Trial by media circus

[Maatandosiris]

The first thing to say is anyone who has committed rape absolutely needs to be brought to justice. The criminal
justice system needs to become more effective in protecting all victims of crime.

However, AIBU unreasonable to think that this weekends story about RB has been sinister for many other reasons, none of which are to do with RB.

Firstly the SM posts whipping people into a frenzy of some big reveal like some secret album release. Clues planted through various carefully placed posts, giving just enough detail to let people work things out (plus making people suggest other names) . It was an absolute circus, in the case of rape it turned accusations of serious crime into entertainment, no thought how anyone would be affected, whether ultimately guilty or innocent (maybe c4/The Times were trying to get new stories). Extremely bad taste at one end of the spectrum, devastating for innocent people at the other.

The ultimate agenda of both The Sunday Times and C4 is to make money. That’s it, neither is set up as the states arm of justice. There’s no inbuilt checks and balances. Yet somehow they are allowed to name an individual, accuse them of crimes (and effectively say they are guilty) without any of the safeguards and checks and balances of the criminal justice system applying.

People have lost all sense of justice. We have a man accused of something, an hour and a half of heavily hyped TV which holds some accusations but mainly a character assassination, The Sunday Times probably selling many more copies/getting many more subscribers with more of the sane one sided accusations.

Even on Mumsnet we have people already calling him a Rapist, people feeding into the frenzy of “he’s a creep”, “he’s a sex pest” etc etc. in other words, convicting him in their minds before this has gone anywhere near a court or jury.

How will this ever now be a fair trial? How will they find a jury who can 100% not have their views affected by this whole circus? If he is guilty will there ever be a safe conviction, how can we be confident that real justice has been done? What’s the risk of any conviction being overturned? This is not in the interests of either the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator.

Questions are circulating all over SM as to the agendas at play. It’s fairly clear that the Sunday Times has been searching out victims. What were they saying to these people? What promises have been made?

if a crime has been committed this should be with the criminal justice system not Saturday night prime time TV with an associated heavy advertising campaign.

Im not sure whether RB is guilty or innocent, but that’s not what this post is about. AIBU to think that the way this witch hunt (which is what it is regardless of whether RB sinks or floats) is abhorrent and flies in the face of justice and that this has far wider and scarier implications for society than just this case. Who or what is next?

If it's in the public interest arguably it needed to generate attention. Of the public.

Mmm, since when do we demand that investigative journalism is only done on someone already convicted?

It's a bit weird; I'm struggling to think of other situations that have been subject to investigative journalism for which there's this much defence

It was sensationalised as in it was very heavily advertised in advance.

Not really, there was a flurry on twitter 24 hrs before as one C4 journalist highlighted the program on c4 and then deleted it.

Brand himself made a big thing of it further fanning the flames

Did you watch it op? It is him doing the heroin, then the nasty comedy about dick gagging and mascara. Most of the show is his words broadcast at the time which parallel the accounts.
Maybe you think that means the accusers watched his shows though?

How can you say it wasn't sensationalised when for a couple of days before it aired it seemed like everyone on here and their granny were taking great glee trying to guess who it was about?!

I wasn't dismissing the ins and outs or saying that they were irrelevant either, I was saying that they didn't need to be repeated for the umpteenth time... Can you read?

I stand by my belief that people shouldn't be labelled before conviction, there are countless people sitting going oooh I knew he was a wrong'un look at him I never trusted him etc etc and calling him a rapist with no proof of their own beyond a 90 min tv show. Why didn't the journalists take what they had to the police before air. Have you any response as to the people I mentioned that were wrongfully accused and left with their careers destroyed? Is it really so unfathomable to think that it could be (not is) the case here?

There is a vast difference between calling out rogue tradesmen (a la watchdog) who ripped Mavis off with her double glazing and all out accusing someone of one of the worst crimes imaginable.

Who exactly 'sensationalised it' though. Cos that matters.

It basically went viral. That's out of the control of the times and C4.

So investigative journalists should only work on minor crimes and ignore major wrongdoing YeahIsaidit?

Maybe they should said earlier who it was about so posters on forums like this are not naming everyone they don't like.

No, that's not what I'm saying but at the same time I don't think such things should be put out there before they've been legally investigated too....

I can read.

You said 'there is no need to go into it again' - that, to me, is dissmissing them. Dismissing: def: 'order or allow to leave; send away'.

I think it was a bit more than 24 hours? Not 100% on that though. It was very very well advertised anyway. And why not like. The public are v interested given the amount of threads on here since it came out.

