Skip to content

The Nadir News Network


I cannot tolerate news.  A few minutes viewing makes me sputter “that’s not newsworthy!” at the screen, after which Judy kicks me out of the room.  My students roll their eyes at these rants; this is the only news they have known. The latest twist in the “balloon boy” story is the allegation that media outlets were in on the hoax.  No details yet, but it is easy to believe.  Any nitwit who pursues public attention diligently enough will receive it from media enablers.  In 1974 in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court presciently classified as public figures for purposes of defamation law people who are in the public eye “by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public’s attention.”  The Court could not have anticipated in 1974 the extent to which notoriety and celebrity, divorced of talent, merit, or accomplishment, would become ends in themselves.  After “discovering” that his son might have climbed aboard the drifting balloon the father’s first call was not to 911, but a station.  Where do these people come from?

Sphere: Related Content

Related posts

  • No related posts.
This was written by David Randall. Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 12:04 pm. Filed under Pop Culture. Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

2 Comments

  1. Joel wrote:

    Any chance of an ad hoc investigation into the parents' actions to find recourse for the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars that were wasted by the State of Colorado, Norad, the National Guard, USAF, and the Army in looking for a child who was conveniently hiding in his own house. How is the remotely competently individual expected to be idly complacent in accepting the notion that parents and media would sit at/in their house jabbering for a search for a scared child and not search the place most familiar to that child. Either way, there must be a case negligence on the part of the parents, obstruction, or maybe just the need for creation of legal precedent with regard to stupidity.

    Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 4:32 am | Permalink
  2. Brian Chin wrote:

    I don’t understand why some parents would go to such an extent just to get “fame.” Is fame and fortune everything? Don’t they realize the psychological repercussions that will cause damage to the child’s behavior? Any parent that would subject their children to this condition should be found negligent.

    Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.