O/T:- Media Bias

I remember Brand gate-crashing a MOTD interview with Sam Allardyce, grabbing him around the neck and planting a great big sloppy kiss on his cheek. He doesn't strike me as somebody who particularly respects other people's personal space - you'd have to be very brazen to go that far with Big Sam - so it wouldn't surprise me if the allegations have at least some degree of truth to them.

The timing of this however, years after #metoo and #yewtree, is very interesting and it does look like a co-ordinated attack on low hanging fruit, to serve as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut.

Extra weight would be given to this theory if, as some are predicting, the dark forces of power and corruption were to engage in another round of authoritarian measures sooner rather than later, or if problems are now beginning to emerge that are too great to ignore but can and must only be explained by "trusted" sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

I remember Brand gate-crashing a MOTD interview with Sam Allardyce, grabbing him around the neck and planting a great big sloppy kiss on his cheek. He doesn't strike me as somebody who particularly respects other people's personal space - you'd have to be very brazen to go that far with Big Sam - so it wouldn't surprise me if the allegations have at least some degree of truth to them.

The timing of this however, years after #metoo and #yewtree, is very interesting and it does look like a co-ordinated attack on low hanging fruit, to serve as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut.

Extra weight would be given to this theory if, as some are predicting, the dark forces of power and corruption were to engage in another round of authoritarian measures sooner rather than later, or if problems are now beginning to emerge that are too great to ignore but can and must only be explained by "trusted" sources.

---

Having just watched Russell Brand's latest video on YouTube, I can't help thinking it's a case of the right concerns being raised by the wrong person!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magpies1959

Newish Pie, I wonder if your views on the matter would be different, if he hadn't 'headed off into the crank wilderness spouting nonsense to the gullible', as you see it.

---

No, they'd be identical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by optipez

Dear me. You're the epitome of cancel culture Newish. Liberal, urbane, verbose, and on the surface credible. But, and it's a massive but you've decided arbitrarily to "assume" . You assume he's a crank when some of his musings are entirely plausible and some proven. You assume he can live his life as before despite having a public trashing with no defence from anonymous sources. The "girl" was of legal age, highly unsavoury and socially frowned upon but legally in this matter a woman.
You say it's more complicated than innocent until proven guilty but there is nothing else. At best in Scottish law there's the verdict of " not proven" but that's after a trial.
You cannot run society anything close to fairly if people get wiped out on hearsay.
I can't stand Brand, never liked him as an entertainer, I found him trashy, dumb and offensive and I've little doubt that at best he's been less than chivalrous and at worst a bullying misogynistic predator. I'm unhappy finding myself defending someone I'd cross the road to avoid but this mentality of witch burning has to stop. It's medieval, it brings us all down to a level of an accusatory pack baying for blood.
You dress it up as some superior moral code citing his ability to sue for defamation. You say trial by media is a metaphor and glibly shrug it off saying he can live his life as before. Yet in your eyes he's guilty and should now go to court to prove his innocence. Suing people and using court are last resorts, the final bulwark against anarchy. It's for the state to prove his guilt, not for him to have to prove his innocence.

---

Why thank you, that's some of the nicest things anyone's said about me this week :)

Okay... let's see where we can agree because that's always more constructive.

Firstly... I freely admit that I'm no expert on Brand. I didn't like his comedy (tbf I'm hardly the target market) and I've not followed his recent output. I'm led to believe by the media that his recent output focuses on conspiracy theories like "the great reset", COVID conspiracies and pushing the Putin line on Ukraine. Therefore, in my view, a crank. I don't rule out the possibility that not everything he's said is completely wrong. There are often seeds of half-truths in most conspiracy theories. But perhaps I over-state the level of his crankness, I don't know. But there's lots of marginal figures I don't pay any attention to, and that's my right as well as your right.

Secondly... yes, it's absolutely true that suing for libel is difficult, risky, expensive, and only (in practice) open to the rich. If I gave the impression that I think it's anything but all those things, I misrepresented myself. But unless Brand is significantly less wealthy than I imagine (and yes, I could be wrong), this option is open to him and shouldn't be forgotten about or ignored. He can defend himself if he chooses to do so. My point is that he doesn't have "no defence". He has recourse to law, should he choose. I'm not saying whether he should or not - I just point out that he has the option.

Thirdly... I absolutely agree that we shouldn't "wipe people out on hearsay". But in this case, Brand has neither been wiped out in any sense, nor is it merely hearsay. This isn't "he said, she said", it's "he said.... she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said etc", and they all said those things independently and with corroborating evidence that satisfied the lawyers. And I've seen no sign that this has wiped him out in any way. I fear it will have the opposite effect.

