Studio Brief 3 - Research

Studio Brief 3 - Message and Delivery - Research

Research 

Here is the bulk of my extended research, I feel I have holistically covered the story well with specific reference to how the media represent it in their articles.

What was said? 

During an appearance of ‘Newsnight’ Evan Davies made the comment: ‘In the book you refer to what some people say looked a controlled explosion. One might read that as you giving some credence to conspiracy theories’ 

To which Russell Brand replied: ‘You can read the book in whatever manner you would like to Jeremy’. When further questioned, Brand stated he finds the situation ‘Interesting’ revealed he personally does not trust the American Government and also said ‘what I do think is very interesting is the relationship that the Bush family and the bin Laden family have had for a very long time’. 

Firstly Evan Davies says ‘Some People’ not specifically Brand when talking about the way the Towers fell. Secondly he says ‘One might read that as…’ which is ultimately Davies stating his opinion of a prediction to how certain other individuals could potentially respond to this extremely vague and deceptive comment. Finally Brands further justification into why we should remain ‘open minded’ is clearly stated as his own personal opinions. 

The Real Story

The Interview in question, (Newsnight 23/10/14) sparked controversy within the media however, in my opinion this is not what should have been reported. Brand appeared on Newsnight to promote his new book based on his political ideology of a revolution and how a fairer society could be implemented. For the most part of this discussion Brand talks about his feelings towards the government, capitalism, suitable resources and real cases of how ‘positive direct action’ has benefited real people when appealing against council and government policies. He draws specific reference too the Focus E15 Mum’s campaign who are group of campaigners who were set to be evicted from their homes. The group was largely made up of young, single mothers. ‘Focus 15’ occupied a number of vacant flats in east London in order to protest against Newham Council's plans to demolish the Carpenter housing estate in Stratford. Subsequently the evicted parents were awarded 15 council run houses, as a result of their ‘Creative direct action’. I feel like this positive story did not receive enough media attention. Instead of highlighting the positive change Brand talks about, the media would rather speculate at false claims of 9/11 conspiracies than report positive affective change within the community/country. 

Russell Brand and Politics 

Brand has been interested in politics for a long time however I feel the defining moment of when he decided to actively engage with politics and look at changing some of the regimented system we live in started after his well documented interview with Jeremy Paxton. I feel this is when the public started to see Brand as a serious (or not so serious) figure within modern-day politics. He expresses the ideology of revolution inviting the public to take a stand against the government with an ideal end goal of becoming less immersed in this consumer and capitalist world we currently live in. Following this is actively participates in protests in and around London campaigning for rights the share similar views with the occupy movement. He later released his own book entitled ‘Revolution’ in which he discusses how our current system of living isn’t working and discusses alternatives to these conformist times with the help of experts as diverse as Thomas Piketty and George Orwell, a vision for a fairer, sexier society that's fun and inclusive.

Ways it was reported

I feel this story was reported in a number of different ways depending on the news corporation that published the article. The Berlina and Broadsheet newspapers offer the story in the form of opinion writing with regular columnists commenting on Russell Brands action. This cannot be called unfairly subjective because the articles clearly state that it is featured in the opinion column, however Brand comments on how columnists are highly educated and ofter appear in affluent social circles so are more likely to conform to the exceptions of the editors and important figures, also as both newspapers are aimed at the educated middle-upperclass consumer they will have considered this when commenting on brands actions in order to appeal to the target audience. The compact ‘I’ paper I feel portrays the most unbiased version of this story, it seems to concentrate more on the facts and uses subjective comments as an alternative opinion as opposed to generalising these in a bias manner. This could be do to with the paper being an abbreviated version of The Independent which is targeted at a younger demographic whose views are more likely to be inline with Brands. Finally the tabloid papers, I feel have an extremely subjective and biased articles that use bold headlines, emotive/exaggerated language and generalise individual views to nations and subcultures. They seem to almost attack brand and completely disregard his views, I feel they sacrifice the content in the hope of making the story as dramatic as possible in order to grab the readers attention and sell more papers. 

The Headlines

“‘Ranting’ Brand’s TV outburst over 9/11” - The Daily Express 

“Another ‘Newsnight’ Interview, another row as Brand tried his hand at 9/11 conspiracy theorist” - The Independent 

“I’m ‘open-minded’ about 9/11 attacks, says Russell Brand” - The I 

“Don’t put all your faith in Russell Brand’s Revolution, Hadley Freeman” - The Guardian 

“Russell Brand’s ‘umble ‘istory of world politics” - The Daily Telegraph 

“BRANDED STUPID Fury as Russell says US could have plotted 9/11” - The Sun

I feel these headlines are greatly misleading and vastly subjective. They in my opinion victimise Russell Brand using adjectives such as ‘ranting’ and ‘row’ and ‘stupid’ to mislead the reader, suppress Bands views and mock him on a personal level. ‘The I’ is the only headline I feel is a fair assessment of the content to follow even though the media have become encapsulated by speculation and focus on 30 seconds of a fifteen minute interview, there is little subjective connotations portrayed by the headline. ‘The sun’ on the other hand completely disrespect Brand on a personal level, their headline ‘Branded stupid’ uses cheap puns to turn the public away from Band’s views.

Media Motives

I feel there could be significant reasons as to why certain newspapers took particular angles when writing about Russell Brand’s Newsnight appearance. For example the Daily Express use the headline “‘Ranting’ Brands TV outburst over 9/11” and I feel personally condemn brands opinions with adjectives such as ‘COMEDIAN’ in capitals to reinforce he could have nothing intelligent worth listening too, they sustain this mocking of Brand throughout the article further intensifying the situation e.g.; ‘provoked fury’. I feel a potential reason behind this subjective account of the interview could be because The Daily Express is well known for having political affiliations with the Conservative party, who are currently in power in the UK, I feel they could use this to create a bias towards Brand as he opposes the current system the Conservative party have put in place.  Another newspaper that I feel is unnecessarily cold towards Brand is The Sun, their headline “BRANDED STUPID fury as Russell says US could have plotted 9/11” and consequent article are heavily biased towards Brand and his views however I feel this is not because of a politely affiliation but more for a public reaction. The extremely emotive language will grab the attention of the reader and ensure the story is engaging and dramatic. I feel they prioritise this over the content and to some extent, the truth.

Social Media

Another element I researched when looking into this story was the social media response. As we live in an ever-expanding technical age we receive information as soon as its available, giving people the opportunity to voice their opinions to the word quickly and somewhat anonymously. As with any story that expresses a particular opinion there will always be a variety of responses to this. The media was quick to suggest the general public vastly disagreed with Brands views using twitter responses in their articles such as ‘Would you vote for this man? Rude, Ranting, Ridiculous… Russell Brand’ said Mathiew Stadlen on Twitter. I conducted some independent research looking at host of comments from social media sites and found that negative comments towards brand included an anonymous comment  on a online article ