Contributing factors for false and misleading information about mustelids

Scaremongering and sensationalism

Although not always viewed entirely negatively, many mustelid species have been frequently mischaracterised in media due to scaremongering and sensationalism—dishonest content that ignores or purposely misconstrued facts to exploit the general public’s lack of knowledge about these animals and fear of the unknown. It is unfortunately too easy to make mustelids appear more vicious or threatening to human life than they naturally are, since many people do not think critically about seemingly shocking content they come across.

For example, if one films a wolverine behaving “savagely” (while stuck in a trap and being agitated or provoked), shares a photo of an “angry” ferret baring its fangs (when the ferret is just yawning), or a mink “ferociously” ripping the flesh of its prey with its bare teeth (despite having no other practical way of eating), an initial impression could be made that mustelids are nothing more than bad-tempered killing machines. Despite popular belief, “anger” is not the only emotion these animals experience.

Furthermore, there exist examples in some documentaries of likely rented wild and domesticated mustelids being trained to engage in seemingly aggressive behaviour they normally would not, taxidermied specimens with exaggerated expressions used in staged photography to fabricate an unrealistic scene or narrative, or doctored photos that highlight bloodstained teeth to make an otherwise natural circumstance appear demonic. These methods are intended to provoke public interest or excitement by simply arousing and manipulating our emotions, rather than appeal to genuine curiosity or intellect. If these animals are such dangerous savages we should not need to resort to using smoke and mirrors to prove it.

In the age of the internet where pandering to algorithms is more valued than quality, this often manifests itself into pseudo-educational clickbait on social media, as well as online news articles with sensational headlines equivalent to, “Sadistic Killers of the Natural World” or “Most Ferocious Killing Machines”. These and similar captions bizarrely describing mustelids as though they are miniature, resentful malefactors seeking to put everyone and everything to the fang. Rather than educating or informing us, this type of scaremongering insults the intelligence of the public and further perpetuates deeply-entrenched misconceptions about these animals. And if a species becomes demonised because of such language, it can give rise to irrational fear and even hatred, which can and have led to unnecessary killings.

The down-to-earth facts

Are wild carnivorous mustelids feisty and have formidable hunting skills? Absolutely. Like most mammalian predators, they must defend themselves and hunt to survive. Will they defend themselves against animals above their weight class when cornered or provoked? Certainly. They will do so when they feel it is necessary just like most other animals—no different from a dog, cat, or even a mouse. In fact, mice will defend themselves against an adult human when cornered, which can be over 3,000 times their size. There is nothing unique about these behaviours.

Mustelids are also not “angry” animals, as commonly described, and the notion that they are is mostly a parroted stereotype. Think about it—if you had to traverse though a dangerous alley (in their case a forest, tundra, or other hostile environment), would your instinct for self-preservation lead you to be cheery and approachable? Chances are you will be silent, inquisitive yet cautious, and act as intimidating as possible towards anything that encroaches on your personal space. This is survival 101 for most mammals and does not imply they are naturally “angry”. Indeed, regarding mustelids, there is no shortage of videos online depicting them playing amongst themselves and even behaving quite docile towards others when they do not feel threatened.

When these common survival traits are exaggerated or remain the sole focal point of the discussion, we continue to present an oversimplified view of the complex nature of mustelids—a practice that is particularly reckless for species in need of conservation. Too often the fact seems to be carefully overlooked that these animals can fall prey themselves, struggle with starvation and endangerment, or play an important role in their local ecosystem.

We have heard the argument, “At least they’re bringing attention to animals that many people otherwise wouldn’t know about”. While this may be true to an extent, sensationalist content that disguises itself as nonfiction does not help the pubic get to know the animals, because they are more or less being introduced to mythical creatures. Regardless of their validity, clickbait and viral stories often introduce people to mustelids through highlighting uncommon occurrences, and not the mundane reality that tends to be witnessed or overlooked.

Occasionally, even good intentions by professionals can be counterproductive

Some wildlife experts and programs intended to educate the public are not impervious to using sensationalist language to fuel engagement, rather than present animal behaviour in a neutral and accurate fashion. This is apparent with some zoos and wildlife parks, books written by wildlife biologists, and wildlife documentaries. An example of the latter would be Nat Geo WILD’s documentary short, This Weasel Is an Insatiable Serial Killer. They use sensationalist language to describe the least weasel (M. nivalis), which predictably encourages some laypeople to spread nonsense to support the idea of “villainy” weasels. It may be an effective way to get otherwise indifferent people to take notice of rarer animals but it is arguably the wrong kind of attention.

To break down the problem with this type of educational content, most people will only read the headline. The headline is not just a hook, it is half the content. With this video, any nuance they may have been hoping to capture is immediately lost. Of those who actually watch the video, perhaps a few would be able to read between the lines and interpret the weasel’s behaviour positively or with nuance. However, the more impressionable would likely take the title at face value, and the small remaining few that are capable of taking a positive message from the video have been primed not to by the title. They will watch the video with the mindset that weasels and their relations are “serial killers”—which, naturally, is not a term that is accurate to apply to nonhuman animals, nor even accurate in spirit—and the footage provided will be interpreted by some as support for the idea of serial killer weasels. Never mind the fact that their high basal metabolic rate (BMR) and little storage of body fat are some of the main reasons they hunt frequently, which was conveniently not mentioned in the video.

Educated professionals sometimes forget what it is like to live in ignorance of a subject. Knowledge is not its discrete thing, it fundamentally changes how we think. Critical thinking is not a skill, it is an entire worldview that your average person either does not possess or struggle to apply. Experts do not need sensationalism to educate, and frankly, many of them probably know this. It is not difficult to reframe mustelid behaviour more positively or impartially. Which is better: Vicious or brave? Underhanded or resourceful? Serial killer or survivor? Is negative framing really that much more effective, and if it is, is it worth the obvious damage it does?

---

Overanthropomorphising

When it comes to carnivorous animals, scaremongering and overanthropomorphising often go hand in hand. So let us dive more into the subject of the latter.

Anthropomorphism, by definition, means attributing (or projecting) human traits, emotions, desires, or intentions to non-human entities.⁽¹⁾ We often intentionally (sometimes subconsciously) impose fantasised or glorified perceptions and beliefs onto animals to make them seem more interesting, entertaining, relatable, or to mobilise support for a cause. Much of the legendary myths and misconceptions surrounding mustelids and other animals has stemmed from this practise.

Depending on the intent, context, and level of it, anthropomorphising animals can be harmful, supportive, or more or less neutral. An example of overanthropomorphising, would be to judge if an animal is inherently “good” or “wicked” based on its visual appeal, sociability, tamability, or what prey it eats to survive. It goes without saying that weasels, the wolverine, and other mustelids are subjected to many double-standards, especially when compared to more “majestic” predators like the lion (P. leo), or their “cuter” and often more admired otter cousins.

Some people will also overanthropomorphise when drawing attention to acts they define as “cruel” or “unethical”. This can be controversial when said definitions are broad and largely assumed based upon attributing our own emotions or desires to an animal, rather than being based on actual evidence of such. Infantilising animals can especially cloud our judgement. This can compel us to leap to conclusions and be up in arms over the most harmless or natural of things lose sight of the real issues. One might, for example, question the perception of someone who feels compelled to describe an animal as “cute” or “innocent” (in the sense of purity or guilelessness) when expressing disapproval of shocking behaviours, since these terms are irrelevant to the animal itself and an echo of the Bambi effect.

Loaded and often misused labels have not helped their image

Labels such as “killing machine”, “malicious”, “bloodthirsty”, and even as nonsensical as “evil” have been traditionally used to rationalise the behaviour and psychology of certain mustelids. They are predators, so naturally they hunt prey. Yet many people choose to equate this with “murder”. Some are even demonised as “cruel” or “sadistic” for their aggressive social behaviours.

We humans tend to gloss over the unpleasant fact that, for all our supposed moral superiority over these non-human animals, humanity has and continues to hide behind tradition, pride, and general xenophobia as excuses for committing violent acts and atrocities. And our relationship with nature often involves killing not out of necessity, but over the slightest discomfort or inconvenience. To vilify animals for simply trying to survive as they have evolved to—in a world of ever-increasing human intrusion and habitat loss no less—betrays a sense of anthropocentrism and self-righteous delusion. While we are capable of much good, we are in no way as a species above the very contemptuous labels we place on mustelids and other fauna.

Not only are such labels hypocritical, too often they are casually stated or accepted as fact when based on individual perception. We need to remember that humans diverged from carnivores over 80 million years ago. Perhaps their brains evolved to process information differently, and that it is not always logical to shoehorn human emotions into every situation just to make it easier for us to understand. Like most animals, the behaviour of mustelids is primarily driven by instinct. They are not and should not be burdened with our ever-changing and culture-based sense of morality.

Anthropomorphising and realism can coexist, with balance

Many denounce anthropomorphisation of animals in general, especially in children’s literature, cartoons, games, and other media, believing young and impressionable minds are susceptible to the dangerous belief that wild animals are approachable or make good pets. Misinterpreting the actions of wildlife is another concern.⁽²⁾ Kids are often smarter or have an ability to learn more than we give them credit for.

While we agree excessive anthropomorphising and romanticising of animals can blind us from the realities of nature, we also accept that there is more to life than “book smarts”. We believe it is unreasonable to deprive people of their creativity and imagination, when a more flexible and proactive alternative would be for parents or children’s programs to provide children with prior or subsequent education about animals and basic animal safety either side of their introduction to fictional content. In fact, many people who contribute to this website became first aware of and interested in mustelids because of fictional media like the Redwall and Welkin Weasels series. With education, it is possible to immerse oneself in fantasy while still acknowledging reality.

All in all we have observed two extremes on the subject of anthropomorphising: Adults who are reluctant to acknowledge even the most basic realities about animals and rather construct a permanent fantasised view of them, and those who seemingly discourage any form of creative anthropomorphising. Both in their own way can limit the spread of knowledge and the general public’s potential interest in underappreciated animals. Of course, outright demonisation of animals in media can be harmful. While we may support creativity, we hope to discourage such content by helping the public have a better understanding of mustelids.

---

They are often misidentified and overgeneralised

Mustelids are not as well-known as canids and felids, and as such are frequently misidentified, especially on social media platforms. While mistaken identity of mustelids is usually reasonable owing the small amount of exposure the average person may have, we have also encountered several instances of educational content on the internet mistaking the identity of species with vastly different characteristics. Some articles, blogs, and social media influencers will erroneously display a ferret or other mustelids while talking about a completely different species.

AI-generated images, videos, and educational websites are making matters worse

Mass-produced animal “facts” websites put together by content farms are especially problematic, since they often look professional, but are likely created with AI-generated programs. They tend to misidentify even the most distinguishing species (examples 1 and 2). To give another example, this site will have you believe that the European badger (M. meles) is found in the US state of Virginia, which is completely false. Even the North American badger (T. taxus), which is the only badger species found on the continent, is not established in Virginia. The Allegheny woodrat (N. magister) is also not a mustelid, as claimed by the website.

Many of these low-effort websites will also use AI-generated art of animals, rather than one of the many available public domain photos of a species (an example of one about ferrets). Not surprisingly, the art is often inaccurate, which spreads more misinformation regarding species anatomy and identification. Unfortunately, these types of websites are on the rise and are often taken at face value, since many viewers are not aware of how to identify most mustelids.

AI-generated videos are arguably the most problematic, since they have the potential to deceive individuals about specific animal behaviours. This can be dangerous if a wild animal is portrayed as more threatening or approachable than they actually are. Here is an example of a video short on YouTube showing wild otters approaching humans. Judging by the comments, it is clear that many viewers are not aware the otters were created using AI or visual effects (VFX).

We should first try to perceive their differences before assuming they are indistinguishable

Mistaken identity may not seem like a big deal, but it can lead to harmful misinformation and hasty generalisations about the behaviour of a species—resulting in some mustelids being falsely accused of preying on domestic animals or wildlife, or causing damage to property that is typically performed by a different relative or an animal of another family entirely. This is why it is important for us to always check the facts and never adopt the nonchalant motto, “It looks close enough,” or “Well, they’re all from the same family” as excuses for misidentifying or misrepresenting species.

Admittedly, many mustelids can look similar (some even identical), but too often we hear people on social media seemingly just echoing that even species like the Eurasian stoat (M. erminea), European polecat (M. putorius), and Eurasian pine marten (M. martes) superficially look too similar to distinguish from each other in high-quality photographs, before even trying to take notice of their physical differences. If many can agree that the red fox (V. vulpes) and grey wolf (C. lupus) do not look identical or alike, we can try a little harder for these mustelids.

