6 ms·

This seems a little ... premature? Do we now have trial by TV? Worth reading: A few thoughts on the Russell Brand furore, by Jonathan Cook: https://www.jonat

by akolbe 3y ago

This seems a little ... premature? Do we now have trial by TV? Worth reading: A few thoughts on the Russell Brand furore, by Jonathan Cook: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2023-09-17/thoughts-russell-brand-furore/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2023-09-17/thoughts-russe... ... The media companies now fuelling the public mood via trial by TV are the very same companies that delighted in Brand’s sex-addict persona. As the Dispatches’ archival footage and testimonies make clear, those media corporations willingly exploited his persona – even allegedly at the risk of putting members of their staff and audiences in danger – to increase corporate profits. No one should regard them as good-faith actors in this latest development. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. In recent years, Brand has often argued that he went on a long and difficult personal journey of redemption, and that he is ashamed of the way he behaved in the past. There is at least ostensible evidence to back up Brand’s claims. There is zero evidence that the Dispatches documentary represents any kind of act of contrition by the media corporations now publicly reviling Brand for his behaviour. They haven’t seen the error of their ways. They are simply cashing in on Brand again – this time by bringing down the very celeb they built up. It’s all money in the bank for them. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. ...

kmlx 3y ago
> Do we now have trial by TV? we've had this for years now.
refulgentis 3y ago
I don't understand the persistent need for people to foreground "The Media" as some actor in these situations. In both cases, They relayed information and They are not a monolith, and often, if not always, the screeds about They betray an extreme lack of rigor and play on emotions
threeseed 3y ago
The media is not a single entity. It is an industry comprised of multiple companies each with their own agendas, viewpoints etc. The publications involved in investigating Brand are not the same ones that profited from his exploits. And even if they did profit in the past does not mean they relinquish any right to atone for their mistakes. Hollywood tried to change and improve after the Weinstein situation. And so should the UK industry as Brand isn't the only one accused. We are talking about multiple cases of rape and sexual assault some involving a 16 year old girl. We need to not lose sight of who the real victims are here.
- sacrosancty 3y ago
  [dead]
- jeegsy 3y ago
  I suppose these days, it is useless to point out that these are unconfirmed accusations. Oh well
- akolbe 3y ago
  It is worth noting, for the benefit of US-based readers, that the legal age of consent in the UK is 16. Brand was 31 at the time, according to media reports.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    Indeed. Americans tend to believe that the entirely arbitrary value of 18 set forth by many, but not all, states for the age of consent is somehow also a fundamental ethical principle.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    It is worth noting, that the 16 year old girl has accused him of sexual assault. So age of consent is not relevant.
    - dazilcher 3y ago
      Then neither is the age, so why bring it up?
- drcongo 3y ago
  > The media is not a single entity. Unless you're a red pilled, crypto-fascist, conspiracy theorist like Russell Brand, in which case the "mainstream media" is one huge, shadowy, many-tentacled, Spectre-like organisation out to get you for your brave stand against vaccines. Apparently.
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
atoav 3y ago
I agree that corporations shouldn't punish people for alleged deeds that are not proven in a court of law — that is, unless it affects them directly. Imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them. That misbehaviour hasn't been proven in a court of law, it might even be the case that the barkeeper read the situation wrongly and threw that person out despite their innocence. Yet they should have the right to decide that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enfore any kind of house rules unless they have two sworn witnesses for anything that happens. Now the pressing question is whether youtube is in a comparable situation here. Russel Brand, whether he is innocent or not, could now — with all the spotlights pointed at him — use that situation to produce more outrage — outrage that would make him a shitton of money that would be coming from YouTube. Seen from that perspective that move from youtube might be more of a strategic preventive measure to avoid dragging their platform into it without having to censor the guy than any form of punishment (although it will be read as such). Btw. I am not defending that position, I still think it is problematic and I still think social media platforms that resemble some sort of public square should have higher free speech standards than they do, but pick one freedom for corporations or free speech for it's customers, you cannot have both.
- orwin 3y ago
  > imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them Its absolutely correct to do it. While she was working at a bar in the caraibeans, my sister spotted a guy slipping something in a drink. The person who did it and both his friends weren't convicted (the police is useless and very 'assertive' towards victims there, especially women), but barred from all bar and restaurant owned by her employer
rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
People seem to be over-aware of their freedom of speech but severely under-aware of freedom of association. If anything, capitalism best explains this move. It’s better to get rid of a potential liability before the liability materializes.
mcphage 3y ago
What, did YouTube put him in jail?
- refulgentis 3y ago
  1st amendment says, and has always said, I have a right to make twitter and YouTube make you read my posts. At least, I keep being told that's the case on the way to explaining why civilization is being destroyed
  - snehk 3y ago
    > 1st amendment says, and has always said, I have a right to make twitter and YouTube make you read my posts. Weren't the same people who made this joke again and again when Trump was banned from Twitter the exact same people who then cried out loud when Musk took over and changed the rules?
    - orwin 3y ago
      No, I don't think so. I have no evidence they are the same. I'm part of the people that pointed out that 'free speech absolutist' banned accounts that never posted CP, and barely made fun of a burning car, for political reasons. Corporate does corporate things. If Twitter was nationalized, 'rules for me and not for you' would be outrageous. Right now? If anybody is surprised it's their own damn fault.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Nah. I think you're trying to reference the "assassination coordinates" nonsense followed by journalist bans that were rescinded. Please be fair to Elon, he's in the arena.
ConcernedCoder 3y ago
IMHO, it IS premature if you believe he has some inalienable right to be on Youtube, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, these are only allegations. Yet, it's a company doing it, and they aren't bound by any "must-be-convicted-1st" rules, they can just block someone for any reason, they ( and other companies ) do it all the time, and in this case it's probably "better safe than sorry" type of risk management.
dark-star 3y ago
This has nothing to do with "trial". It's YouTube's platform, and YouTube as a company can decide who they want to do business with and who not. You explicitly agree to their TOS and TOU when signing up, and if you violate them (as determined by YouTube themselves!) you're out. tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along...
- rurban 3y ago
  Sure, nothing to see also with the Dresdner 1933 Exhibition "Entartete Kunst". https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/5826/1/Zuschlag_Die_Dresdner_Ausstellung_Entartete_Kunst_2004.pdf https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/5826/1/Zuschlag_D... Nothing to see there, move along /s
  - sundaeofshock 3y ago
    What’s your point here? Who are the Nazis and who are the oppressed? Are you suggesting that Brand is somehow being oppressed?
    - gettodachoppa 3y ago
      Taking away the livelihood of someone for unproven allegations is not oppression? Do you realize what Youtube is in the year 2023? It's how a lot of self-employed people make their living. Are you one of those "it's not censorship, just make your own media platform" techbros?
      - threatofrain 3y ago
        Part of the reason why YT is valuable to content creators is because YT fosters good optics.
      - hsod 3y ago
        Someone successfully did that! Tons of people that got demonetized on Youtube are doing great on Rumble. Including Russell Brand, as a matter of fact. He also just got a strong statement of support from the owner of another large monetized video distribution platform (X fka Twitter). So he can always move his show there.
saberience 3y ago
I think this is a bad faith argument, conflating legal proceedings with life consequences for bad behavior. We have trials for criminal and civil cases in law courts. When your child gets sent home from school for swearing at the teacher, do you ask the school for a fair trial by jury? We have consequences in everyday life all the time which don't require trials, just our own opinions. If I meet someone who seems sleazy (judging from my own opinion based on life experience), I am not going to encourage my daughter to date that person. We don't need trials by jury in our life to make decisions and take actions which have consequences. The truth is, it is generally true in life that where there is smoke there is fire. And with Russell Brand there has been a LOT of smoke for a long time, certainly more than enough smoke to judge that you probably wouldn't trust him with your daughter. And when you have not one but many women, with evidence, along with many pieces of video and audio of Russell Brands previous outrageous behavior (e.g. calling a man to tell him publicly on the radio that he had sex with his granddaughter, telling notorious pedophile Jimmy Saville that he would send him over his female assistant...), then it becomes more and more likely that in this case we just have someone who at worse is a rapist and at best is a total creep and sex pest. I certainly agree, before putting someone in prison they should have a fair trial. But no one is putting Brand in prison, are they?
- akolbe 3y ago
  The exchange with Jimmy Savile happened on a primetime BBC Radio 2 comedy show. There were no consequences for Brand at the time. You can hardly accuse the media of being consistent in their moral outrage. For the Andrew Sachs "joke" see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross#The_Russell_Brand_Show_and_Andrew_Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross#The_Russell_Bran... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_c...
  - saberience 3y ago
    So are you saying that if someone commits a crime and gets away with it at the time, there should be no consequences if the crime is later revealed or reviewed? That somehow, time makes this all better? There were no consequences for Jimmy Saville too. Why? Because he was a powerful, wealthy man and it's hard for people to go against rich celebrities. Can you imagine being a young woman with no wealth or fame trying to go against Brand at the height of his celebrity? Or being a lowly Production Assistant at the BBC or Channel 4, wanting to complain but knowing nothing will happen or you may lose your job. That there were no consequences back then doesn't mean there shouldn't have been, we have no idea what happened behind the scenes. It's been historically hard for women to speak up against powerful usually rich men.
Karellen 3y ago
Also worth noting - a broadcaster like Channel 4 is not a monolith that produces all of the programmes that it airs. A lot of the programmes, like those in the Big Brother franchise, are produced by independent production companies and then shopped to multiple distributors like Channel 4, or Channel 5, or ITV2 (where the most recent series have aired) for broadcast. Also, I would argue that media companies that do journalism should not shy away from having those journalists investigate other departments of those companies. And while those journalists ought to give those depts the right to respond to any accusations, they shouldn't necessarily wait until those depts have completed in-depth investigations of their own and concocted a full CYA strategy, before breaking the story. (Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning the actions of media corporations)
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Channel 4 was founded on the idea of being a public broadcaster that only used third party production companies for it's content. It's written into it's charter.

by akolbe 3y ago

kmlx 3y ago

> Do we now have trial by TV? we've had this for years now.

refulgentis 3y ago

I don't understand the persistent need for people to foreground "The Media" as some actor in these situations. In both cases, They relayed information and They are not a monolith, and often, if not always, the screeds about They betray an extreme lack of rigor and play on emotions

threeseed 3y ago

The media is not a single entity. It is an industry comprised of multiple companies each with their own agendas, viewpoints etc. The publications involved in investigating Brand are not the same ones that profited from his exploits. And even if they did profit in the past does not mean they relinquish any right to atone for their mistakes. Hollywood tried to change and improve after the Weinstein situation. And so should the UK industry as Brand isn't the only one accused. We are talking about multiple cases of rape and sexual assault some involving a 16 year old girl. We need to not lose sight of who the real victims are here.

sacrosancty 3y ago
[dead]
jeegsy 3y ago
I suppose these days, it is useless to point out that these are unconfirmed accusations. Oh well
akolbe 3y ago
It is worth noting, for the benefit of US-based readers, that the legal age of consent in the UK is 16. Brand was 31 at the time, according to media reports.
- matt-attack 3y ago
  Indeed. Americans tend to believe that the entirely arbitrary value of 18 set forth by many, but not all, states for the age of consent is somehow also a fundamental ethical principle.
- threeseed 3y ago
  It is worth noting, that the 16 year old girl has accused him of sexual assault. So age of consent is not relevant.
  - dazilcher 3y ago
    Then neither is the age, so why bring it up?
drcongo 3y ago
> The media is not a single entity. Unless you're a red pilled, crypto-fascist, conspiracy theorist like Russell Brand, in which case the "mainstream media" is one huge, shadowy, many-tentacled, Spectre-like organisation out to get you for your brave stand against vaccines. Apparently.
- gettodachoppa 3y ago

atoav 3y ago

I agree that corporations shouldn't punish people for alleged deeds that are not proven in a court of law — that is, unless it affects them directly. Imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them. That misbehaviour hasn't been proven in a court of law, it might even be the case that the barkeeper read the situation wrongly and threw that person out despite their innocence. Yet they should have the right to decide that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enfore any kind of house rules unless they have two sworn witnesses for anything that happens. Now the pressing question is whether youtube is in a comparable situation here. Russel Brand, whether he is innocent or not, could now — with all the spotlights pointed at him — use that situation to produce more outrage — outrage that would make him a shitton of money that would be coming from YouTube. Seen from that perspective that move from youtube might be more of a strategic preventive measure to avoid dragging their platform into it without having to censor the guy than any form of punishment (although it will be read as such). Btw. I am not defending that position, I still think it is problematic and I still think social media platforms that resemble some sort of public square should have higher free speech standards than they do, but pick one freedom for corporations or free speech for it's customers, you cannot have both.

orwin 3y ago
> imagine a barkeeper throwing someone out for a misbehaviour that has been communicated to them Its absolutely correct to do it. While she was working at a bar in the caraibeans, my sister spotted a guy slipping something in a drink. The person who did it and both his friends weren't convicted (the police is useless and very 'assertive' towards victims there, especially women), but barred from all bar and restaurant owned by her employer

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago

People seem to be over-aware of their freedom of speech but severely under-aware of freedom of association. If anything, capitalism best explains this move. It’s better to get rid of a potential liability before the liability materializes.

mcphage 3y ago

What, did YouTube put him in jail?

refulgentis 3y ago
1st amendment says, and has always said, I have a right to make twitter and YouTube make you read my posts. At least, I keep being told that's the case on the way to explaining why civilization is being destroyed
- snehk 3y ago
  > 1st amendment says, and has always said, I have a right to make twitter and YouTube make you read my posts. Weren't the same people who made this joke again and again when Trump was banned from Twitter the exact same people who then cried out loud when Musk took over and changed the rules?
  - orwin 3y ago
    No, I don't think so. I have no evidence they are the same. I'm part of the people that pointed out that 'free speech absolutist' banned accounts that never posted CP, and barely made fun of a burning car, for political reasons. Corporate does corporate things. If Twitter was nationalized, 'rules for me and not for you' would be outrageous. Right now? If anybody is surprised it's their own damn fault.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Nah. I think you're trying to reference the "assassination coordinates" nonsense followed by journalist bans that were rescinded. Please be fair to Elon, he's in the arena.

