Okay, so let’s put our emotion aside for just a second, and take a quick jump over the national subjectivity lines, to see media-fashioned perspective in full swing, and the confusing battle for what the symbol of Steve Irwin actually symbolises.

As the memorial finally nears for Steve Irwin, the most disturbing development has been the “revenge” attacks on stingrays, along QLD coasts. The sea creatures, who are passive animals unless threatened, have been found slaughtered – their barbs symbollically cut off – and left on the sand as a bizarre symbol of man’s retalliation for stealing everybody’s (new) favourite hero.

I can’t imagine any other “wildlife warrior” who would manage to provoke the killing of animals - but then again, this is a conservationist with the nickname of “warrior”, and it speaks so much about the ambiguous conceptualisation of Irwin. The line between being a warrior “for” (man protecting beast) and a warrior “against” (man taming the best) is a blurred line in the case of Irwin, and the cause of much arguing.

At any rate, it proves that for many who adore him, regardless of Irwin’s intenions, his messages of conservation are lost – which is a logical problem with Irwin’s character and tactics. It sits alongside literally hours of memorial media stories with sad children who remember Irwin as “brave” and “fearless”, but never speak of his love for wildlife or his message of conservation.

And still, the media, knowing what an obvious irony the stingray slaughters are (and of course, the rather vivid proof they provide of the dynamic everybody’s favourite pet hate, Greer, was putting forward), have tried their best to protect their current money-making “Icon” from the implications.

Responding to the event, both Wayne Sumpton, a senior biologist for QLD fisheries, and Michael Hornby, executive director of Irwin’s organisation, came out to media in an effort to stop the killings. That Irwin’s own camp has come out on the issue, shows us the strange dissonance between a group that does, yes, believe in wildlife conservation, and a fanbase who perceives Irwin incorrectly.

But what was more interesting was the reporting of these press interviews. Global news reported it correctly – that it was believed the rays were an obvious act of retaliation, hence prompting those men to go public with calls to end the slaughter of innocent wildlife. The Gaurdian ran with "Stingray Mutilation Prompts Irwin Vengeance fears", and The Globe And Mail ran with the headline, “Stingrays Mutilated in Wake of Crocodile Hunter’s Death”, quoting Sumpton’s rationalisation for their cause for concern and the realisation that these were symbollically connected to Irwin.

 

As it is, a sudden phenomenon of slaughtered stingrays on QLD's beaches is, hello, not difficult maths. But Sumpton had to speak also from a scientific and factual perspective, and so he explained that whilst yes, there have been some cases of fisherman catching stingrays and cutting off their barbs to prevent being stung, the practice is “uncommon”, and most are simply thrown back in the ocean. And so, whilst he conceded that obviously there is no actual “proof” that the rays were slaughtered in the name of Irwin, they had investigated, and made sure that fishermen were not responsible (they found them responsible for only two of the known deaths). Therefore, one and one make two. It was believed that this was obviously the work of Irwin fans.

Hornby (a top Australia Zoo official) made the same conclusion, and urged fans to act in accordance to Irwin’s values; “This is not what Steve was about”. Of course, again we see the problem, here – that for the sensationalised capturer of the deadly crocs, Irwin was not a symbol of the protection of wildlife, but the protection and superiority of man over wildlife.

This story was run around the globe, but Australian media took a slightly different view.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran with the headline, “Stingray deaths not related to Irwin”, and instead took it upon themselves to distort the event, in order to protect the Irwin narrative. Here, Sumpton and Hornby had not come to the press in an effort to stop fans slaughtering the animals, but to deny the connection and pass off the slaughters as nothing out of the ordinary. Sumpton’s conceding that there was no proof was perfect (there was no mention of the investigation into the fishermen that concluded they had not killed the rays, either), and this was combined with a short-ended quoting of Sumpton’s explanation that Fisherman ocassionally cut off stingray barbs (completely taken out of context). Though in reality, this was put forward as an explanation of why it was believed the slaughters were connected to Irwin (because the end of this quote put forward that most fishermen let the rays go - as their investigating into the deaths had found - and so they do not find dead rays along our coasts due to fishermen), this was twisted into Sumpton supposedly explaining why the deaths were not connected to Irwin (put forward as it being normal for fishermen to do so). 

 

However, by yesterday, such journalism found itself trapped in a web woven ironically by the Irwin camp, when Irwin’s father held a press conference, in which he expressed his dismay at the revenge attacks against the rays. Again, he urged fans to stop, and pointed out that Irwin himself would be mortified. “It’s just utter stupidity”, he said.

Oops. Guess the very thing the papers were protecting had foiled that protection. How inconvenient when the wildlife conservationsists put their real message over the money-making creation of Steve Irwin, King of the Aussies, Conquerer of Beasts.

And so, the media is forced to do a little turn-around. But they’ll do it as slowly and slyly as possible, of course. One of the great things about online media is that stories can be changed directly, so the lies never have a chance to be found out, because they can magically alter themsleves to avert it (as if it simply never existed). The original SMH article claiming that the deaths have no relation to Irwin has now been changed (at the same web address), and is now “Leave Rays Alone, Irwin Fans Told”.

But they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that they ran an entirely different presentation of “facts” only two days ago, and so the quotes such as Sumpton’s “This is only speculation” are deliberately highlighted, now in an effort to absolve the propagandist journalism. The story must now concede that it is believed the deaths are connected to the rays as far as Irwin’s camp goes, but hangs onto the misrepresentation of Sumpton as a posterboy for the idea that this is not true. In a bizarre way, the media, in order to protect the commercial image, goes against the very thing it tries to rconstruct and protect – Irwin. The reality of Irwin is now juxtaposed in this incident to – completely at odds with – the story played out by Australian media.

