News flash: Carlos Irwin Estevez, a.k.a. Charlie Sheen, is allegedly in the process of writing his tell-all memoir about starring on the American TV sitcom, "Two and a Half Men." Otherwise in the news, U.S. Congress may close its doors if Democrats and Republicans can't agree on the budget, massive bloodshed and civil exodus persist in Cote d'Ivoire, and Libyan rebels may invoke UN air strikes against el-Qaddafi.

But, you know, Sheen's alleged book project is totally newsworthy.

Sheen has been canvassing any U.S. media outlet that will give him the time of day, or who arguably are interested in his story the way a person might be interested in a car accident (terrified and curious at the same time). In the last week, he's appeared on "The Alex Jones Show," "The Dan Patrick Show," "Loose Cannons," NBC's "Today" show, ABC's "Good Morning America," and CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight." He has texted People magazine and RadarOnline and been interviewed live on TMZ.com. And Sheen is not done yet. Howard Stern says his show may be next. Tuesday evening, "20/20" will air an interview with the actor. And, according to TechCrunch, he even started a Twitter account, apparently so someone else doesn't start a spoof account first.
Julie Moos at Poynter makes the case that Sheen's alleged book deal is important to television industry news in Los Angeles and legitimate business news to anyone paying attention to how Hollywood makes or loses money. One thing for certain is that this is obviously fodder for celebrity tabloid news.

But there are a few problems with this being news at all, in any form, starting with Sheen's basic story. There are important facts to verify even for a local or industry related piece, such as has anyone verified that his book is actually in progress? Which publishers will bid on it? When is the estimated date of release? If these facts are missing or unsubstantiated, then there exists an argument against running Sheen's story. Anywhere.

All we do know, according to the chain of blogosphere hearsay from TMZ.com to The New Yorker, is the alleged book is titled When the Laughter Stops and publisher bidding will start at $10 million, a number set by Sheen apparently. But slinging a book title and pulling out an arbitrary monetary value from thin air conceivably can take about two minutes.

Where is the triangulation of facts?

And more importantly, where are journalists with what seems to be the real story ... the one where Sheen's haphazard baiting for media attention suggests a deeper issue, like that he may still be struggling with substance abuse and may actually be in the middle of an acute manic episode (some psychologists wager he is bipolar). This story could call to light what drives celebrities to act out in the media, encouraging a probative inquiry into Sheen's history of abuse, both of substances and of women, and would also lend the media an opportunity for exploring the real challenges of being a celebrity with a mental illness, shedding the faulty glimmer of the glorified "bad boy of Hollywood" image.

It would also potentially summon the need for supporting Sheen, meriting interviews with the people around him, including his famous father and brother, where a discourse could take place in trying to get him help, since it appears the man is in need of some serious care. This could operate to counterbalance the current stream of verbal diarrhea that is overwhelming Sheen's interviews with the media, as reported by The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times:

--"I am on a drug--it's called Charlie Sheen," he told ABC. "It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off, and your children will weep over your exploded body," he said, adding, "Too much?"

--In an interview with TMZ.com, he repeatedly referred to the creator of "Two and a Half Men," Chuck Lorre by his Hebrew name, Chaim Levine, which was seen by executives from CBS and Warner Brothers as a veiled anti-Semitic attack. "I violently hate Chaim Levine," Sheen said. "He's a stupid, stupid little man."

--In interviews on ABC, CNN and other outlets, he spoke of "tiger blood" running through his veins, insulted his bosses and questioned the value of Alcoholics Anonymous in fighting addiction.

The Kansas City Star's Aaron Barnhart wrote in a Monday column--which leads with "Enough's enough"--that the "enablers of tabloid journalism" should intervene rather than interview. "Charlie Sheen, according to Dr. Drew Pinsky, is having an 'acute manic episode.' ... He is not well, and he is a danger not just to himself but to others. ... It's time for all the tabloid media to stop returning Charlie's texts and calls. Instead, they should be using their journalism to identify the people around Charlie who can actually get him into a rehab facility--against his will if necessary--and then start badgering them to do something."

While it is not the job of a journalist to intervene, the direction Barnhart takes raises questions about the media's responsibility to those being covered and to those who depend on the media for that coverage, according to Poynter. Getting Sheen to take a drug test is one way to be responsible journalistically, even if the story, according to Sheen, is not about his addiction (or lack thereof, apparently a drug test substantiated his claim to being clean and sober). But featuring him in countless TV and radio appearances with the irrational comments he is making accounts for possibly two things: exploitation by the media to increase their own rankings, and the public seeing news reporting more for entertainment or simply gross oddity rather than for vetted information and analysis.

Sheen is by no means the first celebrity to be saturating the limelight for potentially the wrong reasons. The list goes on--Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, to name a few of the infamous--but does it have to continue with Sheen? Poynter states, "our choices are not limited to sensationalism or abstinence. We can cover the underlying issues surfaced by their situations...."

Such "collateral journalism" could move the media, and therefore the public, from chronicling the controversial circus acts of celebrities to highlighting the basic struggles of Americans, celebrities or everyday people, and by virtue shifting the interest to more issues that the public experiences and relates to, rather than a misplaced frenzy about a book title and $10 million.

Sources: The Kansas City Star, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times (1), (2), Poynter, Psychology Today