At what point should a host end a live interview with a person of immediate national interest due to suspicion that (s)he may be intoxicated or experiencing a mental health crisis? I don’t know the answer, but media meltdowns are really unsettling to me for this reasonhttps://twitter.com/esotericcd/status/970827224151658496 …
-
I don't think putting a "random" on television experiencing a psychotic episode is good, or moral. It's deeply depressing. What do you think, does that bright line rule bend due to public interest?
I dunno. I don't even know if there's a bright line. Is one drink too many? Two? What if someone has a tendency to behave erratically under stress, but no diagnosed condition? And then there's the question of whether statements from a person in crisis are useful to the public
-
-
So many good questions. It's so hard to diagnose. Looking at it from Mueller's perspective (if I can), this seems to point to consciousness of guilt, and may yet have redeeming value. Even if his statements are not reliable, his actions speak volumes.
-
Maybe, but I could imagine a person with a drinking problem, mood disorder, or just nonclinical high impulsivity + low stress tolerance reacting this way to e.g. the realization that many of the subpoenaed emails contain clearly racist or otherwise career-ending statements.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.