Since its early days, Shark Week evolved into more entertainment-oriented and sometimes fictional programming. By the 2010s, it attracted much criticism for airing dramatic programs to increase viewers and popularity. This fictitious programming, known as
docufiction, has been produced in the last few years. Examples of such programs include
Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives,
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine,
Monster Hammerhead,
Lair of the Mega Shark, and
Megalodon: The New Evidence. This strategy was successful, especially for the program
Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives, as it became one of the most watched programs in Shark Week history, primarily for the controversy and backlash it generated. The
mockumentary was based on an ancient giant shark called
megalodon, which is now long extinct. The airing of this program fueled criticism by the professionals in the science blogger community, as well as science-advocacy bloggers like actor
Wil Wheaton, and resulted in a boycott of the network. Since then, Discovery has increasingly been accused of using
junk science, pushing dubious theories, creating false stories, and misleading scientists as to the nature of the documentaries being produced. In early 2015, Discovery President
Rich Ross vowed to remove this type of programming from future Shark Week lineups. There has also been criticism from scientists that have been featured in episodes of Shark Week. Jonathan Davis, a 29-year-old marine biologist was featured in an episode of Shark Week called Voodoo Shark. The episode is meant to discuss the legend of the 'Rooken', and suggests that Davis strongly believes in said legend. Davis had believed he was being featured to talk about his research, but instead was blindsided by this portrayal. He also recounts that while filming, "One of the guys was like, "Oh, maybe you should just let it bite you, that would be so exciting.' And I was just thinking to myself, 'Are you kidding me? You really think I wanna let the shark bite me just for ratings? Are you serious?'" More criticism was leveled at Discovery in 2017 when the network heavily promoted a race between Olympic gold medal winner
Michael Phelps and a great white shark that turned out to be computer generated, but based on actual speeds of such animals, and Phelps wearing illegal swim gear.
Content analysis A 2022 study reviewed trends in the content covered by Shark Week. Of the 272 Shark Week programs produced, 43% had titles using words with negative connotations in context (such as "attack", "fear", "deadly"). The relative proportion of in-context negative titles is stable through time, rising at the same rate as the overall number of shows. Of the 201 shows that could be viewed by the authors, around 74% referenced shark bites or other negative portrayals of sharks. 63% of shows used positive language in reference to sharks, though this language was often only used briefly. About 37% of shows are research-oriented, though in some years (2009–2012, 2020) less than a quarter of shows involved research. Research methods are skewed towards expensive and television-friendly techniques such as satellite telemetry tagging, drones, and
ROVs. In contrast, actual shark science is oriented more towards methodical research related to life history and reproduction, which are more practical for conservation work. Uncertainty and repeatability are frequently eschewed in presentation, in favor of controversy or authoritative results. Of the people labelled as "experts" or authorities by Shark Week programs, 41% have over 26 peer-reviewed publications, while 23% lack any contribution to the scientific literature. Little distinction is made between experiential (non-scientific) and scientific experts. The demographics of Shark Week "experts" mirrors the underrepresentation of
women and
people of color in STEM fields. 94% of "experts" featured by Shark Week are white, and 79% are male. 24 shows featured at least one non-white "expert" and 60 involved at least one woman "expert". Several non-doctorate men were referred to as "Dr.", and several doctorate-holding women were not labelled with their title. The most commonly featured country is the United States (24.2% of episodes, with California, Florida, Hawaii, and Massachusetts as the predominant states), followed by the Bahamas (15%), South Africa (15%), New Zealand (10%), Australia (10%), and Mexico (10%). Black researchers are rarely featured despite the fact that both the Bahamas and South Africa are majority-black countries. 79 living species of sharks have been featured in Shark Week, along with several species of
batoids (rays and kin),
chimaeras, and extinct forms. The most common species to be featured are
great white sharks (
Carcharodon carcharias, 18.4% of episodes),
tiger sharks (
Galeocerdo cuvier, 12.2%),
bull sharks (
Carcharhinus leucas, 9.6%), and
hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae, 8.4%). Some species with extensive scientific literature are rarely featured, such as
bonnetheads (
Sphyrna tiburo),
sandbar sharks (
Carcharhinus plumbeus), and the
spiny dogfish (
Squalus acanthias). Threats to sharks are alluded to by a majority (53%) of shows, with 14% mentioning the fin trade, though only 3% identify particular measures that viewers could take towards shark conservation. No Shark Week shows have recommended government action or donations to shark conservation groups. ==Programming information==