Yesterday's Joy of Six included a post by Lucy Siegle about the Guardian's long and close involvement with Russell Brand in . In it Siegle, a former Guardian journalist herself, referred to a letter she had written to the newspaper.
As she expected, that letter has not been published, so she has included it in a new post on her blog:
The Guardian must examine its own role in enabling Russell Brand
Your editorial on Russell Brand’s conviction (The Guardian view on Russell Brand: his conviction sends a powerful message, Friday 6th November) rightly challenges the media culture that enabled his behaviour. But why does the Guardian apply so little scrutiny to its own role in the creating and sustaining of Russell Brand’s media power?
Brand is described, almost in passing, as someone who was ‘also once a Guardian sports columnist’. Yet the Guardian’s relationship with him extended considerably further. It serialised his autobiography My Booky Wook, gave him extensive editorial exposure and, as late as 2014, staged a Guardian Live event broadcast to cinemas across the country. He is not simply a former sports columnist. He is a celebrity whose profile, cultural authority and commercial appeal the Guardian helped cultivate. It is a matter of public record how much Brand cultivated and received The Guardian’s patronage. Apparently this ran both ways. In his ‘Farewell Readers’ sign off in 2015, former editor Alan Rusbridger included Russell Brand at Guardian conference as one of the highlights of his tenure. (By the way, there is a photograph commemorating this historic moment on your website).
I founded and ran the annual Observer Ethical Awards, 2004-2014, when the Observer was owned by Guardian News and Media. On several occasions through the Guardian’s commercial department it was suggested that I should add Brand as a celebrity judge. I refused because I had heard troubling accounts of his behaviour towards women. I can’t say who knew what, but the concerns that were circulating were certainly sufficient for me to decide that he should not be anywhere near my event.
Your editorial notes that the BBC and Channel 4 conducted internal reviews and issued apologies following the revelations about Brand. What examination has the Guardian undertaken of its own decisions to commission, promote and publicly associate itself with him?
It is easy to condemn the culture of male entitlement once a celebrity has been convicted. The harder task is to examine the institutional decisions that sustained his power when he was still commercially valuable. The Guardian should be prepared to apply that scrutiny to itself. Unhappily, this is not the first time that I have had to make this point to you.
Lucy Siegle
Former Guardian News and Media staffer, and former Observer columnist.
Both blog posts are worth reading in full.
Very interesting. It seems to me that the Media (widely defined) has decided that the Brand Affair is a problem caused by and emanating from the Entertainment Industry (also widely defined). This misses the point that a number of institutions, such as the Guardian, the BBC, the Labour Party, the "lads Mags" of 200-20 and various manifestations of social media were able to turn Brand into a "Public Intellectual". Not quite AJP Taylor or JB Priestley, but nevertheless a person whose opinion and imprimatur were sought - on Question Time, on Any Questions, on Labour Party publicity materials etc. The bien pensants of our age regarded Russell Brand as an Important Person. We were poorer for it at the time, and we are certainbly all the poorewr for it now.
ReplyDelete