"Woo hoo!"
"Crikey!"
We watched The Crocodile Hunter because my son liked it, and animal shows are cool, right? What a remarkable thing, the natural world happening all around us, all the time. But I remember rolling my eyes, and wondering if, for all his enthusiasm, Steve Irwin was actually doing the natural world any good.
To be sure, I have no doubt his enthusiasm was genuine, that he legitimately cared about animals, but I don't think there's any question he used animals as well, not merely as subjects for his Animal Planet show, but as stage props. He was a showman first and foremost, a carnival barker for the greatest animal show on Earth, and although it's easy to scoff at many of the things PETA has chosen to let ruffle its feathers over the years (for a long time, they've been one of those organizations that blurs the line between legitimate protest/vigilance, and ridiculous self-promotion/tilting at windmills), when it comes to this latest condemnation, they have a point: the Irwin Google Doodle is "fawning", and not in a good way.
Those now firing back at PETA in defense of Irwin, claiming he was their childhood hero and listing all the good things he did in his too-short life, or pointing to the recent accomplishments of his children (as though that has any relevance), need to recognize that just because you remember something fondly from childhood, doesn't necessarily mean it was something good, or worthy, or should have been going on at all. Our species' journey through time is a continuous evolutionary trek with a conspicuously linear path, and things that may once have "worked", seemed gripping or entertaining (particularly in childhood), may not hold up these days. In other words, that you may have spent Saturday afternoons when you were eight enjoying Steve Irwin on television does not necessarily warrant your coming to his defense now, and the fact that he is no longer with us, and that his passing was untimely, should not make him immune from being scrutinized. Not attacked or maligned, just scrutinized, with a fresh eyes look, and perhaps some discussion, about whether the method and style that brought him fame constituted the best way to learn about, and appreciate, and handle animals.
Irwin's shtick gave rise to an onslaught of "reality" shows with "colorful" presenters on Animal Planet, imitators all undertaking a similar kind of gonzo journalism: sassiness on lock as they traipsed fearlessly (and sloppily) through underbrush, determined to get the shot, or jumped out of still-moving vehicles and slid into the roadside shoulder like a base runner to capture an "up close and personal" review of something the viewers were led to believe they just happened to encounter while driving along.
Like many reality shows on many channels, most of it was little more than bad stagecraft, and I say now, as I did then (or at least thought): just let the snake cross the road in peace. Aside from the notion of preventing it from getting run over, you're not helping the animal, and it could be argued that you're interfering with nature. You are in any case not contributing anything vital to education. You're basically just rolling camera and taking unnecessary risk in hopes that as many people as possible will tune in to watch you do so.
And yes, it was the execution of just such risk that tragically ended Irwin's life.
The Google Doodle in question isn't even good artistically. Ironically enough, I don't actually think it does him justice. "Fawning" indeed, it paints a sickeningly one-dimensional portrait of little more than a comic strip protagonist that could only have been of interest to five-year-olds learning about animals (and maybe learning to read). It infantilizes him and his legacy straight into oblivion, and if I were Steve Irwin, this is not how I'd have chosen to be remembered.
I mean, come on, this is just...terrible:
