Brand and Paxman
- This topic has 245 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Another one here which struck a chord:http://brokenbottleboy.tumblr.com/post/1241752902/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-and-the-messiah-complex
gnome wrote:Another one here which struck a chord:http://brokenbottleboy.tumblr.com/post/1241752902/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-and-the-messiah-complexThis is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. What the Romans used to call an ad hominem argument.Brand talks about revolution and everybody's talking about it. Ken Loach talks about forming a new Left Party and it's a floparoo (well, a few thousands do but it's not all over the social media). There must be a lesson there somewhere.Once again, it's not Brand or his personality that's important. It's the fact that he's got people talking about revolution. When I was getting signatories yesterday for the nomination papers for us to stand in a local council by-election in Lambeth 2 of the 20 people I talked to spontaneously mentioned Brand and revolution when I explained who we were.Personally I don't see too much point in getting a Socialist Standard to him (but why not?). It's getting to the people he's got to think and talk about revolution that's important.No point in us kicking a gift horse in the teeth.
Adam is correct, it is the people Brand has got talking about revolution that we are interested in. One caveat however, if Brand himself turns out to be a "real" revolutionary Socialist, he would be as welcome in the Party as any member of the working class, or rich celebrity, or as I see it, "Human Being" who cares about his fellow man.Brand has opened the door, it is incumbent upon Socialists to push it "wide open".Steve Colborn.
But all credit to the guy for getting people to talk about revolution, and not being intimidated by the likes of Paxman, who wouldn't recognise a socialist revolution if it hit him in the face. (And, you never know, it might.)Brand undoubtedly has the personality, and the popularity, to get the message across even more – all the better if it were to be 100% socialism, not mixed with airy-fairy nonsense. So I think it is worth trying to contact him. And there's absolutely nothing to lose.
ALB wrote:gnome wrote:Another one here which struck a chord:http://brokenbottleboy.tumblr.com/post/1241752902/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-and-the-messiah-complexThis is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. What the Romans used to call an ad hominem argument.
Actually it's doing neither. What it is doing is attempting to separate the messenger from the message because the credibility (or lack) of one may be injurious to the other.
Quote:Brand talks about revolution and everybody's talking about it. Ken Loach talks about forming a new Left Party and it's a floparoo (well, a few thousands do but it's not all over the social media). There must be a lesson there somewhere.Brand mentions revolution without specifying what he means. He also talks of not voting, increasing taxation and much else besides. "Everybody's (sic) talking about it" simply because he's a self-seeking publicist and 'celebrity' whose words and actions are guaranteed to be seized upon by a fickle and gullible public. Unlike Ken Loach, Brand's a fly-by-night and we should distance ourselves from him; that's the lesson.
Jealousy rears it's ugly head! Look marra, Brand has got "ordinary folk" talking about "revolution". Whether or not they are serious about it or not, the fact is, it is in the public domain and consciousness. Instead of your cheap sniping, you and we, should be thinking of ways to turn this to the advantage of our "whole class".You reckon he is a self-seeking publicist, he may well be, but given where he has come from, the least you can do, is give theguy a fair hearing and chance. At least he is'nt suggesting fixing ballots to get the outcome we, as class conscious Socialists want! That would be unforgiveable, would it not? Steve Colborn.
steve colborn wrote:At least he is'nt suggesting fixing ballots to get the outcome we, as class conscious Socialists want! That would be unforgiveable, would it not?Perhaps you'd care to tell us who is?