In order to better identify mustelids, we must first acknowledge and respect that nearly every species has distinctive characteristics—such as colour pattern, body size, snout length, and ear structure, and not solely focus on their short legs or elongated bodies. In most cases, one does not need to be an expert or even that interested in mustelids to notice their key differences, so long as they take time to exercise a few basic visual perception skills. Sometimes an animal’s behaviour or the location they were spotted can be even more telling than their appearance. We will attempt to make all of these differences clear on this website. The most practical advice we can give for now is if one is unsure about an exact species it is best not to assume.

We should be clear what species we are talking about

This is something even many professionals struggle to acknowledge or practice. Given that modern society is more connected than ever before, using vague local names to refer to a particular mustelid (e.g., simply “badger”, “marten”, “otter”, or “weasel”) can be confusing or misleading to an international audience, especially for educational purposes. For instance, in North America a “marten” may refer to the North American marten (M. americana), while in Europe the term can apply to either the Eurasian pine marten (M. martes), beech marten (M. foina), or even the sable (M. zibellina). They are all completely different species with unique traits.

It is best to be specific when possible by providing a mustelid’s scientific name, or at least their more distinguishing common name(s). Also, be consistent with names. Avoid referring to Mustela erminea as a stoat, then a weasel, next an ermine, and later a short-tailed weasel. This just creates confusion if readers assume these are names for different species.

---

Some are falsely rumoured to habitually attack humans

Some people get a kick out of making others who are sheltered from nature afraid of animals they will likely never see, let alone come into close contact with. They will inject a sense of danger despite usually having no prior encounter or evidence indicating a species is a threat to humans. Some of the most sensationalist talking points we hear about mustelids is that they are “angry” and “ferocious” animals, simply because they have sharp teeth and claws, surplus kill, and will attack prey or defend themselves against those above their weight class.

These characteristics and behaviours are not unique compared to most other mammalian predators, including domestic dogs and cats. Unfortunately, if you attempt to explain that sensationalist language can spread unnecessary fear, you may be accused by some of thinking wildlife is “harmless”, “approachable”, or that they are “our pals”. From our experience, such strawman arguments are all too common, and tend to come from individuals who merely regurgitate rumours or poorly-investigated incidents as if they were widespread.

It is important to remember that just because a wild animal has sharp teeth and claws that does not automatically mean it is “out to get us”. For one, mustelids are not cats—most primarily use their claws for climbing, digging, and gripping, not to attack or defend themselves. They prefer to use their teeth for that. And their sharp teeth are, once again, not unique compared to other mammalian predators, including domestic dogs and cats. Mustelids are no more dangerous based solely on these physical traits.

In fact, a 2012 study showed that in the United States for example, the average person is far more likely to be injured or killed by more familiar and often less-feared mammals like cattle and dogs than any mustelid. They were not even singled out as a threat among “other mammals” in the study.⁽³⁾ Even in other countries, there are no reliable reports of mustelids being a major threat to human safety. This is because in reality, wild mustelids have a natural caution of people, usually avoiding direct human contact and fleeing at the sight of us than going out of their way to cause harm without provocation. There would be something severely amiss with our conduct if we managed to be regularly attacked by these animals that want nothing to do with us.

We should keep in mind that some people will mistake an animal’s bluff charge for an attack, or in a broader sense, sometimes stretch the truth and misuse the word “attack” to make an otherwise reasonable or harmless situation sound worse than it was. Not to mention, many mustelids were historically (and in some cases still are) trapped for their pelts, and it was probably a lot easier for trappers to gain support to trap an animal if the public was conditioned to fear it. It is also not unusual for some people to tell half-truths or fantasies of courage whenever they are bested by a wild animal, in the interest of protecting their ego.

Always observe wildlife from a respectful distance

On the other hand, at times we forget that almost any animal (even a harmless-looking chipmunk) would become aggressive if someone were to trap, corner, provoke, or otherwise make the animal feel threatened, especially when protecting their young. In regards to wild mustelids, of course unprovoked attacks can happen if they are suffering from injury, distress, or illness, but in most cases simply respecting their “personal space” and exercising common sense will prevent injury. Like most wildlife (and even us humans) mustelids are very territorial, and we sometimes recklessly assume we are entitled to impose on, alter, or destroy that space without consequence.

An example of a mustelid (a beech marten specifically) that is clearly sick or injured not having their space respected and being portrayed as the aggressor. This is how myths and rumours about unprovoked animal attacks can start. Irresponsible dog owners who do not keep their pets on a leash and allow them to harass or attack wildlife can also contribute to “unprovoked” attacks. Contrary to how they are often portrayed in popular media, wild mustelids are not like some people or domestic animals that exhibit minimal to no instinct for self-preservation. Part of the reason they are good at surviving is they tend to avoid or flee from unnecessary conflicts rather than initiate them.

