I was talking with my now-elderly parents about this yesterday, and my mum (quite rightly) pointed out that the boulder-choke we're currently digging through is probably no safer, in the grand scheme of things, than dropping to the bottom of the sea in a home-made submarine. Both involve an 'acceptable' amount of risk, based on our calculations of what may or may not occur after we make a choice to modify something. But whether we made it onto the telly would depend on what happened.
If we got squashed, we might just make
Look North as a sad item on the late-night slot. If we got trapped, but were clearly still alive, we might make it onto the national news, and possibly even international news if the rescue took a long time. If we subsequently died because the rescue took too long, then a lecture on the foolishness of caving might ensue. If we don't have any accidents at all, but never get out of the boulder choke we'll be called obsessives or eccentrics by the caving community. If we discover a new cave, we might make Descent. It's all to play for.
But I couldn't really explain to my parents
why I was willing to do this (at least from their perspective), and so I also couldn't really criticise the submariners for doing what they do. I've mentioned it before, but
Ace In The Hole is a really good study of the media, ambition, danger and caves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)