It was a generic observation. We know that Bush Junior rigged his last election, do we not? Brand may be a self-seeking publicist but how many of these have you seen or heard, actually getting ordinary folk, to even think about, never mind consider revolution?As to that, how many "ordinary folk" have you, specifically, gotten to think about revolution? not as many as Brand did I'll wager. Rather than petty remarks, try and seize the moment comrade. Try to use this oppurtunity for the "good" of the movement!By the way, perhaps I'd care to tell who, who is what, or did what? what do you mean? Steve Colborn
gnome wrote:Brand mentions revolution without specifying what he means. He also talks of not voting, increasing taxation and much else besides. "Everybody's (sic) talking about it" simply because he's a self-seeking publicist and 'celebrity' whose words and actions are guaranteed to be seized upon by a fickle and gullible public. Unlike Ken Loach, Brand's a fly-by-night and we should distance ourselves from him; that's the lesson.Hear, hear!Brand's commentary is full of so many vagarities that pretty much anything can be read into them.If criticism of capitalism is back on the agenda, and it seems it is, it is not because of the actions of pop stars or celebrities but because it strikes a chord with the realities of daily existence, and if the New Statesman chose the clown Brand to speak on the serious subject of social transformation it is not because he is some champion of the field but because they know he has a following and will sell papers.It serves the establishment very well that this issue is put into the mouths of such clowns.
The MediaLens website is devoted to exposing the BBC and the media's false liberalism. http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/launchpad-for-a-revolution/This article supports the argument that the Brand/Paxman interview was not as "revolutionary" as some wish it to be and may have an underlying ulterior purpose."…When someone with interesting things to say is granted a high-profile media platform, it is wise to listen to what is being said and ask why they have been given such a platform. Comedian and actor Russell Brand’s 10-minute interview by Jeremy Paxman on BBC’s Newsnight last week was given considerable advance publicity and generated enormous reaction on social media and in the press, just as those media gatekeepers who selected Brand to appear would have wished……He [Brand]effectively contributed to the illusion that the BBC is a level platform for reasoned, vigorous and wide-ranging debate on the most serious issues affecting people and planet. This matters because, as we have noted before, the most effective propaganda systems provide opportunities for some dissent while the overwhelming pattern of media coverage strongly supports state-corporate aims……It is understandable that there was much praise for Russell Brand’s Newsnight interview and New Statesman essay. To a large extent, this signifies the desperation of people to hear any challenge to the power-protecting propaganda that we are force-fed every day. But two crucial factors here are that Brand was selected to appear by media gatekeepers; and that media institutions, notably the BBC, escaped serious scrutiny. If Brand was a serious threat to the broadcaster’s projected image as a beacon of impartiality, he would not have been chosen. Noam Chomsky has a cautionary note on high-profile exposure in the corporate media: ‘If I started getting public media exposure’, he once said, ‘I’d think I were doing something wrong. Why should any system of power offer opportunities to people who are trying to undermine it? That would be crazy.’Given all that, how likely is it that the BBC would really provide a launchpad for a revolution?"
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:Brand mentions revolution without specifying what he means. He also talks of not voting, increasing taxation and much else besides. "Everybody's (sic) talking about it" simply because he's a self-seeking publicist and 'celebrity' whose words and actions are guaranteed to be seized upon by a fickle and gullible public. Unlike Ken Loach, Brand's a fly-by-night and we should distance ourselves from him; that's the lesson.Hear, hear!Brand's commentary is full of so many vagarities that pretty much anything can be read into them.If criticism of capitalism is back on the agenda, and it seems it is, it is not because of the actions of pop stars or celebrities but because it strikes a chord with the realities of daily existence, and if the New Statesman chose the clown Brand to speak on the serious subject of social transformation it is not because he is some champion of the field but because they know he has a following and will sell papers.It serves the establishment very well that this issue is put into the mouths of such clowns.
I saw the interview on Youtube and I saw no clown in Brand. What I saw is a man genuinely angry and frustrated at the continuing failure of capitalism. He said he didn't have all the answers, but he did say there were people in society, (the internet being one obvious place) that where offering solutions. Ok so he didn't recite an SPGB manifesto, if that makes him a clown then probably many members of the SPGB were at on time or another clowns looking for an alternative. Who knows, one day he might stumble on the answer.Of course he and others like him haven't put revolution on the agenda. Brand himself acknowledges why it is being spoken of more freely these days. He talks of the gross inequality, leading people to question the status quo. Just because he is a rich celeb doesn't mean he can't see whats going on, and comment on it. If he helps to raise the profile of rebelious talk then it's to be welcomed. Another point worth mentioning is that during that, no doubt edited, interview he says things that you seldom hear being said on television. Clown I think not. Inteligent, articulate bloke, frustrated with mainstream politics, questioning the status quo and thinking along the lines of many a fledgling socialist, seeking an alternative but not fully there yet. Most definately.
