National Geographic Admits Polar Bear Video's Link to Climate Change Got 'Out of Hand'

Last year, in what became one of the most widely circulated pieces of footage in recent history, National Geographic posted the now-infamous video of a starving polar bear, with the accompanying caption “[This is] what climate change is like.” The company has now addressed their wording, saying the situation “went too far.”

Their choice of caption was a deviation from that of the duo who recorded the footage. Paul Nicklen and Cristina Mittermeier shot the video, before the former posted it alongside the words: “This is what starvation looks like.” It was National Geographic who altered it for their own select choice of words, deciding to present the photo to the masses as propaganda for climate change.

The article was accompanied by harrowing descriptions of the polar bear’s suffering (“One of the bear’s back legs drags behind it as it walks, likely due to muscle atrophy.”) and included quotes from Nicklen and Mittermeier of how they cried while recording. The video now holds the title for being the most viewed video of all time on the Nat Geo site.

But in the new August 2018 print issue, Mittermeier admits they “lost control of the narrative.” She claims Nat Geo went too far with their caption — a sentiment echoed by the brand’s editor:

National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our video about the animal. We said, ‘This is what climate change looks like.’ While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death.

Mittermeier says she and Nicklen do take some responsibility, though, for not telling the full story, admitting they didn’t know the circumstances leading to the polar bear’s critical condition.

Although important to illustrate the effects of climate change, it’s evident in this case there was an agenda on the part of National Geographic in order to capitalize on what they knew would be a headline-grabbing image.