Exploiting Charlie Sheen for amusement and commercial value: How enlightened are we really?

After Charlie Sheen’s most recent debacle after the cancellation of Two and Half Men, his planned, live performances across the U.S. raise a matter anyone interested in watching him should think about—especially if they think themselves “enlightened.”

It is hard to imagine that respectable people might find it even marginally permissible to gain pleasure from the handicaps of others, which, in a historical context, used to happen when advantaged classes would visit insane asylums to see what the patients said and did that was bizarre but funny.  In fact, that is exactly what occurred as early as the mid-1600s and well into the nineteenth century.  In his definitive work, The Shows of London [Harvard Press, 1978], Richard Altick writes of Lord Percy and family paying 10 shillings to watch inmates in Bedlam’s asylum for the insane at Bishopsgate perform their unrehearsed antics.  Indeed, the practice was widespread, and was largely justified by the financial gains to the hospital from such patronage.  
 
Would we let the public pay to see mental patients today?

Of course, similar access today would be abhorred by virtually all in society, save maybe for the inmates themselves. Clearly, amusement on the part of some or even the financial advancement of the institution would be insufficient reason to demean those who are not well.  Yet that is exactly what the broadcast media have done to Charlie Sheen—and diminished both him and the viewing public in the process.  
 
In recent weeks, Mr. Sheen has been the feature of more than a few extended broadcast interviews; all the while his irrational ideation is made more apparent by each appearance, all in a way that is evocative of what otherwise would only transpire in a restricted clinical setting or a psychiatric hospital.  His irrational exuberance and wildly fanciful ideation [“I have tiger blood and Adonis DNA”] all point to a man who in all likelihood would be—except for his wealth and thus his paid entourage—a street person for lack of ability to hold a job or function in normal society.  
 
Sucking the commercial value from Mr. Sheen’s freakiness.

In effect, he is granted special feature in the media precisely because of his fame and wealth, but in the process he and his family become opened to widespread disparagement and ridicule.  Were the media not able to gain commercial advantage by showcasing his freakiness, normal discretions and their professional obligation to protect such individuals from public amusement and scorn would be honored—but that is the case if only he were more typical of the rest of us.
 
Prevailing social conventions deem as unacceptable the portraying of individuals in full and extended view—certainly for public entertainment—on account of detracting maladies involving gross motor deficiencies, speech impediments, physical disfigurements, or even general drunkenness. Yet the mainstream media seem to ignore similar inhibitions when it pertains to the psychological impairment of Mr. Sheen—even when they happen at his own misguided availability, insistence, and compliance.  As a result, all of this exposure will now to be replayed on YouTube for millions of people to watch and snicker at for a long time to come.  And Mr. Sheen and his family becomes the butt of jokes and what seems like endless gossiping on radio and television talk shows.
 
If it weren’t uncomfortable to see, the media wouldn’t show it.

To some it is not clear that Charlie Sheen ought to be a member of a protected class--after all there is no differential diagnosis, yet—one can point to.  However, here is a man who’s family is openly grieving at his demise and publicly asking for others’ prayers. His previous employer had every commercial impetus to keep him working if only for its own economic advantage, but decided not to. A court has removed his children from his house.  If the media are lacking sufficiently in psychological savvy to make a clear call, even in the face of these obvious circumstances, their ignorance is a result of a self-imposed decision to not acquire such paid professional expertise.  If the media are not sure of Mr. Sheen’s mental status, it is only for lack of acquired expert opinion, which they seem so ready to procure under different conditions or for other self-serving reasons.
 
Instead, it seems that insofar as Charlie Sheen in concerned, we are all back in the comparatively primitive Age of Enlightenment.  But there are slightly differences.  The amusement so evocative of Bedlam is brought now into our homes without our needing to travel to Bishopsgate, with the economic gain today going to the media instead of a charitable institution.  Beyond these differences, however, we’re still misguidedly amused at the expense of others whose rants ought to be shielded from view instead of exploited.  And because they are not, there is ample shame to share, for media and eager viewer alike.  

[Per chance you think my conclusions about Mr. Sheen’s mental state are pre-mature—that he is unable to comport himself as a worthy entertainer and normal individual, I’m posting on the blog’s Facebook Page some news reports and consumer-on-the-street reactions after his first few shows.]

_______________________________________________________________

Follow Keith's biz blog on Twitter for updates and see more of what he's reading about on his Facebook Page. If you are inclined, you can write him at kmurray@bryant.edu.