"I saw is a man genuinely angry and frustrated "He is an actor by profession so just how genuine an emotion did you actually see. I can't be sure, not knowing the man personally (also, an ex-drug addict and confessed sex-addict is particularly skilled at manipulation of emotions, i would also add)."articulate bloke"Depends on what you call articulate. I found his attempts at humour such as his remarks about Paxman's beard a distraction from the more impoerant things he had to say.I am not saying humour does not have a place in propaganda but some of his behaviour does give others cause to describe him as a clown. I disliked Ben Elton for his Maggie Thatcher routines since instead of treating her serious he and others reduce her to a joke figure. I have also found the other Brand -Jo- a much funnier person.My issue is that we should not dwell too much on a media personality. We should not try and base our activity on hanging to the coat-tails of Brand, hoping some of his fame will spill over to ourselves like some pop-star groupie. We have some more pressing immediate matters and that is how we manage to convey our ideas more effectively via means that we can access and control and apply ourselves.Celebrity endorsement is fickle. We would be associated with any future fall from grace by Brand. Have we forgot theTommy Sheridan Effect on the SSP?
alanjjohnstone wrote:The MediaLens website is devoted to exposing the BBC and the media's false liberalism. http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/launchpad-for-a-revolution/This article supports the argument that the Brand/Paxman interview was not as "revolutionary" as some wish it to be and may have an underlying ulterior purpose.I think this belongs on the long-dreaded conspiracy theories thread. If radical ideas are not allowed on the media it's a plot, but if they do appear it's also a plot !
Quote:Noam Chomsky has a cautionary note on high-profile exposure in the corporate media: ‘If I started getting public media exposure’, he once said, ‘I’d think I were doing something wrong. Why should any system of power offer opportunities to people who are trying to undermine it? That would be crazy.’Sounds like sours grapes to me. In fact Chomsky has been interviewed by Paxman on two occasions.In 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1A8er-bGUand in 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3732345.stmAnybody remember anything about them?
Two times in nearly ten years…Is that sufficient exposure to a thinker who is very clearly articulate? I wonder if you can tell me the number of Tony Blair’s articles/interviews the Guardian has given to him and then say there is not an unspoken agenda by the paper to rehabilitate him and restore his credibility. Can’t be for boosting the circulation….but i conspire… True there is no proof of a plot by the BBC. Journalist Jonathan Cook also tries to read into the BBC motives.“we are witnessing the media in a moment of profound crisis and they have no choice but to adopt new strategies to deal with that crisis, including ones that may prove clumsy in terms of their own interests. As public discontent mounts, especially as expressed through new media, the traditional corporate media have to respond. Certainly, they would prefer to coopt the message of popular revolutionaries like Brand, both to strengthen their own brand (sic) image and to dilute revolutionary fervour.” But he concedes it is a gamble by the BBC that could backfire. http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-10-30/russell-brand-can-he-avoid-being-coopted/ In an earlier article, Cook writes “Brand’s problem, nonetheless, is that he risks being incorporated (sic) into the status quo. He may have outraged GQ, government ministers and their sponsors, but they are easily outraged. Brand has become the chic comedy-rebel of our era, the dissident brand (sic) the Guardian loves to put on its front page. This may bring his message to millions but at the same time, I fear, it dissipates its power to effect change.” http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-09-14/russell-brand-half-way-to-subversion/
Quote:"This may bring his message to millions but at the same time, I fear, it dissipates its power to effect change.” http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-09-14/russell-brand-half-way-to-subversion/That concedes the point that his criticism of capitalism and his call for revolution did reach millions. What people will do about it is another matter. But it's an opening for us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.