O/T:- Media Bias

[jackal2]

I'm surprised the subject of the whole media circus around Russell Brand hasn't come up on this thread (before now).

Frankly I can't stand the bloke and I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in the allegations, but as of this moment that's all they are. He's not been arrested, interviewed, charged or convicted and yet we've got a full-on trial by media and Parliamentary Committee chairs writing letters to social media platforms asking them to defund him. What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

We saw a similar furore recently around Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield, neither of whom have faced any Police action to date (to my knowledge) and yet their careers have been severely damaged if not finished. I'm indifferent to both of them, but there's something deeply sinister about the media's apparent capacity to destroy anybody they choose. Some call it 'cancel culture', but to be honest I think that phrase somewhat trivialises a growing and incredibly dangerous phenomenon that could ultimately threaten anyone, whether they've actually done something wrong or not.

[SmiffyPie]

What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

Because due process doesn't sell papers, generate clicks on links or meet advertisers requirements. We are (I was going to say "becoming") a valueless society pandering to the £££.

[countygump]

I'm surprised the subject of the whole media circus around Russell Brand hasn't come up on this thread (before now).

Frankly I can't stand the bloke and I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in the allegations, but as of this moment that's all they are. He's not been arrested, interviewed, charged or convicted and yet we've got a full-on trial by media and Parliamentary Committee chairs writing letters to social media platforms asking them to defund him. What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

We saw a similar furore recently around Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield, neither of whom have faced any Police action to date (to my knowledge) and yet their careers have been severely damaged if not finished. I'm indifferent to both of them, but there's something deeply sinister about the media's apparent capacity to destroy anybody they choose. Some call it 'cancel culture', but to be honest I think that phrase somewhat trivialises a growing and incredibly dangerous phenomenon that could ultimately threaten anyone, whether they've actually done something wrong or not.

Agreed. Like you, he's certainly not one of my favourite people, but that's by the by. If the bloke has been accused of "crimes" then let the police investigate and then decide if it should go to trial. If it actually gets to the courts, is it even possible for him to get a fair trial after all the media coverage?

[optipez]

I'm surprised the subject of the whole media circus around Russell Brand hasn't come up on this thread (before now).

Frankly I can't stand the bloke and I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in the allegations, but as of this moment that's all they are. He's not been arrested, interviewed, charged or convicted and yet we've got a full-on trial by media and Parliamentary Committee chairs writing letters to social media platforms asking them to defund him. What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

We saw a similar furore recently around Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield, neither of whom have faced any Police action to date (to my knowledge) and yet their careers have been severely damaged if not finished. I'm indifferent to both of them, but there's something deeply sinister about the media's apparent capacity to destroy anybody they choose. Some call it 'cancel culture', but to be honest I think that phrase somewhat trivialises a growing and incredibly dangerous phenomenon that could ultimately threaten anyone, whether they've actually done something wrong or not.

Fully agree Jackal. I suspect Brand has treated some women pretty badly but until proven guilty of something in court he has the right to go about his business.
Caroline Dinenage should be sacked from the DCMS committee for her sinister bullying. Well done Rumble for refusing to go along with the cretin.

[bule1]

Look at what Johnny Rotten said about Saville and how he was treated as a reult of that. Thats why it is difficult for non celebrity people to make claims about stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0

[Newish Pie]

I'm surprised the subject of the whole media circus around Russell Brand hasn't come up on this thread (before now).

Frankly I can't stand the bloke and I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in the allegations, but as of this moment that's all they are. He's not been arrested, interviewed, charged or convicted and yet we've got a full-on trial by media and Parliamentary Committee chairs writing letters to social media platforms asking them to defund him. What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

We saw a similar furore recently around Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield, neither of whom have faced any Police action to date (to my knowledge) and yet their careers have been severely damaged if not finished. I'm indifferent to both of them, but there's something deeply sinister about the media's apparent capacity to destroy anybody they choose. Some call it 'cancel culture', but to be honest I think that phrase somewhat trivialises a growing and incredibly dangerous phenomenon that could ultimately threaten anyone, whether they've actually done something wrong or not.

It's a lot more complicated than "innocent until proven guilty".

Innocent until proven guilty/guilty beyond reasonable doubt are the standards for criminal prosecution and criminal conviction. That's the standard that has to be reached for the state to take away your liberty as a citizen (through prison or community service and arguably speed awareness courses) or to levy a fine.

But that's not the standard for civil cases, where it's decided on the balance of probabilities.

Brand has the option to deny the charges and sue for libel if he chooses. These are very serious accusations, and he'd surely win a fortune if he won the legal case. Only... there's very little chance (in my opinion) that the Dispatches and Times investigation hasn't been lawyered half to death and says nothing that they can't absolutely substantiate. That's why it's not unreasonable to conclude that the accusations are... if not the tip of the iceberg, then at least only the accusations that are rock solid.

"Trial by media" is just a metaphor. He's not in prison, he's not under arrest, he's not having to explain himself under caution. He's living his millionaire lifestyle as before, he's being talked about and is relevant again, after heading off into the crank wilderness spouting nonsense to the gullible.

It doesn't feel satisfactory to me to just say, well, regardless of how many women (and girls, let's not forget, literal girls) complain about his behaviour, no-one could or should think any the worse of him or do anything different until it's proved in a court of law.