Well to me, your interpretation is wrong. What I was saying and meant despite your interpretation is exactly what I said, there wasn't any need to go into it again, it had been mentioned, spoken/argued about numourous times and there wasn't any need to repeat it.

I mean look at the "it's already been said!" comments on here, how many of those are required

Not naming who it was about, plus the 90 minute special, made it go viral.

People trying to work it out from cryptic tweets and posts

Hang on - you’re saying the documentary was sensationalised because 48 hours before it aired, randoms on social media were trying to guess who it was about?

Not sure the reaction of people who weren’t even the audience / readers at that time can be used to diminish the programme.

What was the alternative? Say it was about him and leave the rabid masses to speculated for 2 days about the content?

Look at the actual documentary and the actual article and think about whether they were sensationalised.

Your earlier post mentions people like Jim Davidson - pretty sure his career was destroyed when the appetite for racist, sexist, homophonic ‘comedy’ diminished. Johnny Depp - didn’t win his case in the UK and wasn’t cleared of all counts in the US (side note - lots of interesting discussion on why, linked to jury v judge cases and the DARVO defence) yet he’s still beaming down from perfume ads and the silver screen at Cannes, so hardly cancelled. Can’t remember who else you mentioned, but the point stands.

RB has been known, for years, to exhibit predatory behaviour. Comedians called him out (Kathryn Ryan, Brigit Christie), Danni Minogue called him out, the BBC newsreader made a complaint about him sexualising her - absolutely fuck all was done.

Even if the bar for prosecution isn’t met (which I sincerely hope it is - but doubt it for all the usual reasons SA & rape are underconvicted) he is a creep.

It wasn't advertised though.

There was nothing there!

It was social media guessing and then it was confirmed by Russel

It really was. I don't see tv other than irish channels and i knew when to go and watch it well ahead of time. It was all over the internet.

Wasn't that viral?

im not going to waste time, yet again explaining to people who quote clearly don’t want to understand that this thread is not specifically about RB it is about trial by media. I highly suspect some on here are journalists (let’s face it they’re well known for trawling MN looking for easy stories).

it’s sad that people really cannot see the dangers of what is happening with the media arrogantly turning rape claims into cash for their shareholders, affecting the effective use of judgement.

Journalists have repeatedly been shown to employ dodgey tactics.

I believe the victims and the facts related (self-incriminating messages, rape kits, witnesses). I don t care about his comedy skills, political beliefs or fame or the social media frenzy leading up to the broadcast.

All the people crying to conspiracy, if they heard the story of the 16y old girl without knowing the name of the accused, I bet they d would be up in arms too.

The facts presented are not legally established (yet?), but they were not rumours or allegations.

Even if people don t trust MSM, UK laws for libel and slander are amongst the toughest in the world.

RB can indeed sue them any time now for what they broadcasted and published. It can cost them millions and worse, because yes, the accusations were of a very serious nature. They only took that huge risk only because they were sure of their facts.

If RB is an innocent man and the "fighter against the establishment" he seems to be appreciated for by some, I expect him to sue them.

That s what an innocent person would do, especially he can sure afford it.
I notice he hasn t yet.

Do you really believe that a journalist was able to convince five women to lie about rape though.. and if not can you not see that they have the right to tell there truth in anyway they see fit.. You've said yourself that the judicial system isn't fit for purpose and of course that should be a victims first port of call but I can completely understand why they'd feel otherwise.

It reminded me of a Simpsons episode were Homer gets branded a pervert and the clips put together to make him look guilty. Then at the end Homer believes someone is evil because of the way the "evidence" is portrayed. I think that technically it was rape on the American woman, but the way interviews were interrupted by him in interviews and doing stand up made it farcical.

Op at the end of all this it’s hard to know if police action will be taken

Another woman has come forward so I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens

As for trial by media. I can see what you’re saying, should these programmes be made? It’s probably one way to shift cultural norms. One of the few ways we see it happen

It’s a good idea to debate it although I don’t know the answer

So no comment at all or even acknowledgemeny on the Reynolds Defence where you have to prove that you are not acting for the benefit of share holder and have to prove it's for wider public interest.

Thought not.

Just lots of tumbleweeds.

It sums it up.

It's not just about Brand. And even if he's found innocent of rape there are numerous legitimate reasons why it would have been negligent NOT to run the story.

**

As for trial by media. I can see what you’re saying, should these programmes be made? It’s probably one way to shift cultural norms. One of the few ways we see it happen

I agree. There is strength in numbers, these woman need support. There will be more given the high number of woman he’s made out to have slept with.