Anonymous wrote:It was definitely a lot more salacious than it needed to be. Honestly, she didn’t need to share the gritty details about searching his house and the prescriptions to be broadcast to tens of thousands of people. Those poor kids constantly having to relive things and suffering because neither of their parents can/could keep their mouths shut on public mediums. It didn’t even seem pertinent in relation to “survival”. What did she survive? The only reason she’s where she’s at now is because he died. Where’s the lesson in that? And she completely glossed over her addiction and the cause of her second divorce in favor of trashing her kids’ father under the guise of divorce/relationship advice. So unnecessary and disappointing. And Sarah really sucks as an interviewer.

She was providing those details because no one believed her. She was giving insight of what she wanted to do to (proof) bring his addiction to light. She was being treated as an irresponsible parent yet he was there battling addiction himself

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a little surprised that she agreed to do an interview like this at this point. Her kids are still minors and the guy has only been dead for what—2 years? Seems so premature to hash out the details of their marriage, custody and personal issues to thousands of people when she’s clearly living off of her ex-husbands as a professional ex-wife. She strikes me as extremely emotionally immature.

She’s always wanted a public image / some celebrity of her own. How else is she going to get it other than continuing to try to ride his fame

She told her side of the story. People are interested in it, because Kane used his large public platform to tell his side of the story. People were also interested in it then.

Does anyone remember the name of Kane’s psychiatrist? I think Natasha said he mentioned it on air a lot.

I really like Sarah and have listened to some of her other podcast episodes. I didn’t really like these- the commercials were jarring, she sounded very unprofessional with a ton of “likes”, interrupting, and trailing off sentences. I would have liked a more cohesive timeline. The whole not remembering dates thing was stupid. Sarah should have had at least the year he died written down in front of her. I have a hunch that Natasha didn’t share too much of her story with addiction, rehab and getting out as she’ll be writing a book about it and didn’t want everything known now. So, I don’t blame Sarah about not getting too in-depth although I wish she did. I did feel really sad when she acknowledged that for a time her girls had nowhere safe to be. I also wonder about her second marriage but, again, book.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a little surprised that she agreed to do an interview like this at this point. Her kids are still minors and the guy has only been dead for what—2 years? Seems so premature to hash out the details of their marriage, custody and personal issues to thousands of people when she’s clearly living off of her ex-husbands as a professional ex-wife. She strikes me as extremely emotionally immature.

She’s always wanted a public image / some celebrity of her own. How else is she going to get it other than continuing to try to ride his fame

I’m a little surprised that she agreed to do an interview like this at this point. Her kids are still minors and the guy has only been dead for what—2 years? Seems so premature to hash out the details of their marriage, custody and personal issues to thousands of people when she’s clearly living off of her ex-husbands as a professional ex-wife. She strikes me as extremely emotionally immature.

And yes Sarah is awful at interviewing / podcasting. Does she make a living off of this??

I hope she’s reading this - not to feel bashed but to realize that if she wants to “be someone” (influencer?) she has an interesting story and doesn’t just need to try to re-churn kanes story under a guise of help

It was definitely a lot more salacious than it needed to be. Honestly, she didn’t need to share the gritty details about searching his house and the prescriptions to be broadcast to tens of thousands of people. Those poor kids constantly having to relive things and suffering because neither of their parents can/could keep their mouths shut on public mediums. It didn’t even seem pertinent in relation to “survival”. What did she survive? The only reason she’s where she’s at now is because he died. Where’s the lesson in that? And she completely glossed over her addiction and the cause of her second divorce in favor of trashing her kids’ father under the guise of divorce/relationship advice. So unnecessary and disappointing. And Sarah really sucks as an interviewer.

She really brushes over her own stuff. The story could as easily be an addict mom runs away with the kids. She’s talking so much about his instability (and I believe a lot of that) but doesn’t own why he may also have had valid reasons to be furious with her / paranoid about her ability to care for the kids etc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m conflicted - I agree they did a good job of not just trashing him but they still feel like grifters also lining their pockets from his tragedy. They are of course entitled to share their stories - but this wasn’t like Natasha’s story of her life with Kane’s details within that narrative - it was just Kane with only a small amount of details about Natasha

Kane was her entire adult life. She met him at 19.