Now granted, I have some sympathy for the view that people shouldn't be damned in the eyes of public opinion of the basis of a few allegations. One of the interesting things that came out of the Huw Edwards case was just how many complaints are made to the BBC about their staff, and how many are spurious, confused, malicious, or possibly from people who are mentally unwell. But actually... the Sun made a very serious allegation that it couldn't stand up, probably not understanding the implications of what it claimed. It was a disgraceful bit of journalism. I'm not sure that Edwards has been "cancelled"... I think he's been very unwell.

With Schofield... I think he said what he did was "unwise, but not illegal". Let's take him at his word. There's plenty of behaviour that we may think is reprehensible but not illegal. We might think that some of that kind of behaviour isn't compatible with hosting a daytime TV show... which is a privilege, not a right. And to repeat... Schofield is not in prison, he's still enjoying his millionaire lifestyle. He's lost some jobs, and may or may not get others in the future.

With Brand... the allegations are extremely serious, extremely detailed, multiple, and, to me, credible. Yes, he should be proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers before he faces any criminal sanction (such as a long prison stretch), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't face other sanctions. Such as people and organisations deciding they want nothing whatsoever to do with him... don't want to platform him, don't want to support him directly or indirectly.

Or, to put it another way... the saying "there's no smoke without fire" is a tricky one. It feels wrong to assume that there's a fire just because there's a scent of smoke on the breeze. But it also feels wrong not to assume there's a fire somewhere when there are massive plumes of smoke and the acrid smell of burning fills your nostrils.

Think there will be some difficult/borderline cases, but RB doesn't feel like one of them.

[drillerpie]

It's a lot more complicated than "innocent until proven guilty".

Innocent until proven guilty/guilty beyond reasonable doubt are the standards for criminal prosecution and criminal conviction. That's the standard that has to be reached for the state to take away your liberty as a citizen (through prison or community service and arguably speed awareness courses) or to levy a fine.

But that's not the standard for civil cases, where it's decided on the balance of probabilities.

Brand has the option to deny the charges and sue for libel if he chooses. These are very serious accusations, and he'd surely win a fortune if he won the legal case. Only... there's very little chance (in my opinion) that the Dispatches and Times investigation hasn't been lawyered half to death and says nothing that they can't absolutely substantiate. That's why it's not unreasonable to conclude that the accusations are... if not the tip of the iceberg, then at least only the accusations that are rock solid.

"Trial by media" is just a metaphor. He's not in prison, he's not under arrest, he's not having to explain himself under caution. He's living his millionaire lifestyle as before, he's being talked about and is relevant again, after heading off into the crank wilderness spouting nonsense to the gullible.

It doesn't feel satisfactory to me to just say, well, regardless of how many women (and girls, let's not forget, literal girls) complain about his behaviour, no-one could or should think any the worse of him or do anything different until it's proved in a court of law.

Now granted, I have some sympathy for the view that people shouldn't be damned in the eyes of public opinion of the basis of a few allegations. One of the interesting things that came out of the Huw Edwards case was just how many complaints are made to the BBC about their staff, and how many are spurious, confused, malicious, or possibly from people who are mentally unwell. But actually... the Sun made a very serious allegation that it couldn't stand up, probably not understanding the implications of what it claimed. It was a disgraceful bit of journalism. I'm not sure that Edwards has been "cancelled"... I think he's been very unwell.

With Schofield... I think he said what he did was "unwise, but not illegal". Let's take him at his word. There's plenty of behaviour that we may think is reprehensible but not illegal. We might think that some of that kind of behaviour isn't compatible with hosting a daytime TV show... which is a privilege, not a right. And to repeat... Schofield is not in prison, he's still enjoying his millionaire lifestyle. He's lost some jobs, and may or may not get others in the future.

With Brand... the allegations are extremely serious, extremely detailed, multiple, and, to me, credible. Yes, he should be proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers before he faces any criminal sanction (such as a long prison stretch), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't face other sanctions. Such as people and organisations deciding they want nothing whatsoever to do with him... don't want to platform him, don't want to support him directly or indirectly.

Or, to put it another way... the saying "there's no smoke without fire" is a tricky one. It feels wrong to assume that there's a fire just because there's a scent of smoke on the breeze. But it also feels wrong not to assume there's a fire somewhere when there are massive plumes of smoke and the acrid smell of burning fills your nostrils.

Think there will be some difficult/borderline cases, but RB doesn't feel like one of them.

Point taken about the right to take legal action to defend his reputation, and also the right of private companies to decide freely if they don't want (or want, in the case of Rumble) to allow people to use their platforms, but I agree with Jackal, Optipez and Gump that there is something unsatisfactory about this way ofndoing things.

Russell Brand has plenty of money, so he doesn't really need the income from his YouTube videos and he has the means to defend himself in court if he wants to. But not everyone does, so it is a dangerous precedent in that respect.

[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.

[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.

[countygump]

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.

Makes you wonder if his anti-vax/ufo/media corruption and censorship and deep state, etc, views that he seems to have held in recent years plus the income and audience that they have brought him did have any bearing on these "sudden revelations", that have been whispered about for some time now?

Nahhhhh, that's just a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theorist, innitt?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66888468