What could have been an informative article about sharks turned into a rather sensationalistic piece of commercial journalism.
Read article
Unfortunately, I was somewhat naive believing that what I said in the interview would help the cause of educating people about sharks. I had no previous experience with the press but as Rudy Socha put it: "Wolf, look at the bright side, at 66 it was time for you to lose your virginity..."
Thus, I read for the first time in my life, mouth wide open, that I "survived 50 years of swimming with sharks", then I saw myself in a photograph surrounded by 30 "tiger sharks", and a minor, rather irrelevant accident (the bite of a shark I clearly provoked) became the centerpiece of the article.
OK, I understand newspapers need some hype to get their readers' attention. However, reporters should always stick to the truth, no matter what. There is a blatant lie in the article that I find intolerable: The "Daily Mail" states that I am 67 years old - that is simply not true; I am only 66 years and 10 months old.... :-)
Read article
Unfortunately, I was somewhat naive believing that what I said in the interview would help the cause of educating people about sharks. I had no previous experience with the press but as Rudy Socha put it: "Wolf, look at the bright side, at 66 it was time for you to lose your virginity..."
Thus, I read for the first time in my life, mouth wide open, that I "survived 50 years of swimming with sharks", then I saw myself in a photograph surrounded by 30 "tiger sharks", and a minor, rather irrelevant accident (the bite of a shark I clearly provoked) became the centerpiece of the article.
OK, I understand newspapers need some hype to get their readers' attention. However, reporters should always stick to the truth, no matter what. There is a blatant lie in the article that I find intolerable: The "Daily Mail" states that I am 67 years old - that is simply not true; I am only 66 years and 10 months old.... :-)