BRANDED

Jann keeps a cane at hand in order to swing at
black men heading his way.

You've probably heard about Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner getting the boot
from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame for his interview with the New York Times regarding his book of interviews with musicians titled Masters. His subjects share the same trait: they're all post-middle aged white guys. When asked why that was, Wenner mused that black musicians weren't articulate and women in rock weren't interesting. (In that respect, Masters is an appropriate title.)

But there was another quote from the Times interview that was equally jarring. It concerned Rolling Stone's notorious 2014 story regarding an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia that turned out to be a total lie -- which the Rolling Stone reporter would have discovered had she done a little thing taught in Journalism 101 called factchecking. Asked if the magazine was more interested in headlines than accuracy, Wenner replied, "No," adding, "You get beyond the factual errors that sank the story, and it was really about the issue of rape and how it affects women on campus, their lack of rights. Other than this one key fact that the rape described actually was a fabrication of this woman, the rest of the story was bulletproof." Meaning, The story was a lie, but we meant well. To hell with the magazine's reputation and that of those who were libeled.

Hey Russell, if you're describing what I think
you're describing, I don't believe you.

People wonder why Russell Brand is being defended by the usual gang of idiots (Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tater, Elon Musk, and their ilk) regarding several accusations of rape and sexual harassment. I submit that Rolling Stone's UVA article did more damage to the believability of women than anything else in recent history. 

Brand's fans will also say of the women, They're just looking for a payday and If it really happened, why did it take this long for them to come forward? These questions neglect to take certain things under consideration. First, the women aren't being paid. Second, they were likely cowed by Brand's power, knew they wouldn't be believed, and found the idea of going public with this stuff traumatic. 

I can't personally vouch for the first two reasons. But I can tell you there were experiences from decades ago that I never talked about until going through therapy. There's still stuff I don't speak about because the memories are too painful. And it wasn't anything nearly as traumatic (or criminal) as rape, so, yeah, I can imagine that plenty of women would keep publicly silent. 

Despite Brand looking like a sex criminal, I never thought he necessarily was one. To me, he was just another UK entertainer who flopped at being a star in America before returning to his homeland. A stand-up comic, radio DJ, and occasional actor, he's now best known as a left-winger-turned "libertarian" podcaster. For a little while, I listened to him while i did housework. Kind of interesting at first, Brand over time started resembled more and more a right-wing conspiracy nut who wanted to sound more intelligent than his near-indecipherable accent would allow him to be. 

"In other news, we're still turning a blind eye to
sex criminals in our employ."

Management folks at the various broadcasting outlets where Russell Brand worked have tripped over their tongues denying they knew anything about his illegal sexual activities -- just as they did all the others, from Jimmy Saville onwards, despite all their behaviors being an open secret in the UK show biz world. 

"Open secret" means "closed eyes" on the company's part, so I suppose there'll be more bad headlines regarding radio and telly personalities in the future. Brand keeps talking about a conspiracy to get him off the air, but it seems the only conspiracy is upper management enabling criminal activities.

                                                             ******************