He must have been breathing towards her.

Is Mediaite guilty of Sheensploitation™ since it had no less than 5 blog posts on it’s main page when this was all going on?

Tomorrow Tommy will interview Howie about his interview with Andrea talking about her interview with Sheen . Winning !

“In order to conduct a truly illuminating interview, it is necessary to empathize with your subject, in order to construct questions that will elicit more complete, honest responses”

As a former federal prosecutor, I can comfortably say that is rubbish. There are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of “interviews” I have conducted with people I didn’t like nor respect and still managed to illicit truthful and even honest responses. I imagine any trained and reasonably competent investigator could do the exact same thing. I caught bits & pieces of Canning’s interview, and I thought she was in over her head, especially when measuring her performance against the several “interviews” conducted by the NBC reporter during the same time period.

Charlie Sheen has a LONG history of violence against women. The questions I haven’t seen asked nor answered since this episode began to unfold are simple: Why did it take an insult from Sheen about CBS and its producer before production was canceled? Why didn’t Sheen holding a knife to his wife’s throat cause CBS to act sooner. And, why did CBS pick Sheen for that role to begin with, considering Sheen’s well-documented history of violence against women?

Sheen is a drug abusing, women beating, narcissistic douche-bag, but it’s pretty clear those qualities were self-evident long before CBS even gave him the job. Why are they surprised by his latest transgressions?

Tommy, I am not sure I completely understand your complaint. As someone who has covered the Sheen mess from the legal side, I am certainly one of those people that you would suggest ought to back off as well.

The Sheen story is just another example of a “tabloid case” that leads the capital J Journalism folks to become apoplectic. Of course I understand why. With Libya immersed in civil war, Egypt just creating the seeds of what could become the middle east’s most significant democracy and Wisconsin becoming the battleground for unions power nationwide, there are certainly more important stories out there. And yet what you call “profit motive,” I call the public’s choice as to what they want to see. And yet watch GMA (where Andrea appears frequently . .disclosure. . . as do I) or the Today Show and you will see coverage of Libya almost every morning, not because it rates, but because its that important.

I am certainly not going to sit here and offer some hackneyed defense of the amount of coverage the story has received. I’ll just say this, the guy was the highest paid actor on television and comes from a very famous family. Whether you like it or not, his fight with CBS and his subsequent rants are newsworthy. That is not to say it justifies the amount of coverage or the number of rants but its newsworthy by any definition that is not purely utopian or idealistic. So to single out Andrea Canning here is beyond unfair. She handled the interview well and I have no idea what you mean by she or someone else should have “handled it more responsibly.”

You say “There are strong indications that Sheen suffers from some form of mental illness (for which he frequently self-medicates), which, while newsworthy, doesn’t justify putting that illness on display for several hours, and possibly making it worse.” Who are you to judge? I agree he seems “nuts” but those who know him well say he has always behaved erratically. What, the media ought to gather a panel of medical experts to assess his mental state before moving forward with this story? Please. And then when they are divided about just how mentally ill he is or is not, then what? I assure you that would be the result as we see in trials every day. There are murderers, perverts and degenerates far more clearly mentally ill than Sheen who have been given hours on news programs with no complaints that they are being exploited (even though in some cases the complaints would be justified).

All of us who care about the future of this planet and this country wish the public would focus more on the enviornment, the conditions in Sudan or Somalia, or the causes of, and solutions for, the budget deficit. I end up reading articles or watch videos on many of those topics regularly. But there is a certain arrogance and snobbery associated with telling people what they ought to want to watch or read. And even worse is to blame someone like Andrea Canning who did a solid job in this interview and then honestly offered viewers a behind the scenes glimpse at what she was thinking.

You may be right that it will cost Charlie Sheen in the end. That is beyond sad. But it was Sheen who created this mess and it is not the media’s responsibility to try to figure out how to help him out of it.

tatboy said:
Is Mediaite guilty of Sheensploitation™ since it had no less than 5 blog posts on it’s main page when this was all going on?

I wouldn’t (and don’t) judge the coverage of Sheen in terms of the quantity, but on the way each outlet treats it. I haven’t read every post we’ve written about Sheen, but I’m happy with what I’ve written, and since we’re a site that covers the media, it stands to reason that the quantity of coverage here would mirror that of the rest of the media.

Republitarian said:
As a former federal prosecutor, I can comfortably say that is rubbish. There are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of “interviews” I have conducted with people I didn’t like nor respect and still managed to illicit truthful and even honest responses.

There are many huge differences between the two jobs, chief among them the fact that an interview subject isn’t legally compelled to speak to a journalist. You have a subpoena, we have, among other things, empathy.

You know Charlie wanted some quick sex with her.

Dan Abrams said:
Tommy, I am not sure I completely understand your complaint. As someone who has covered the Sheen mess from the legal side, I am certainly one of those people that you would suggest ought to back off as well.

The Sheen story is just another example of a “tabloid case” that leads the capital J Journalism folks to become apoplectic. Of course I understand why. With Libya immersed in civil war, Egypt just creating the seeds of what could become the middle east’s most significant democracy and Wisconsin becoming the battleground for unions power nationwide, there are certainly more important stories out there. And yet what you call “profit motive,” I call the public’s choice as to what they want to see. And yet watch GMA (where Andrea appears frequently . .disclosure. . . as do I) or the Today Show and you will see coverage of Libya almost every morning, not because it rates, but because its that important.

Dan,

with all due respect, you really don’t seem to understand my complaint. I actually have several, but the quantity of coverage isn’t one of them.

Sure, there is the exploitation factor, which Kurtz touched on, and superficially, that seems to involve the quantity of coverage, but if there were eleventy-billion hours of responsible Sheen coverage, you wouldn’t hear a peep out of me. ‘i confess, I haven’t seen all of your Sheen-related work, but I imagine that it rises to your usual high standards.

But my second, more serious complaint is that, by putting Sheen on display in interview after interview, interviews which have a very small ratio of news value-to-noise, the media is acting irresponsibly by enabling, and possibly aggravating, Sheen’s possible condition.

You’re right, we don’t know for sure what, if anything, is wrong with Charlie Sheen, but knowing the risks, and judging Sheen’s situation by the standards of reasonable people, the news value of sticking a camera in his face over and over again doesn’t justify them. Not in my view.

You’re also right that Sheen got himself into this, and we have no duty to get him out of it. I am saying that we do have a duty not to make it worse.

Dan Abrams said:
And yet what you call “profit motive,” I call the public’s choice as to what they want to see.

What people “want to see” is only part of the newsworthiness equation, and I believe the profit motive has given it disproportionate weight.

I’m curious how you would look at these interviews if Charlie Sheen were not potentially mentally ill (which I think he is) and it turned out that he was acting and just playing the press and those of us watching him.

Kathy Kitt said:
I’m curious how you would look at these interviews if Charlie Sheen were not potentially mentally ill (which I think he is) and it turned out that he was acting and just playing the press and those of us watching him.

Well, then I would probably have a different criticism, but I wouldn’t care as much. As Dan points out, the public’s level of interest would seem to justify the *quantity* of coverage, but I would still question the newsworthiness of specific aspects of the coverage. In either case, though, I do think that legal analysis is very valuable.

She was obviously in a fog; of Charlie’s cigarette smoke.

If you look at how many followers Sheen has on Twitter you can plainly see that the public is not tired of him and are just their to gawk at the train wreck waiting to happen. I for one am not interested in what Sheen has to say, but did watch the coverage when it came on GMA, The Today Show and listened to it on the radio when it was talked about by those stations I listen to – some only covered it one day, like Mitch Albom of WJR, but then refused to say any more. Personally I think the problem with this whole situation is that the public needs something to move away from their crisis in their own lives – someone has it worse than I do.

As for the coverage itself you really can’t blame the reporters for the interviews they did, the substance of them was really controlled by Sheen whether he did it consciously or unconsciously, in other words look what they had to work with. I’m sure many of them would rather be covering something else, but it is their job to do it, no matter what. Hopefully things will be different this week and we can go back to complaining about gasoline prices and things like that. Unless Charlie decides to throw his hat into the political ring, now that would be a news story.

Touchy touchy huh, never seen so many Mediaite Staff posting in a single thread. I think thou dost protest too much, IMO

Personally, I think Sheen has used everything at his disposal to successfully salvage his career and it seems that most people who have been hating on him have never been fans of him or his show. If nothing else, I’ll say that he’s written the book on burying what may have been a transgression under a flurry of appearances and social media platforms — a lesson that perhaps others in Hollywood or politics should learn — and when all is said and done, he may need to self-produce or turn to a friend like Oliver Stone, but I suspect his next several projects will turn a profit.

He’s obviously very charismatic and has a different sense of humor. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are hundreds of thousands of people like him and millions of others enamored by such strong personalities. Perhaps they are all bi-polar to some extent or otherwise disturbed, but that’s who they are as human beings and why shouldn’t they be allowed to have a hero?

To me, if you’d like to second guess anything, it should be the statement of fact Howie referenced in his introduction; Throughout all of Sheen’s well-publicized troubles his show has only been subjected to a couple of temporary hiatuses, but it was when he dissed the producer that Lorre and Warner Brothers pulled the plug.

PS) As to Channing’s claim that Charlie went back on his word, I don’t know the specifics of her arrangement with him or his people, but ABC is the one who decided to sit on the interview, they could’ve aired it at any time.

“But at some point, someone (if not Canning, then a producer, or a news editor) needed to recognize that the interview had morphed from a discussion with a newsmaker, into a news event itself, and handled it more responsibly.” per Tommy Christopher.

These are your words.

It surprises me when you write/describe one thing and then….

Y’all ask the same question again.

I think if people keep on saying the same things in a different manner…over and over again; they will find “deep success”.

I do have to admit…typing here gives me a stretch that I normally wouldn’t have.

hah!

If someone is mentally ill, an on air interview is hardly going to ‘make it worse’. And if it costs him something, what would that be? Is he not responsible for whatever comes out of his mouth? Has he not been blabbing all over hell and back?

I’m all for holding the media accountable in general, and have many beefs with it, but this isn’t one of them. Sheen is beyond famous, as is his family. He’s putting it out there and all the media is really doing is rolling tape.

As to what it costs him, his own behavior has already cost him his job. His previous behavior has cost him several marriages and now probably the custody of his kids. Either his drug use has fried his brain or he was mentally ill to begin with and self medicating. Did the media do this? Not hardly. Charlie has done really well with screwing up his own life, all by himself.

The only thing that the media is doing is documenting it.

PS) I didn’t watch the Canning interview, nor the clips and though it is somewhat related to what she said on Kurtz’s show, but it doesn’t have a lot to do with this post and is instead mostly prompted by other references, but…

What’s with all the prejudice against “porn stars”? Are they not allowed to date? Should social services take away all of their children? Would you think less of me, if you knew that I’ve had non-remunerated relations with strippers and have profited from porn sites in the past?

Tiger blood. Duh.

Magister, the answer is, ‘probably yes’. I think that porn is exploitation and basically trashy, and so do a lot of other people. Should social services take away their children? Yes, if they’re exposed to it. No, if they can keep it completely seperate from the kids. As to the situation in question, Sheen’s lifestyle is not something that children should be exposed to on any level. People are free to live the life that they choose, and other people are free to give that lifestyle a thumbs up or thumbs down. That includes the porn star girlfriends and the drug use, etc.

JR said:
Magister, the answer is, ‘probably yes’. I think that porn is exploitation and basically trashy, and so do a lot of other people. Should social services take away their children? Yes, if they’re exposed to it. No, if they can keep it completely seperate from the kids. As to the situation in question, Sheen’s lifestyle is not something that children should be exposed to on any level. People are free to live the life that they choose, and other people are free to give that lifestyle a thumbs up or thumbs down. That includes the porn star girlfriends and the drug use, etc.

I assume they’re not making porn in front of Sheen’s kids and I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Sheen or his kids are on porn sets, so if the young ladies are still active in the industry — something that may be doubtful because I assume most is freelance and they wouldn’t currently need the income — then porn would be their jobs and when they go to the set, they’d be going to work.

According to published reports, adult video on demand and pay-per-view options are expected to provide $1.4 billion in “found” revenue to the cable and satellite companies and “porn” as a loosely-defined generic term is currently estimated to be a $97.06 billion dollar industry, worldwide.

A quick Google shows that someone uploaded a list of “porn stars” who are mothers to Wikipedia, but it was deleted because it was just a generic, poorly-documented list of people fitting too broad of a definition and apparently the article contained a lot of POV statements, but just the quick archive of women whose name starts with an A shows that the phenomenon does exist.

Personally, I think porn stars should be allowed to have children and boyfriends, some of which may have children of their own and I believe that if authorities should become involved, it’d have to be under some type of provocation and not just that someone in the media disapproves of their occupation.
—

Note: I realize that Sheen’s ex had her children removed with help from the court, but it has been reported that she made additional allegation, they’re involved in a custody battle, child support and public perceptions could be a factor and it was really just one judge’s opinion.

Dear Tommy: “You’re FIRED!”

Respectfully yours,

Dan Abrams