Rare exceptions are usually wild mustelids that are inappropriately or illegally hand-reared. They can escape from captivity, and—if they have lost their natural fear of humans—may approach people. Insufficient food supply can also cause some to engage in higher-risk behaviour, such as being nonchalant about the presence of humans while searching for food. That does not mean that the animal trusts humans nor should an inexperienced person try to approach or touch it. Too often human ignorance leads to animals being euthanized when they bite out of defence. If you have concerns regarding your safety or property in this situation, call your local animal control officer for advice.

Beware of rushed or dishonest journalism: Always read the full story, provided it is available

Sometimes a news headline will give the impression that a specific wild mustelid was being aggressive towards someone, only to mention halfway into the story that the animal’s species was never confirmed.⁽⁴⁾ Others will leave out this detail entirely, and even use headlines that misleadingly imply it is unnatural for the animal to exist in their habitat.⁽⁵⁾ When there is a confirmed attack, sometimes the ensuing details clarifying the reason for the attack can go unnoticed by the public, because the viral initial story can overshadow the follow-up story. This was the case with a European badger named Boris in 2003.^(6)(7)(8) Unfortunately, sometimes news outlets will not bother to issue a correction whenever they get a story wrong, simply leaving most of their followers misinformed and misled.

Ultimately, whenever someone makes the vague claim that mustelids are “dangerous”, we should be critically asking what that even means and in what way. If attacks on humans by these animals were common we would likely hear about them much more frequently, instead of only a handful of worst-case reports, where any reasonable explanation for these attacks tend to be carefully overlooked for the sake of a shocking story. Confirmed or suspected attacks only ever make headlines because such incidents are extremely rare.

---

We sometimes forget that they are just trying to survive

Unlike most of us, wild predators do not have the luxury of purchasing a pre-killed meal when hungry, so they must be bold and proficient hunters and scavengers to survive. This is especially true for the smaller species of mustelids, since they have both a high basal metabolic rate (BMR) and short gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Unlike many larger animals, these mustelids cannot depend on long-term fat reserves, so they must eat more frequently.⁽⁹⁾ However, hunger is not the only reason they hunt, and their dietary struggles are sometimes misinterpreted and anthropomorphised as killing for “sport” or out of “spite”.

Commonly referred to as surplus killing or henhouse syndrome, many mustelids are known to kill more prey than they can possibly eat in a single sitting. This has historically been troublesome to poultry farmers, backyard poultry owners, and gamekeepers—leading to a variety of measures being taken to prevent loss by those in the field. While we do not blame people for taking issue with these animals or protecting their fowl, it is important to acknowledge that surplus killing is not simply malice, nor is the act unique to mustelids.

Many of the smaller mustelids have evolved to hunt rodent families and other animals in burrows and surplus kill to build food caches to survive winter, and chicken coops, for example, recreate the same prey-dense confined conditions as rodent burrows. The sound and movement of many prey panicking repeatedly stimulates their hunting instinct, which is why they will sometimes kill entire groups of prey at once and not immediately consume anything. So while surplus killing in mustelids may not always be motivated by hunger, it is unlikely due to “sport” or “spite” and instead an instinctual response to a stimulus. It is also possible that killed chickens were left behind because the weasel was either scared off, or the hole the weasel came though may not have been large enough for the chickens to be pulled through. If the hole was large enough, we would argue the coop was poorly constructed or maintained, in which case a number of different predators could have gotten in.

The term “surplus killing” may be regarded as a fuzzy concept, because if you were to ask 3 different biologists what the term means you will probably receive 5 difference answers. The behavioural phenomenon is shared by many carnivorous mammals under the right conditions, including foxes, coyotes, hyenas, bears, shrews, and even dogs^(10)(11) and cats.^(12)(13) Similar to how we humans tend to hoard more food than we can eat when we have the means, when presented with an abundance of food, these animals will sometimes kill multiple prey and cache the carcasses for later consumption.^(14)(15)(16) The exact reason for this behaviour in some species may still be inconclusive, but it is presumably triggered by an evolutionary survival instinct since food resources in the wild can be unpredictable.⁽¹⁴⁾

