Skip to main content

The helium of publicity

There's a remarkable story in the news at the moment.

American science enthusiast Richard Heene had a large helium balloon tethered in his garden. The balloon escaped, which was kind of sad, but suddenly this blossomed into a potential tragedy. According to one of Heene's children, his six-year-old son was 'in' the balloon.

What followed was a couple of hours of tense live TV until the balloon landed with no one inside, and the boy was found in the attic.

But was this a terrible accident that nearly happened, or a very successful publicity stunt? This might seem an insensitive question, but it's fuelled by two things. The family had already been on a reality TV show (Wife Swap), and the boy in the attic apparently said he heard his family searching for him, but kept quiet because his parents 'said that we did this for a show.'

We have to ask, was it realistic to imagine the boy was carried away 'in' the balloon? Or for that matter, would anyone undertake a stunt like this just to get publicity?

What certainly is true is that many participants in reality shows seem desperate for visibility at all costs. Somehow, they feel that being on TV, being recognized by the nation, is the only thing worth aiming for. Perhaps the saddest of the entries on X Factor are those who admit that what they want is to be a celebrity. They don't really care about singing, or music, it's being famous that counts.

Was the Heene balloon a publicity stunt? It's up to you to decide - but it certainly isn't an impossible deduction from the evidence.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Michael Davey16 October 2009 at 23:23

    I'm concerned about the number of people in the media, the FAA, police and sheriffs who didn't take the time to determine if it was even possible for that balloon to carry the weight of a child. As soon as I saw the balloon I knew it couldn't.

    Certainly the father would likely have the helium cylinders, or know the business where they were purchased from, and/or have a receipt or know the size of the balloon.

    From there, simple math would have made the boys flight a non issue. I expect this sort of media coverage, namely tossing out speculation with no facts, and failing to ask the right questions... (like is it even possible, or is it even true) but I would have thought that someone at the FAA would know enough to do some simple math.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg18 October 2009 at 16:29

    Good point, Mike.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more