Fourthly... I don't think anyone here is a particular fan of Brand in any of his incarnations.

Fifthly... I agree that it's for the state to prove his guilt for criminal sanctions.

Where we disagree...

I'd say what Brand is accused of is significantly more serious than being a "bullying misogynistic predator", unless the word "predator" is doing a lot of work there. I don't want to say that you're minimising the accusations, but that's one interpretation. And, I hope, the wrong one. I'd also use rather stronger language for a man of his age pursuing a relationship with a 16 year old schoolgirl. Call me a liberal or a puritan or a prude, but I think the age of consent is 16 to allow 16-year-olds to pursue relationships with others of a similar age, not people old enough to be a parent.

I also disagree that there "is nothing else" except "innocent until proven guilty". We've already had two examples. Mine (balance of probabilities in civil cases) and yours ('not proven' in Scotland). These are the acceptable and appropriate levels for legal sanction. In our day-to-day lives we make up our minds about individuals and organisations on the balance of probabilities all the time.

Here's my question... let's say that there's someone called Brussell Rand, and that multiple, extremely serious and credible accusations have been made against him. Let's say that there has - to date - been no legal action taken against him. Are people and organisations not entitled to change their view on him based on that evidence, and decide that they don't want anything to do with him any more? And don't want to support him or his work or his career or his bank account directly or indirectly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newish Pie

Here's my question... let's say that there's someone called Brussell Rand, and that multiple, extremely serious and credible accusations have been made against him. Let's say that there has - to date - been no legal action taken against him. Are people and organisations not entitled to change their view on him based on that evidence, and decide that they don't want anything to do with him any more? And don't want to support him or his work or his career or his bank account directly or indirectly?

---

If someone was in your employment and you sacked them on the grounds of hearsay, rumour, speculation and media reports before any arrest, charge or conviction was made, then they would rightly have legal grounds to take you to task. What you would most likely do, if the allegations were that serious, is put them on paid gardening leave until such time as the allegations were proven or indeed disproven.

The problem in this case - whether it's Russell Brand or Brussell Rand - is that he is not an employee. He's a user of certain social media platforms and a beneficiary from some advertising revenue. It's true that those advertisers and social media platfoms have no obligation to continue associating with him and therefore cannot be legally taken to task for choosing not to do so, but clearly their decision to cut ties is based on the media storm around said individual, based on nothing more than allegations at this stage.

If it proves that the allegations go nowhere in terms of a criminal or civil conviction - which is still entirely possible - then what are we left with? A person whose income and self-employed career has been at least damaged, possibly wrecked, by media publicity rather than any proven wrongdoing. Can that be right?

The media now seem to have increasingly unfettered power to affect/damage someone's life before any civil or criminal liability has been found, or even formally come under investigation.

As you say, the issue here isn't Russell Brand any more than anyone else who has found themselves in such a position. I don't actually like or for that matter trust this particular celebrity and I think it's entirely possible that he has pre-emptively adopted a narrative position to protect himself, but whether he has or not, he is still entitled to 'due process'.

Brand states in his latest video that it is clear that [mainstream media] organisations "collaborate in constructing narratives". I agree with that. Whether it's Brand, Schofield, Edwards or anyone else, what we often see now is one media outlet lead off with a 'story' and then the rest pile in with a clearly orchestrated 'drip, drip, drip' of stories building day by day which, when you look beneath the headline, often amount to little more than innuendo, speculation or vague allegations. The intention seems to be to create the impression of something "real", to manipulate public opinion, and in turn put pressure on the authorities to take knee-jerk action before the formal process of investigating such matters has even really begun.

Do we believe these organisations as "trusted" news sources that should enjoy such apparent influence? In some cases, the people they eventually target were previously "one of their own", perhaps even once lauded/promoted for behaviour that is now latterly being condemned.

There could be numerous motives behind what they do, ranging from a guilt that they weren't aggressive enough in the past in exposing the likes of Jimmy Saville, through to - as Brand implies - an agenda to discredit or undermine the credibility of those who challenge the MSM hegemony. Either way though, it seems that the MSM are attempting to usurp the powers of those legally entitled to investigate and judge allegations against individuals.

That's a good post, jackal, and identifies a lot of the key dilemmas.

I guess the first thing that I'd say is that in the case of Russell Brand, the evidence in the public domain goes way beyond hearsay or rumour. I don't see how anyone who has paid attention to the detail of the allegations and the evidence can just dismiss them as hearsay or rumour. It's also true, of course, that there has been no court conviction. And the question is... what do we do when there's a large (and potentially mounting) pile of credible and corroborated evidence, but no criminal conviction to date.

