99% by weight.

Sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seaspiracy/comments/mgtbe8/factchecking_seaspiracy/

https://www.iflscience.com/scientists-and-marine-organizations-criticise-netflix-documentary-seaspiracy-59204

As I started watching the film, I quickly began to feel that filmmaker was constantly trying to shock me. As a filmmaker myself, I too strive to make a film interesting. However, I believe that if I tell an interesting story backed up by quality information that is well researched and substantiated, the audience will be naturally captivated. I use subtle cinematic effects to complement the story. But in Seaspiracy, Tabrizi used overly dramatic narration, music, and recreations to create, rather than to enhance a story.

For example, early in the film, we see recreation footage of Tabrizi with a big plastic bag picking up garbage on a beach. This does not seem genuine to me, and I do not believe that this is something that the filmmaker did on a regular basis. I just got a sense that he thought this was something that would look good in his film. Perhaps if there was more personal information shared, such as what event led him to start this practice, what beaches he felt a personal connection to, accompanied by archival footage or photos, it would have been more believable.

My suspicion only grew stronger as I watched the rest of the film. I felt like the filmmaker wanted to convince me that he was an investigative journalist whose life was in grave danger. Traveling to Japan, they are immediately followed and monitored by the police. Two questions come to mind. One is, why would the police be on to them so early in the filmmaking process? Secondly, if the police were following them, why do we not see any evidence of that for the rest of the trip while they are filming without permits and obtaining "revealing evidence?" With the exception of being pulled over by the cops, for one of many possible routine reasons, it otherwise seemed staged.

The filmmaker used the same dramatic technique to document their trip to Thailand. As they were filming an interview, they were “suddenly" informed that the police were “tipped off” and had to “escape.” We see fast driving police cars with blaring sirens as they flee the scene. To add to the drama, the filmmaker is often shot wearing a black hoodie over his head, peaking around corners, ducking down and speaking softly, all under the cover of night. I would think filming this behavior on the streets would draw more attention than if he was just acting normally. This simply made me feel like I was watching a badly written narrative film made to look like a documentary.

It was also clear that Tabrizi was using an aggressive and accusatory interviewing technique to anger his interviewees rather than to get accurate information. This happened when he showed up unannounced at the Mitsubishi office and asked, "why is your company wiping out an endangered species?” In another instance, a provoked owner of a store picked up a chair when Tabrizi refused to leave, which the filmmaker then emphasized by saying “are you going to hit me with a chair?”. Yet, I find it hard to believe that any business would allow someone off the street to simply show up unannounced at their place of business and start filming, regardless of the nature of their activities. This tactic resulted in exactly what Tabrizi wanted, to be asked to turn off the cameras and leave, which he then used as “evidence” that “they” are trying to hide something. He used this technique over and over to substantiate his story.

Tabrizi’s attempt to create sensationalism made him look unintelligent. He often used phrases such as, “I came to understand that…” or “I discovered..." when what he came to understand or discovered was basic and common knowledge rather than some groundbreaking news.

None of us know everything. But if a filmmaker embarks on making a film to prove that the only way to save our oceans is for people to completely stop eating fish, I think it is his responsibility to conduct good research and consult with experts. Tabrizi did have multiple people state information that supported his story. But, if you pay attention, most where activists or conservationists rather than trained experts in their fields. I’m not claiming that activists and conservationists don’t know what they are talking about or that they lie, but I think it is also important to hear from biologists and other scientists who have studied the oceans and are very familiar with their complexities, support Tabrizi’s conclusion.

I think that the filmmaker is irresponsible and that he was more interested in using conspiracies and sensationalism to help "sell” his film rather than to make a film that would lead to positive change. He should stop to consider what damage his film may cause. If people simply stop eating all fish, what effects would this have on land animals and our environment? Would fish simply be replace with more beef, chicken, and pork and more wild animal habitat need be sacrificed for farmland? I do not claim to know the answers to these questions. But if a filmmaker is to persuade society to make such drastic changes, I think it is their responsibility to have a better understanding of this complex system.

Fishing is a practice that humans have engaged in for thousands of years. It has only recently turned into a business on an industrial scale. This is what has led to the problems we are seeing, among many others brought about by the industrial revolution.

Tabrizi’s conclusion is that fishing is simply not sustainable and that all policies and procedures put in place to better the practice, are tainted with bribes, lies and conspiracies. Such a blanket statement simply does not make sense. In fact, at the end of the film, one of his experts states that our oceans have a remarkable ability to bounce back in a relatively short amount of time. If that is the case, does it not follow that if we fished responsibly, we could maintain a healthy balance in our oceans?

I believe that all living beings need to be respected and treated humanely, and I also believe that there is a way for humans to exist in the world without destroying it. Seaspiracy is a film that banks on sensationalism rather than science and sadly, such films can lead to more harm than good.