She has a super interesting story of her own - what’s it like struggling with addiction as a mother when you’re also struggling with a spouse who is an addict? How does the trauma of it all impact a future marriage? How does she rebuild trust with her kids and confidence in her own ability to manage when she’d previously leaned on men and pills? Something like that is her story that would actually help other women that details about Kane would be woven into. This was mainly just kanes story as told by her presented as wanting to do it to help other women. If she wants to profit off the experience, cool people do that all the time, but let’s not pretend that this is her story of survival to help others

Is that what they represented?

Well yeah - literally at the beginning they said their “intentions” are just to help others. But the reality is a bit more sharing salacious details about Kane to build their celebrity. If she wanted to tell a story to truly help others she definitely has one, but that’s not what was shared

This is where an editor would have been helpful for the podcast. They should have focused on the parts that would have been beneficial to others.

Realistically a lot of us wouldn’t have listened if it wasnt for the gossipy details. I’m just annoyed they’re not just owning “tell all about kane!” As what they’re doing while claiming everyone else is a grifter

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m conflicted - I agree they did a good job of not just trashing him but they still feel like grifters also lining their pockets from his tragedy. They are of course entitled to share their stories - but this wasn’t like Natasha’s story of her life with Kane’s details within that narrative - it was just Kane with only a small amount of details about Natasha

Kane was her entire adult life. She met him at 19.

She has a super interesting story of her own - what’s it like struggling with addiction as a mother when you’re also struggling with a spouse who is an addict? How does the trauma of it all impact a future marriage? How does she rebuild trust with her kids and confidence in her own ability to manage when she’d previously leaned on men and pills? Something like that is her story that would actually help other women that details about Kane would be woven into. This was mainly just kanes story as told by her presented as wanting to do it to help other women. If she wants to profit off the experience, cool people do that all the time, but let’s not pretend that this is her story of survival to help others

Is that what they represented?

Well yeah - literally at the beginning they said their “intentions” are just to help others. But the reality is a bit more sharing salacious details about Kane to build their celebrity. If she wanted to tell a story to truly help others she definitely has one, but that’s not what was shared

This is where an editor would have been helpful for the podcast. They should have focused on the parts that would have been beneficial to others.

The pills interacting with alcohol can’t have helped the situation either.

That’s really sad. I met him years ago and he was very nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m conflicted - I agree they did a good job of not just trashing him but they still feel like grifters also lining their pockets from his tragedy. They are of course entitled to share their stories - but this wasn’t like Natasha’s story of her life with Kane’s details within that narrative - it was just Kane with only a small amount of details about Natasha

Kane was her entire adult life. She met him at 19.

She has a super interesting story of her own - what’s it like struggling with addiction as a mother when you’re also struggling with a spouse who is an addict? How does the trauma of it all impact a future marriage? How does she rebuild trust with her kids and confidence in her own ability to manage when she’d previously leaned on men and pills? Something like that is her story that would actually help other women that details about Kane would be woven into. This was mainly just kanes story as told by her presented as wanting to do it to help other women. If she wants to profit off the experience, cool people do that all the time, but let’s not pretend that this is her story of survival to help others

Is that what they represented?

Well yeah - literally at the beginning they said their “intentions” are just to help others. But the reality is a bit more sharing salacious details about Kane to build their celebrity. If she wanted to tell a story to truly help others she definitely has one, but that’s not what was shared

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m conflicted - I agree they did a good job of not just trashing him but they still feel like grifters also lining their pockets from his tragedy. They are of course entitled to share their stories - but this wasn’t like Natasha’s story of her life with Kane’s details within that narrative - it was just Kane with only a small amount of details about Natasha

Kane was her entire adult life. She met him at 19.

She has a super interesting story of her own - what’s it like struggling with addiction as a mother when you’re also struggling with a spouse who is an addict? How does the trauma of it all impact a future marriage? How does she rebuild trust with her kids and confidence in her own ability to manage when she’d previously leaned on men and pills? Something like that is her story that would actually help other women that details about Kane would be woven into. This was mainly just kanes story as told by her presented as wanting to do it to help other women. If she wants to profit off the experience, cool people do that all the time, but let’s not pretend that this is her story of survival to help others

Is that what they represented?