The second thing I'd say is to ask what the media are supposed to do when approached with extremely serious allegations and evidence about criminal conduct, especially around *** offences. Trial-by-media doesn't seem satisfactory, but neither is it good enough for them to simply dismiss or ignore allegations and evidence as a police matter that the media has got no right paying any attention to. How many scandals have been brought to light by the media, not the police?

I guess the only answer is that the media should investigate thoroughly and diligently and either report on it or not, and that's what's happened here. What could or should they have done differently?

I just don't find it credible that the media has gone after Brand because he was a threat. He isn't. He's fishing in a completely different pool... no-one is going to say "oh, I see that Brand is a wrong'un, I'm going to climb out of my rabbit hole and go back to watching Newsnight"? I'm also not convinced that he's influential outside certain conspiracy/paranoid circles.

The allegations against Brand are not a great look for the so-called "mainstream media", given that Brand worked for so many media outlets, including the BBC and the Guardian. They can't go for him without talking about their own past culpability. So it's not as if he's an easy target for them.

The media should report:

• An arrest
• On a trial
• A verdict
• Sentencing

If the trial is open to the press they can report on the evidence presented and who said what. But they should do so in a balanced manner (i.e. present the prosecution's evidence and the defence's)

Accusations are not news. Investigations aren't news (and the press probably just annoy investigating police). Opinion is not news. Rumour is not news. Speculation is not news. Maybe you can put those things in a gossip column but they do NOT belong under a 'news' banner.

Perhaps if the police _aren't_ investigating something and the press determine legitimately that they should be, maybe that's worth an article. Otherwise, wait for an arrest to report on.

And that's my opinion ;)

Personally, I have intensely disliked Russell Brand from the moment he came into the spotlight. He did some half decent youtube vids a few years ago, during which he was still extremely annoying and oversimplified stuff, but he's gone so far off the rails recently it's a wonder he hasn't crashed into a tree. As to whether he's guilty of a crime or not, that's a matter for the courts to decide if it gets that far.

I don't know if you can say this is a case of media bias... the media being awful at their role in society? Definitely. But bias? I doubt it. They report any and all allegations these days if they think it'll get clicks. That's their moral compass now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jampie

The media should report:

• An arrest
• On a trial
• A verdict
• Sentencing

---

The media never reported on an arrest, a trial, a verdict or sentencing on Jimmy Savile because they never happened.

Instead the allegations were ignored or covered up. Ignored for decades, so he carried on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jampie

The media should report:

• An arrest
• On a trial
• A verdict
• Sentencing

If the trial is open to the press they can report on the evidence presented and who said what. But they should do so in a balanced manner (i.e. present the prosecution's evidence and the defence's)

Accusations are not news. Investigations aren't news (and the press probably just annoy investigating police). Opinion is not news. Rumour is not news. Speculation is not news. Maybe you can put those things in a gossip column but they do NOT belong under a 'news' banner.

Perhaps if the police _aren't_ investigating something and the press determine legitimately that they should be, maybe that's worth an article. Otherwise, wait for an arrest to report on.

---

The trouble with this is certain crimes go unreported, particularly when the person being accused is in a position of power who can silence witnesses, cover up or influence a cover up. Reporting on the allegations gives others the strength to come forward and so strengthens the case. If this reduces the possibility of a cover up or people using their power to commit crimes, then I think it is good thing.

I won't comment about Brand as I have been highly suspicious of him following his comments in the Jonny Depp vs Amber Heard case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

The media never reported on an arrest, a trial, a verdict or sentencing on Jimmy Savile because they never happened.

Instead the allegations were ignored or covered up. Ignored for decades, so he carried on.

---

Savile is a good case in point, Elite. The reason no one in the media went for him until he had died was that it was a well-known fact that he was in a position to sue for defamation and had the wealth and background (such a committed charitable person) to contest any published rumours.
An area where so many posters on this fred go wrong is in conflating all media organs together. Some are more responsible and responsive than others. For example, Private Eye will go ahead and publish and damn the consequences if they are confident of their material. Even so, sometimes they lose in court and they retain a substantial fund for legal fights.
Take Lucy Letby. Without actually framing her as guilty before the court hearing, several newspapers published stories that revealed background which was fairly damning and eventually became lawyer fodder. She is to be retried for other murders but the MSM have targeted her so heavily that it's hard to believe a jury can start from a neutral point.
Brand's 'victims'(or so they claim) are publicising his personal guilt and several organs have seized on this. Yes, their first port of call should be the police but the police record in dealing with this kind of material is not great and, boy, is it slow!
The sad truth is that readers in their millions love this kind of s h i t so it makes money, which is a principal factor in selling newspapers rather than them marketing their integrity.
El Sid