Yet, it still shows the problem with that reality – that Irwin was a figure of conservation who presented himself commercially as something quite other. The same thing could not happen to Attenborough, because the material is never there in the first place to construct such an image from. I can't not feel sorry for those from Australia Zoo who do honestly believe in the protection of wildlife (to some extent, at least, that is undeniable). But it highlights the problem of media image, and the way you "protect" this wildlife, and the consequences of public perception. Perhaps this is a cruel lesson for the Irwin camp, that the nature of this man's popularity is often somewhat different to what they believed. 

We only need to look to the attack of Greer, to see the dark ironies of this. Irwin has not become a symbol of wildlife, but successfully linked by media to national pride - quite an aggresive, desperate emotion in the current climate (and one that sells papers, as much as it secures election votes). The Telegraph mounted a public persecution, and an actual muzzle was sent to Greer, alongside thousands of irrate, aggressive – even violent – messages from the Australian public, often jumping on the bandwagon and labelling her "Un-Australian". This is ironic in itself, in that it actually goes along with Greer's analysis, that in fact Irwin is the perfect symbol for the "idiotic" Australian larrikin psyche. But Greer would no doubt also observe the demeaning hypocricy in sending her a symbol of man’s conquest over beast, the muzzle – likening her to an animal man has decided to silence and restrain. For the article (smugly titled, "Germaine, Try This On For Size"), a photo of a worn looking Greer was juxtaposed to a picture of the muzzle, sized to fit her face. Excuse my common sense here, but that's pretty fucking intense that a mainstream newspaper would stir up this sort of hatred with this sort of imagery. I personally tried to add to the hundreds of vile comments, but of course, The Telegraph selects comments to be published, and chooses according to the image they need to project. Not a single one of my comments have made it to the board.

By yesterday, the paper ran with one reader's sentiment that Greer should be “reincarnated as a chicken at Australia Zoo”, working off the very premise that life in Australia Zoo for some animals is, well, rather grim. But nobody sees the irony in that, either.

And today, PETA has spoken out against the image of Irwin as some kind of instigator of wildlife respect and conservation. A conservationsist who is disowned by conservationsists and manages to incite revenge mutilation amongst followers, and attacks in his name using the very symbols of conquest - the proof, I’m afraid, is in the pudding. Now, the stinrat who killed Steve Irwin has made a national "most hated" list. Something, somewhere, does not add up. Whether Irwin loved his animals or not (and I personally believe he did – just in a way that was strangely misguided, and presented in a manner commercially effective for his popularity, but not his cause), the message is lost on the public who now mourn him.

The public response to PETA has been similarly twisted. Somewhat coincidentally, Nine ran an episode of “Penn & Teller: Bullshit”, a strangely conservative programme that aims to expose generally left-wing propaganda (with what is actually propaganda). The order of the series was deliberately altered, so that the nation could see Penn & Teller rubbish conservationists (conveniently timed with the Gore craze) and animal lovers (targeting PETA). This included likening PETA to terrorists and the Nazi party, and making false claims such as PETA being against all ownership of animals as pets (not at all the case). It also "exposed" PETA as hypocritical animal murderers (evidencing the number of animals PETA have "murdered") – even though PETA simply puts animals to sleep that are rescued from abuse and cannot be saved. By this afternoon, message boards and talk back radio were full of angry Irwin fans using this show as a stance against PETA (in Irwin's name), even though the show's PETA attack was used as a basis by the two hosts (Penn and Teller) to happily support the idea that animals are lesser creatures and good to eat, and therefore who cares if they're mistreated for the end purpose. I wonder what Steve Irwin would have thought of the programme.

 

What a mess this has all turned out to be. Irwin fans attack Irwin critics, by attacking the concept of animal conservation?! It's truly bizarre. Despite all the rhetoric from the Irwin camp about the protection of wildlife, the death of Steve Irwin has hardly made a single difference to that very issue, and it is never a theme, except for when used as an attack against his attackers. I think it's wonderful that the Irwin camp have come out in the media with their message against those "mis-interpreting" the conservation message, and I imagine they will use the memorial to push this further. But the fact remains, animals are no better off today, than they were before Irwin's death, so whatever it is that his death has incited, it certainly isn't his "cause". Perhaps the public should take their energy out of message boards and talkback radio, fighting and crying over their hero, and... well... put it into wildlife conservation. Just a thought.

 

But they won't, of course. At very best, they will be tricked by things such as proceeds from Irwin's memorial concert. The eneregy is intense, but it isn't "about" the animals Irwin stood "for". I have talked previously about the media's complete awareness of nationalistic "us vs them" mentality, and the consumer pull it has. The hatred and the aggression in the messages gladly collected and displayed by the papers smacks of the days surrounding Cronulla. This is what a large percentage of the public (who were happily watching ACA and Today Tonight trash the man, a year ago, mind you) have found in the death of Steve Irwin - an aggressive, blinding "Aussieness". It's so blinding, the very issues the man actually tried to stand for have been lost, and his own "followers" commit the very act he was against. Attending the Irwin memorial will no doubt be those who slaughtered the stingrays, and sent violent threats to Greer (the woman responsible for the contemporary fight againt sexism), alongside a muzzle. Make sense of that, if you can.