ConcernedCoder 3y ago

IMHO, it IS premature if you believe he has some inalienable right to be on Youtube, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, these are only allegations. Yet, it's a company doing it, and they aren't bound by any "must-be-convicted-1st" rules, they can just block someone for any reason, they ( and other companies ) do it all the time, and in this case it's probably "better safe than sorry" type of risk management.

dark-star 3y ago

This has nothing to do with "trial". It's YouTube's platform, and YouTube as a company can decide who they want to do business with and who not. You explicitly agree to their TOS and TOU when signing up, and if you violate them (as determined by YouTube themselves!) you're out. tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along...

rurban 3y ago
Sure, nothing to see also with the Dresdner 1933 Exhibition "Entartete Kunst". https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/5826/1/Zuschlag_Die_Dresdner_Ausstellung_Entartete_Kunst_2004.pdf https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/5826/1/Zuschlag_D... Nothing to see there, move along /s
- sundaeofshock 3y ago
  What’s your point here? Who are the Nazis and who are the oppressed? Are you suggesting that Brand is somehow being oppressed?
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
    Taking away the livelihood of someone for unproven allegations is not oppression? Do you realize what Youtube is in the year 2023? It's how a lot of self-employed people make their living. Are you one of those "it's not censorship, just make your own media platform" techbros?
    - threatofrain 3y ago
      Part of the reason why YT is valuable to content creators is because YT fosters good optics.
    - hsod 3y ago
      Someone successfully did that! Tons of people that got demonetized on Youtube are doing great on Rumble. Including Russell Brand, as a matter of fact. He also just got a strong statement of support from the owner of another large monetized video distribution platform (X fka Twitter). So he can always move his show there.

saberience 3y ago

I think this is a bad faith argument, conflating legal proceedings with life consequences for bad behavior. We have trials for criminal and civil cases in law courts. When your child gets sent home from school for swearing at the teacher, do you ask the school for a fair trial by jury? We have consequences in everyday life all the time which don't require trials, just our own opinions. If I meet someone who seems sleazy (judging from my own opinion based on life experience), I am not going to encourage my daughter to date that person. We don't need trials by jury in our life to make decisions and take actions which have consequences. The truth is, it is generally true in life that where there is smoke there is fire. And with Russell Brand there has been a LOT of smoke for a long time, certainly more than enough smoke to judge that you probably wouldn't trust him with your daughter. And when you have not one but many women, with evidence, along with many pieces of video and audio of Russell Brands previous outrageous behavior (e.g. calling a man to tell him publicly on the radio that he had sex with his granddaughter, telling notorious pedophile Jimmy Saville that he would send him over his female assistant...), then it becomes more and more likely that in this case we just have someone who at worse is a rapist and at best is a total creep and sex pest. I certainly agree, before putting someone in prison they should have a fair trial. But no one is putting Brand in prison, are they?

akolbe 3y ago
The exchange with Jimmy Savile happened on a primetime BBC Radio 2 comedy show. There were no consequences for Brand at the time. You can hardly accuse the media of being consistent in their moral outrage. For the Andrew Sachs "joke" see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross#The_Russell_Brand_Show_and_Andrew_Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross#The_Russell_Bran... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_c...
- saberience 3y ago
  So are you saying that if someone commits a crime and gets away with it at the time, there should be no consequences if the crime is later revealed or reviewed? That somehow, time makes this all better? There were no consequences for Jimmy Saville too. Why? Because he was a powerful, wealthy man and it's hard for people to go against rich celebrities. Can you imagine being a young woman with no wealth or fame trying to go against Brand at the height of his celebrity? Or being a lowly Production Assistant at the BBC or Channel 4, wanting to complain but knowing nothing will happen or you may lose your job. That there were no consequences back then doesn't mean there shouldn't have been, we have no idea what happened behind the scenes. It's been historically hard for women to speak up against powerful usually rich men.

Karellen 3y ago

Also worth noting - a broadcaster like Channel 4 is not a monolith that produces all of the programmes that it airs. A lot of the programmes, like those in the Big Brother franchise, are produced by independent production companies and then shopped to multiple distributors like Channel 4, or Channel 5, or ITV2 (where the most recent series have aired) for broadcast. Also, I would argue that media companies that do journalism should not shy away from having those journalists investigate other departments of those companies. And while those journalists ought to give those depts the right to respond to any accusations, they shouldn't necessarily wait until those depts have completed in-depth investigations of their own and concocted a full CYA strategy, before breaking the story. (Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning the actions of media corporations)

jemmyw 3y ago
Channel 4 was founded on the idea of being a public broadcaster that only used third party production companies for it's content. It's written into it's charter.