My two cents on #balloonboy ... er ... #garageatticboy and the empty balloon

To recap, cable news ran hours of live coverage of an empty weather balloon floating around Colorado, telling us a 6-year-old boy was inside, when said boy was hiding in an attic/storage space over the family garage. Either a 6-year-old and his brother just punked America and its cable news stations, or maybe more of the family was involved. Every time an anchor said that what you were watching was a balloon carrying a boy, they were wrong. Their source? A kid. Brings to mind, and not in a good way, "And a little child shall lead them." What should have just been either a scary family afternoon or a misguided publicity stunt uncovered or ignored "ballooned" to a national crisis.

Police said that in searching the house, they didn't search the garage attic space because they didn't think the boy could get up there. It's always the last place you look, isn't it? Look, I get that the cables have more time than important news to cover and stories to tell, so it falls also to consumers to be wise in their media consumption.

Always consider the source

This applies to politicians, salespeople, the media, almost anything. Whenever anyone is telling you anything, consider why they are even talking to you -- what are their motives? what do they want? -- and place what they say in that context. And specific to news and this situation, when anyone said "There's a boy in a balloon in Colorado," what was their source? Whether you heard about it on twitter, Facebook, a website, or on cable TV, the sources trace pretty quickly back to a little boy who said he saw his brother get into the balloon. From the pictures, I don't see how/if anyone can even actually get in to it, but based on that kid, whether or not he was coached/compelled by his parents to tell the story, local authorities and TV stations took up the chase/broadcast, none of them with any valid information or confirmation of the story more than the story of a small child. The true story wasn't worth anyone's time, attention, emotion, prayers, etc. Think about it: not one honest person over 10 years old could say, "I saw a boy float away in a balloon" as producers and "journalists" broadcast hours of footage of an empty balloon afloat.


I find the metaphor of the empty balloon non-story compelling. After hours of hype, emotion, and breathless coverage, there was no "there" there, as I think often happens with all the media outlets fighting for our attention and their existence. "A Democrat disagrees with a Republican!" "Obama's the best!" "Obama stinks!" "You lie!" and all the same catchwords: communism, socialism, racist, etc. are tossed around, but is there any news in them? Most times, I find that there is not, and I think we'd be better off to have never heard a lot of the tumult, or to disregard or ignore it. Now, there is actual news out there, things we should hear about and know. While I don't want/need the White House to decide who is and is not a valid news organization (are they unbiased? they gonna call out biased supporters of theirs as well as biased critics?) I would agree with the White House that there is a lot of bias out there, and it can be a challenge to sort out what information is actually valuable and valid.

As I watch the ALCS right now, I think that's one reason I like televised sports so much: it's happening, it's there, from various angles, and then it's finished and someone wins and someone loses, usually with minimal controversy. Almost all of the relevant action is very well covered as it happens, without photoshopping, fakes, or spin. Leagues and fans battle steroids and cheats and such, but when we see something happen, it actually happened. We're seeing the games pretty directly from the source. Now, where we've let money gain too much influence, sports also suffer: see college football's B(C)S, baseball's lack of a salary cap, etc., but each televised game is still pretty straight. And really, between yesterday's balloon coverage or any of this weekend's sporting events, which would you rather watch?

Some media-consumption tips about current stories

Jon + Kate (+ 8) - Who? What? This is a show on TLC, for crying out loud. You want to see a real-life BIG family? Find one of us LDS ("Mormon") families in your neighborhood/city. And to everyone who's not the TLC network or trashy tabloids - whether in print or on TV - let's cut all the noise and free advertising for their new season, huh?

The Supreme Court nominee, today announced as federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor - most Dems will like and support her, most Republicans will not; we can't vote on it, and it will likely be weeks before she's confirmed, and months before she might be seated on the court and have any impact. Yes, we can use some bio and background information, but people were stumbling over themselves to be the first to break the news ... why? We hear at 9:15 a.m., we hear at 9:17 a.m. - she's maybe on the Court in October.

The media world seemed to get all hot and bothered about the then-misnamed swine flu, now H1N1 flu - we got heavy reporting before anything had actually happened. Granted, that WHO lady didn't help, announcing that all of humanity was threatened. And maybe they could change their criteria for "pandemic" from just scope to also include fatality rates. So now people are actually dying of the flu here in the U.S. and it gets little mention.

In general, I know I can safely skip over most weather and much other disaster or murder trauma coverage: it was [windy/rainy/muddy, etc.] and destroyed the [houses/church/grocery store, etc.] and the people never thought it would happen to them, but will get through somehow and rebuild.

You want some real, big news? Keep an eye on Mexico, where it seems like the government/society may be battling the gangs/cartels for their very existence. Or the Korean Peninsula, where the UN sanctions and strongly worded statements seem to have little/no impact on North Korea's actions.

I also worry that there's much more heat than light in the same-sex marriage debate and news across the county, and specifically in California with the State Supreme Court, Proposition 8, back to the Court, and the related marches and demonstrations. I've got some sincere, open-ended questions about the issues and principles truly in the balance and at stake, but whom can you actually ask questions and not just be shouted down by either side? More on that later ...

Hero?

So we've all seen a news story in which someone is called a hero, and more often than not that person declines the title. (Has anyone ever said, "Yes, I am a hero. What I did was truly impressive and heroic. Aren't I great?") Perhaps we could do without that tired cliche of a question, "Do you think you're a hero?" The latest example of this would be the crew of US Airways flight 1549, particularly Captain Sullenberger. I'm all for accuracy and spreading the blame/credit around, but in this case it really does seem that "Sully" gets the lion's share. The critical part of that situation was deciding where the engine-less plane should put down and doing that safely, all of which Sully did, calling "My plane" when the engines did not restart after the bird strike.

The online Merriam-Webster definition of hero includes the following:

1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage

...

4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol

I think that we often begin with 1d and 1c (man or woman) and then begin to exaggerate, and 1a and 4 begin to seep in, as if these people who reacted well in one situation are somehow divine, or should receive our devotion in all things. And I think that the etymology and definition of idol are instructive as well:

Middle English, from Anglo-French idle

1: a representation or symbol of an object of worship ; broadly : a false god

2 a: a likeness of something b obsolete :  pretender, impostor

3: a form or appearance visible but without substance

4: an object of extreme devotion

5: a false conception : fallacy

So the very word "idol" comes tinged with the concepts of falsity, impersonation, and superficiality; it is a representation, a likeness, a visible form without substance, and a fallacy, but also an object of extreme devotion.

I submit that the true form of hero we seek, the true hero of which all others are imitations or likenesses is actual divinity or god, in our various understandings of and names for it. Elohim, Jehovah, Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, what have you -- those are our true heroes. An imperfect person can do a lot of good things, but a true hero worthy of our extreme and unending devotion is someone who -- to cite the religious story with which I'm most familiar -- lived a sinless life and then chose to suffer and die in a sacrifice of Himself that benefits all of humankind.

We can and should encourage and congratulate one another, and admire accomplishments, behaviors, and traits of those around us that we seek to emulate. But if even God tells us that He is no respecter of persons, I think we would do well to reduce the speed and frequency with which we tend to label people heroes or villains, just because they happen to be in the public spotlight, and spend more time focusing on our real heroes.