On the other hand, when it comes to mustelids, surplus killing is sometimes seen as beneficial to control rodent and rabbit numbers. However, this is not necessarily the case, since there are many factors to consider—such as predator versus prey reproductive rates, density of prey, and food resources for prey.⁽¹⁷⁾ Throughout history, humans have attempted to manipulate nature by introducing certain mustelids to new environments in the hope of controlling rodent and rabbit populations. The results were rarely successful and have at times catastrophically backfired.⁽¹⁸⁾

In conclusion, while we do not claim that mustelids are all innocent little angels, there is more to the truth than what many simply perceive as reckless carnage. This also applies to rare instances where some species have been witnessed attacking other animals for seemingly no reason. Rather than make up colourful truths about these phenomena by anthropomorphising, we should acknowledge that when it comes to some non-human animal behaviours our understanding is limited at best and things are not always what they seem. [Further reading on this subject…]

How can we help reduce the spread of disinformation and misinformation?

Do not take at face value every shocking thing you read, see, or hear on the internet. In an age where disinformation is easily created, shared, and replicable on social media, critical thinking is paramount to avoid being misinformed. Unfortunately, too many people are quick to assume whatever rumour-of-the-week they come across on platforms like X (formally known as Twitter), YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, or Facebook is true, or someone with a lot of views, likes, or followers is immune to inadvertently spreading misinformation. Mustelids are a very complicated family and we too occasionally make mistakes.

Whenever someone makes generalised or dramatic assertions (e.g., weasels habitually attack humans or suck blood) always ask for the source of their claims—indicating if they are coming from a publication, their own work, a random person on social media, or some other source which may or may not be credible. At the very least, they should be willing and able to provide compelling arguments beyond passed down myths or baseless rumours.

If they respond with hostilely, resort to ad hominem attacks, or tell you to “do your research” without providing proof that they did theirs, this should be a sign that the person expected you to uncritically believe them and that their claim is probably unfounded. Be sceptical of claims from such people and independently check the facts yourself. Regardless of what some people may say, asking for sources does not automatically imply that you are dependent on others for answers.

Remember that not every zoologist is knowledgeable about mustelids

We have occasionally come across dishonest zoologists on social media who try to flaunt their supposed degree to suggest they are experts on mustelids, and some of them at times actually end up spreading misinformation. A zoologist is simply a person who studies animals, and there are millions of different species of animals. So it is highly unlikely one single zoologist will have a comprehensive understanding of all of them. In other words, being a zoologist does not explicitly make one an expert on mustelids or any particular species within the family, unless they have taken the time to study them specifically. In fact, a layperson who has taken the time to study mustelid-specific material will often have equal or greater knowledge of mustelids than a zoologist who is a generalist.

Tips to avoid being mislead by seemingly authoritative educational content

Do not assume that every educational content about mustelids on the internet was created by someone who actually cared about the animals enough to do thorough research. This includes the Q&A section on websites like wikiHow—just because you received an answer to your question, that does not mean the person who gave it is an expert on the topic or is aware they could be perpetuating a myth. When it comes to Q&As, articles, blogs, YouTube, etc., if you are genuinely interested in learning about these animals, avoid or be sceptical of those that do the following:

1. Never give attribution for nonpublic domain images or videos they share. Without this information, sometimes important context can be lost.

2. Never provide credible sources for any information they give, especially regarding “fun facts”, memes, or shocking stories that attempt to generalise a species’ behaviour or psychology based on one or a few incidents. If they say, “according to researchers and other experts” yet do not list them, this should be another red flag.

3. Use content that appears automated (e.g., robotic grammar, descriptions of animals that do not match the photos they are assigned to, or numerous different animal “facts” being posted practically 24/7). These may have been primarily created by artificial intelligence programs and are typically offenders of #1 and #2.

4. Describe mustelids as “cruel”, “torturous”, “bloodthirsty”, or other similar labels. Typically, content creators who use such language have little to no interest in educating or gaining a deeper understanding about the animals, and are more interested in superficial facts or pandering to sensationalist, hysterical, or anthropomorphised beliefs for shock value or entertainment.

5. Similar to above, constantly express how “cute” or “vicious” a wild animal is by way of speech, music, or imagery—their content being more focused on telling us what our emotional reactions should be by pandering to our misconceptions and biases, rather than being about the animal and inviting us into their world.