Seaworld's Rhetorical Analysis

SeaWorld claims that Blackfish’s rhetoric is “false and misleading” because it lacks “a shred of scientific support.” But if SeaWorld has dealt the scientific evidence card, then there are plenty of holes within its game play. One of the first claims that SeaWorld makes is that Blackfish’s information is dated. There is validity to that claim: after all, Blackfish relies on trainers who had their heyday in the 1990s. Yet SeaWorld’s scientific evidence is equally dated. SeaWorld backs many of its claims with a paper written in 1998 by Dr. Ingrid Visser. Dr. Ingrid Visser, whose work was cited without her permission, has since decried SeaWorld’s use of her paper in its rebuttal. Dr. Visser is also an outspoken opponent of killer whale captivity.

For example, Dr. Visser was an active participant in the effort to release Morgan, an orca situated at Loro Parque, into the wild. But this information does not deter SeaWorld from citing Dr. Visser’s paper four times, which is more than any other paper mentioned in the rebuttal. SeaWorld’s rhetoric is thus weakened by its own hypocrisy.

Not only is SeaWorld’s scientific evidence dated, but it is also shuffled around to serve SeaWorld’s purposes. However, this shuffling comes at the expense of scientific honesty. Take the claim that “the most recent study on life expectancy of southern resident killer whales is that females live between 30 and 46 years...” SeaWorld cites Dr. Visser’s paper as evidence for this claim. In doing so, SeaWorld incriminates itself of stacking the cards in its own favor. The paper states that an “estimated 93% of females that matured (past adolescence) would have survived to 40.5 years old.” This means that female killer whales do not live between 30 and 46 years old in the wild--the majority survives well past 40. In addition, Dr. Visser’s paper hails from the late 20th Century. It is not, in any way, ‘the most recent study.’

But SeaWorld provides more evidence for this statement. Yet once again, this evidence--a website called Orcahome.com-- is as flimsy as a house of cards. Orcahome.com has no navigable interface, let alone credible contributors from the scientific community.

SeaWorld’s entire science-centered argument is built more on sleight-of-the-hand tricks than hard data.

Blackfish utilizes testimonials from scientific authorities to attack SeaWorld’s treatment of its killer whales. According to Blackfish, SeaWorld is guilty of two major offenses: separating mother and calf pairs, and creating conditions that increase whale-on-whale violence. Rather than address these scientific truths, SeaWorld diverts attention away from them. To combat the accusation of cruelty surrounding mother-calf separations, SeaWorld takes many actions. SeaWorld criticizes the scientists behind the testimonies and the footage used. But it never addresses the fact that mother-calf separations are unnatural. In fact, Dr. Visser’s paper explicitly states that mothers and calves do not leave each other’s sides in the wild. This is another prime example of SeaWorld’s affinity for

bluffing.

Blackfish also states that SeaWorld’s whale habitats are so lacking in stimulation that the whales turn to violence. Once again, Blackfish fortifies its claims with expert testimonies. SeaWorld’s rebuttal is that “This implication is false. There is scientific documentation of whale-on-whale orca aggression in the wild.” However, Blackfish’s implication is that violence occurs less often in the wild, not never at all. SeaWorld again presents carefully worded scientific data to divert attention away from damning evidence.

SeaWorld claims that Blackfish’s rhetoric is shaky because its science is shaky.

However, SeaWorld’s rhetoric attacks the scientists and trainers within the film more than the data. One of SeaWorld’s central targets is Dr. Lori Marino. SeaWorld presents its trump card with the statement that “the film portrays Marino’s statement as if it is the opinion of the scientific community. The Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research recently published a paper that discusses the history of this very issue. Killer whales in captivity have an excellent standard of living and have access to food and state of the art medical care." Once again, SeaWorld’s wording is key to its rhetoric. By wording this phrase in a specific order, SeaWorld infers that the Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research paper supports killer whale captivity. However, this is not the case. The paper states that “we are barely catering for the high cognitive skills of of marine mammals." It does not fully advocate the captivity or release of marine

mammals.

Although SeaWorld’s rhetoric is flawed in some areas, it is effective in others. Blackfish has been dealt a better hand simply because it is a film, which is a far more palatable and marketable medium than written text. But SeaWorld combats this disadvantage through the use of clear, bold language and simple sentences. For example, SeaWorld begins many of its claims with a straightforward “This is false.” SeaWorld’s choice of loaded language also provides a clear contrast with Blackfish’s. Where Blackfish is hesitant and opaque, SeaWorld’s rebuttal is surefooted and clear. SeaWorld attempts to deconstruct Blackfish’s rhetoric in methodic and clear steps.