<p>Whether these interviews should be aired is an interesting issue. Mr. Sheen is the one calling the networks, asking for the interviews. At what point does a TV network decide whether a person is mentally competent? I don’t know the answer, just pondering.</p>
<p>Never watched the show, so I don’t have an opinion on its qualilty or lack thereof.</p>
<p>My opinion of Charlie Sheen the man is that he is sick. A TV biography that I watched years ago reported that Charlie had a bad boy reputation in high school that may have been overlooked because he was a star athlete (baseball) and the child of a famous actor to boot. But a lot of normal adults were mischievous in high school. And Emilio and Martin’s other two kids seem to have turned out alright. I have much empathy for Martin Sheen. Met him casually one day just just walking about. He was very gracious, courteous and appeared to be a very nice man. He’s also a man of high morals (a devout Catholic), from what I know about him. He must be heartbroken over Charlie.</p>
<p>missypie- an interesting question. I don’t believe that a network has to decide on someone’s mental competency. I think it is more a question of what role the network wants to play in society. Do they want to be known as a hard news network, do they want to be known as doing anything for a buck, etc.- ie. what do they want their reputation to be?</p>
<p>I recall the Jerry Springer show, for example- where the intent was apparently to brand the show as having some of the sickest, strangest people and situations aired for all to see. Eventually, that lost its appeal, I think. </p>
<p>I think also of the porn industry as another example- just because there are lots of folks willing to be filmed in disgusting situations for all to see doesn’t justify the existence of the industry. </p>
<p>In my mind- airing Charlie Sheen’s breakdown is the equivalent of the worst Jerry Springer show and porno. It is possible that some good will come of it- possibly raising some folks awareness of mental health issues- but I think for the most part it will only strengthen the stigma of mental health issues.</p>
<p>It would be nice to have the financial security that goes with great TV success, but the media interest, not so much. Most of us have friends or relatives who have struggled with addiction and/or mental illness. Thank goodness we didn’t have to watch them give long interviews on TV in an impaired state.</p>
<p>2bizee
</p>
<p>I hope you are joking when you say you are a mental health “professional”.</p>
<p>mimk6
</p>
<p>So true! He really has been exploited by people who are looking to make a buck, get a laugh, or watch a car accident in slow motion. </p>
<p>Even if Charlie Sheen himself called a network to set up an interview, is it ethical for them to take him up on it when they know he is a train wreck in progress? I think not. Is it ethical for a relatively sober football captain to take an intoxicated girl up on it if she propositions him?</p>
<p>it ethical for the football captain to take an intoxicated girl up on it if she propositions him?</p>
<p>Legally I didn’t think you could give consent if your judgment was impaired.</p>
<p>Hanna said:
</p>
<p>Hanna, if you love Toddlers & Tiaras, you may really love Tom Hanks’ spoof on the genre the other night on Jimmy Kimmel:</p>
<p>[Watch</a> Tom Hanks & His “Daughter” In ‘Toddlers & Tiaras’ Episode - OK! Magazine - The First for Celebrity News](<a href=“NEWS”>http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/03/watch-tom-hanks-his-daughter-in-toddlers-tiaras-episode/)</p>
<p>For some potential guests for shows like Oprah, and I am guessing for the reality shows as well, participants undergo psychological screenings. (I know because my office associate did one for Oprah). Personally, I dislike it when the word “ethical” is thrown around, as it is so subjective and has such a potentially negative connotation. And I agree, it is not the TV station’s job to discern if a star is competent. Hopefully their “handlers” are overseeing some of their choices. I would imagine that even if Sheen is in a manic ebisode, he would meet “competence” standards, woudl be competent to make bad decisions. Of course, I wouldnt put it past him to later try to sue the TV stations for airing his interviews because they “should have known” that he was perhaps unstable. What about the tabloid shows that aired the Brittney Spears photos when she was being hospitalized, or the Mel Gibson audiotapes? Those were done without their permission. If that is considered “ethical”, for lack of a better word, then allowing Sheen to make bad decisions is IMO no less “ethical”. Smarmy? Sure. Unethical, not IMO.</p>
<p>I very much like considering ethics as often as possible. Not “throwing it around”, per se, but not diminishing it either as it is one of things that holds human society together. These days there is a lot of intellectualizing of simple matters that really should be black and white situations. Too many gray areas, too much ethical relativism. </p>
<p>There is a right and a wrong, and quite often we don’t see it unless we are personally involved in a situation. It is quite easy to see right and wrong, in a black and white way, when we or a loved one is the victim.</p>
<p>How would I feel if Charlie Sheen was my brother, son, or father? I would hope that those with whom he comes in contact would respect the humanity in him and not exploit him for their pleasure or personal gain when he is clearly not well. If they did otherwise, I would think they were way more than “smarmy”. I would think they were unethical. This would not be a gray area. </p>
<p>Injuring others, when it can easily be avoided, is unethical plain and simple. Exploiting Sheen injures him and his loved ones as well.</p>
<p>Do unto others…Simple and always true.</p>
<p>I think if you have to stop and think about if something is ethical or not- it probably isn’t. Not to say it isn’t legal- or “good business”, but “smarmy” just means unctuous.
