This week has seen many people damn investigative journalism as ‘gutter journalism’ just because it reveals uncomfortable truths or allegations against people they like. These people say they’re interested in ‘the truth’, but that’s not what I think they really want; they just want their preconceptions confirmed. If they do that, it’s good; if not, it’s bad.
What’s more likely? Several women, who don’t know each other have been conspiring together, now with aid from The Times, Dispatches and Channel 4, or Brand might be a bit pervy? People have been saying innocent until proven guilty, but no-one has said he should be imprisoned based off yesterday’s Dispatches or Times article. What the investigative journalists did uncover were text messages, visits to rape centres and medical records, but on the other side we just have wild conspiracies from Brand.
It’s interesting how the ‘rational’ critics who have jumped to defend Brand (the usual suspects) were the first to demand severe retribution against figures and organisations they dislike with the Phil Schofield and Huw Edwards affairs. Now they’re crying about ‘cancel culture’ because someone they like has seemingly behaved appallingly, and worse than the other two at that.
