The accused: Russell Brand is said to have committed a string of sexual assaults including rape but the only trial he has faced so far has been by the mainstream media – which seem biased against him because of the questions he has raised about them. And doesn’t their manufactured outrage indicate that his arguments have merit?
NOTE: This post is getting an unusually large number of views – which is great! Thanks! But it means you are statistically unlikely to receive notifications of Vox Political articles normally. The answer to this is simple: Subscribe! It’s free, and you can do it using the box in the right-hand column. We’ll both be happier if you do!
I wasn’t going to write about this.
The accusations of sexual assaults, including rape, against Russell Brand are serious matters that, now exposed, are for the police to investigate and – if necessary – prosecute. I would wish to let that happen without comment – partly in order not to prejudice any such investigation.
But the mainstream media seem (and I place emphasis on that word) determined to give Brand a kicking for the years he has spent criticising them and their own biases.
So a couple of days ago (September 17, 2023), we saw The Guardian publishing a piece headlined Now we’ll see how many bought Brand’s anti-‘mainstream media’ shtick.
Jonathan Cook, below, blows the whistle on what it seems (there’s that word again) to be about:
The media aren't even being subtle about this. Apparently it's a binary choice:
either recognise that Brand's critique of corporate media like the Guardian is fake news, or be seen supporting rape pic.twitter.com/BIFOJg0Glu
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 18, 2023
There is an element of the either/or narrative Mr Cook suggests in Jim Waterson’s piece; right at the start, he states:
Russell Brand has spent the past decade telling the world not to trust the mainstream media industry. Now the comedian will find out whether the wider public has bought into this scorched-earth narrative – or if they believe the claims of rape and sexual assault.
Why can’t we believe both?
Just because a person does wrong in one way, that doesn’t mean everything they say and do is untrue or even unacceptable; even if Brand is eventually convicted as a rapist, that should not invalidate any good arguments he makes about the media.
You see – if they are good arguments, they should stand up regardless of who has put them forward.
They should also stand up regardless of whether people branded as undesirable by the mainstream media have stood up to support Brand. Waterson mentions Elon Musk, Andrew Tate and Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson in an apparent attempt at “guilt by association”.
But in fact, Waterson’s article can be seen to support some of those arguments itself; for This Writer’s money, it seems to have been mis-headlined.
He goes on to admit,
there are still questions for mainstream British broadcasters to answer
and he lists some of them, which make it seem (yet again!) apparent that media representatives encouraged aberrant behaviour by Brand while he was working for them:
Hypersexualisation and graphic descriptions of sexual desire were part of his public persona – which is not illegal, but may have been considered red flags by those hiring him to present shows.
During Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, there is a clip of the comedian telling Lorraine Kelly: “If you’re in a position of some success, people will let you be a nutter as long as they’re making money out of it.”
The suggestion is that – as far as mainstream media moguls were concerned – Brand could do whatever he wanted, as long as he was telling the world what they wanted him to say.
It is only since he turned against the mainstream that they have been looking for a way to undermine him. Waterson states that the initial inquiries against Brand began almost five years ago, after he started criticising the MSM. Why not before, if his behaviour was so well-known?
It seems to me that the media outrage against Brand may be nothing more than hypocritical ass-covering; an attempt to hide its own complicity any any wrong-doing by stirring up hysteria against him now.
And part of that is an attempt to discredit his arguments against them – arguments that may in fact be proved by their naked aggression against him.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
