O/T:- Media Bias

[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

[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.

[jackal2]

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!

[Newish Pie]

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.

[jackal2]

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.

[Newish Pie]

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.

[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.

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.

[Elite_Pie]

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.

[sidders]

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

[Elite_Pie]

Here's an example of GB News and their totally unbiased reporting:

Rishi Sunak has been handed a major boost in the polls, as Labour's lead has dropped by nearly ten points.

A new poll from Deltapoll, which surveyed voters in the wake of the Prime Minister's announcement on net zero, saw Labour's approval rating drop three points, while the Conservatives' rose by five points.

While Labour still has a lead of 16 points, this is a significant drop of eight points from the last poll by Deltapoll - which saw Labour's lead sit at 24 points.

So a drop of 8 points in this poll is reported as "nearly ten points". No bias at all there! All of the other polls show no significant change.

We all know polls can be wrong but this isn't about polls, it's about the way GB News report things.

Unbiased or not Magpies1959?





A