Ok, I admit that the media blitz surrounding Charlie Sheen has captivated my attention for the last couple of days. What is going on with Charlie? What seems to be a gawker type relationship with both media and public, all wondering with anticipation what is going to happen next, Charlie breezes through metaphors and references to DNA in his ability to win with stamina akin to that of an Adonis? But do media outlets cross the line with opinion based vs. observation based reporting?
Admittedly, it is the projection of his personality which “beats to its own drummer”, and references to having a brain that no other would want, nor could handle for that matter does shine bright in media eyes. Yes, I’ve seen similar people with strong-willed, uncompromising traits who rebel against authority and have been quite successful. The question remains, does the actions of Charlie Sheen mandate a wholesale “pundit” laced diatribe of diagnosis, which in the least, disparages the actors reputation? Unfortunately, that is the state of our media today; everyone has an opinion and is willing to share that without sustainable facts. See (Did local TV experts violate ethics rules in Charlie Sheen stories?)
Do to the nature of our media blitz mentality and celebrity fixation; personalities tend to endure a never-ending microscope of inevitable scrutiny with millions, if not billions watching with what seems to be perverse enthusiasm. So goes the current saga of Charlie Sheen. What captivates my attention and interest is his willingness to fight back against the storm which threatens to engulf his career, family, and the ability to make a living. Keep in mind he is doing this by candidly revealing his thoughts and actions for everyone to evaluate and interpret. One has to admire the guts! See (ABC’s Charlie Sheen interview wins hour)
Now, I’m not saying Charlie does not have a dependency problem, since no one but his physicians or therapists could make that evaluation, but he is clean at the moment, and working to repair, if not gain some control over the situation. So when does morality and career coincide to derail someone’s ability to make a living? It seems when media outlets become the driving force of fact Vs opinion and all involved parties make decisions based on those assumptions. That is the crux of our media society today.
Charlie Vs CBS
Obviously, CBS has mandated a “time-out” period, but has done so by canceling the remainder of the 2 ½ Men season. That move, without doubt, raises legal questions which will inevitably end up in the court system where the issue will be decided. What does seem concrete is the fact that Charlie is willing to abide by his contract, and reiterates that the show never suffered from his off-screen antics. So when does success and personal actions combine to cause such career mayhem? The fact that celebrities live under such a limelight of scrutiny, with their every move recorded and reported, until mistakes are made that become too embarrassing to control and corporations seem to have “knee jerk” reactions. See (Is Charlie Sheen Winning? The Scoreboard)
It is the best interest of all if CBS and Charlie sat down to iron out their differences. After all, 2 ½ Men is the highest rated TV Sitcom on television and both parties have a lot to lose if things do not get worked out. Charlie may have to become more amenable to additional oversight, whether its drug testing or monitoring for the sake of the show. We need a win-win outcome here while all parties involved should work to that end. The man does have talent, and he obviously knows it, and he is willing to fight to prove it.
It is without question that “back-seat diagnosis” through psychological pundit opinions have become commonplace within news organizations. These individuals revel in their expertness and readily share such with large national and international audiences. When does this type reporting become dangerous and destructive to the point of effecting outcomes for both personal and professional reputations? Observations and comments on facts are one thing, but personal diagnosis of individual health, without ever meeting and examining someone, are “far-fetched” in my humble opinion.