There's a list of David Attenborough video output at ...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_...Go.x=5&Go.y=10

... and links to his non-video output too.

Like Jacques Cousteau, David became a naturalist but he was also a leader of public awareness at a time when TV and cameras and cameramen and general interest in nature coincided towards the production of excellence. The result: heightened awareness and a thirst for more ... not bad for mere humans. But real, for sure.

To an extent I agree with you Kevin. The cliff-hanger trick is as old as Greek tragedy, but I'm trying but failing so far to visualize how the complex interactions between some of the meerkats could have been explored and described coherently for me (Joe Soap) without using human language. Would you have preferred if those interactions were ignored or do you think the interactions were not just anthromorphised but actually concocted for telly? If 'twas all fiction dressed as apparent fact, then I'm a sucker. If you think the interactions were probably accurately observed then the question remains how else or how better could they have been described, except by excluding the odd moment of melodrama?

I would have preferred a less sensationalized presentation, because the way it is now just doesn't feel right. It does make for good television but I'm not sure that improves anyone's appeciation of Meerkats: it's just a soap opera with wild animals as the stars instead of people. Maybe it doesn't need to be as droll as National Geographic, but take one step back in that direction and I'd be happier with it.

Yes, I think I get your point.

Just script it "Mozart has been driven out of the tribe for breeding" and omit any addition of "One can't help feeling sorry for Mozart" or "She will be feeling isolated and is trying desperately to rejoin". I'd accept that. If that's what you mean then what you're implying is ... the script should stick to objective observation and leave out subjective follow through.

The last sentence was not my idea, it was yours and you have obliged me to find words for it. Thank you. Keeping script as dry as that is a challenge worth taking on because, as you say, the alternative is soap opera, which only trivialises and distracts from real issues. Chances are, if I may hazard a "follow through", that Mozart was not feeling sorry or isolated but experiencing cold and terror. Or have I gone too far?

Its interesting to watch Meerkat Manor with folks from different age groups and especially how intriged 7-11 years olds are with it. For a week I had to listen to "Oh poor Shakesphere" after the snake bite and when he recovered and later saved the babies you would have thought he was the greatest hero ever. The producers/writers love to place human qualities on animals because it works.

Regards

Just wanted to add my 2 cents on Steve Irwin. I loved all that he did. He did a lot for wildlife. Made watching and learning exciting which probably helped to make people more generous with wildlife conservation funds. Probably helped to generate more $$ for wildlife than anyone will ever know with his showmanship. Was very very sad to hear about it.

Yes, or at least tone down the subjective commentary to slightly less blatant levels. As Mark says the current version does get your attention, but does it leave people thinking of Meerkats as Meerkats or as little furry people? I'd like to have a little left to the imagination here, with more emphasis on the fact that these are animals and not people.