Journalists whether in print or media aren’t known for their ethics, so I don’t think they are laying awake nights wondering if they did the right thing.</p>
<p>In my field, we have ethical guidelines to which we adhere. But often, when people talk about something they think is an individual judgement call, and/or may be ill-advised, they throw around the term “unethical”, which is an entirely different thing. Perhaps I am listening with my professional ears, and that is not how the term is being used here. All too often these are not black-and-white matters, and the definition of what constitutes a wrongdoing or what is “injuring others” is yet again a matter of debate.</p>
<p>I think it is true that “injuring others” is a matter for debate, but somehow there is no debate necessary when we are ourselves the victim. At that point everything is all very clear.</p>
<p>As for journalists…Didn’t there used to be more of a code of ethics or behavior in that profession? Something changed. Interesting that soon after editors stopped doing their job (which was in part, I think, to enforce some kind of code), the birth of a whole new form of journalism happened: the editor-less blog. Make yourself dispensable, and you will be replaced.</p>
<p>I haven’t ever watched the show , and really don’t care much about Charlie Sheen . What bothers me is that his children are exposed to all of this madness and it has to be confusing to have all of this in their lives</p>
<p>Unfortunately I dont have time to get into this discussion now, and it will severely take this thread off topic, but this is by no means a black or white issue. Having just gone through end of life decisions for my remaining parent, even with what was IMO a very clear living will and healthcare proxy, matters of “right or wrong” were by no means seen as clear. It isnt that simple.</p>
<p>As for Charlie Sheen, decisions as to whether or not to air segments of an all day interview (and from what I heard they did some significant editing of things they didnt feel were appropriate to air) are perhaps a judgement call. But good/bad judgement isn’t necessarily an ethical/unethical issue (with deference to my professional use of the term “ethical”)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope he/she isn’t joking. Seems like a very accurate diagnosis to me!</p>
<p>The news/entertainment industry (and we all know that there is only one bottom line for CBS/ABC/NBC/etc.) cares only about $$$. I appreciate the conversation about whether it is ethical to let Sheen be an idiot for all to see, but not for one nanosecond do I think the executives at the Today Show or 20/20 ever asked themselves IF they should air the interviews.</p>
<p>Charlie Sheen is a train wreck and the networks are selling tickets.</p>
<p>I cannot help but watch - too human, I suppose.</p>
<p>I respect everyone else’s views on this but I just don’t have a problem with the networks broadcasting Charlie’s interviews. He has made so much money from being a television star that it’s hard for me to have sympathy if they now use his public meltdown to boost ratings. Put another way, he has benefited greatly, to the tune of millions, from being able to generate high television ratings for the networks. Well, the ability to boost ratings cuts both ways, when is works in your favor and when it doesn’t. This is just the price of fame, he chose to be rich and famous and this is what it costs.</p>
<p>If he was a private person and the networks were publicizing his meltdown I would have a big problem with that. But he is someone who has always enjoyed the spotlight. Not to mention that he is slandering some of the people who produced his show. They have a right to expose the whole situation for what it is.</p>
<p>I also think this is a legitimate news story, the fall of a great actor. Wealth and fame don’t amount to anything if you can’t hang onto your mental health.</p>
<p>Allthisisnewtome
</p>
<p>Maybe you can enlighten us as to where we can find “whacko” in the DSM-IV. Seems to me like a pejorative term for someone who has mental illness or a brain disease, both of which are disabilities. Discrimination and bigotry, plain and simple. If you support this type of bigotry, you support them all. You can’t pick and choose. Does it make it OK because Charlie Sheen is famous? Would other types of discrimination be OK if in those instances the victims were famous? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>@spideygirl – I meant to tell you earlier that your post #37 was really good. I’ve been trying to get a fix on how Charlie could seem like he is high when he tests clean. Assuming he really hasn’t been using for the last 72 hours your post #37 provides a reasonable explanation.</p>