Everyone claiming “trial by media” on Russell Brand misunderstand what investigative journalism can do
On Saturday, after days of rumours swirling around on the internet, we all learnt that Russell Brand was facing allegations about his conduct and behaviour. The allegations made included mentions of sexual assault, rape and emotional abuse, as part of a landmark investigation into the comedian-turned-conspiracy theorist by the Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. A day before the revelations could ever be broadcast or put on print, Brand released a three-minute video denying “very serious criminal allegations” made against him, putting himself ahead of what would then be.
It is the reporting of this that saw Brand dropped by his agency, his book deals paused and his remaining tour dates postponed — apart from one that went ahead in north-west London on the same night that the Dispatches documentary about him was broadcast. At the time of writing, it saw YouTube suspend the monetisation of his channel and the BBC remove content featuring him on its iPlayer and Sounds services, as Channel 4 have done it before on its streaming service.
And some of the responses to the investigation on social media, mainly on Twitter X (thanks, Elon Musk — who was one of those defending Brand), show that whenever an allegation is being made, some people question whether those making that allegation were telling the truth rather than question the nature of the person of whom the allegation is about. These responses can also claim that it was all a “trial by media”, “trial by social media” and that it was a “mainstream media plot to take him down”.
I mean, maybe you don’t understand the power of investigative journalism and the role it can help play. And by “you”, I mean everyone who’ve been doing all these “trial by media tweets” and defending Brand. Investigative journalism has the power to report on the individual — however big or famous they are — with extensive allegations brought against them, a scandal so big that the police will eventually get involved, like how the Metropolitan police responded recently.
So, instead of asking why those making allegations against Brand didn’t go to the police instead of telling the media, maybe ponder that a very small portion of rape cases reported will result in conviction. And that in the Met, there were rapists such as Wayne Couzens and David Carrick who’d served in the force until the very few moments that they were exposed for who they are. Not to mention the racism, sexism and homophobia running institutionally rife in the force.
The way investigative journalism helped hold majorly cultural figures to account (and to eventual justice) has worked before. In 2017, Harvey Weinstein would go from being known as a filmmaker and producer to a disgraced sex offender and rapist after several women came forward to say that he sexually harassed, raped and abused them. The expose of Weinstein, by the New York Times and the New Yorker, would see all associations with him ended and the #MeToo movement becoming ever more important in an everyday society.
If it wasn’t for the investigations into Weinstein, the authorities wouldn’t have been able to bring him to justice, jail him for life and put him in the sex offenders’ list. And did anyone ask whether any of his victims were telling the truth at the time? So I don’t know why they’re doing it now re Brand. It may be true that he has the right to innocence until he’s proven guilty, but it’s also true that he faces accountability for his behaviour, actions and the content that he produces for fans — and their impacts.
Also, consider the investigation into Tim Westwood, the prolific DJ and radio presenter who was accused of sexual harassment and predatory behaviour by seven Black women. After the Guardian and the BBC released an investigation into him in 2022, which also contained a documentary about him, he resigned from his weekly radio show on Capital Xtra — the Global-owned station which he’d joined after leaving BBC Radio 1.
And finally, the most infamous investigative journalism of them all — the case of Jimmy Savile, an entertainer-turned-sexual predator, abuser and paedophile who was exposed a year after his 2011 death. The extensive amounts of his disgusting and predatory behaviour were first documented in an ITV documentary — which saw the BBC criticised for its response and what it knew came under great scrutiny — including the suppressing of a report by Newsnight. The Savile scandal saw the launch of Operation Yewtree and eventual prosecutions — all of which should’ve long happened whilst he was alive.
Another aspect of Savile is that he was interviewed by Brand on his BBC Radio 2 show in 2007. In which the latter said it “be very nice one day” to meet the former, who also said he “doesn’t usually meet fellas but if you’ve got a sister then that’s okay”. Brand offered Savile his personal assistant and he was pleased with it. And it was broadcast on national radio, as recently resurfaced via Dispatches.
The simple plain thing is this: if it wasn’t for investigative journalism, public figures wouldn’t have been held to account for their actions, police wouldn’t have followed up with their potentially criminal investigations and questions wouldn’t have been raised about who knew what. How about considering the role it plays in making society accountable once more and the values of it.
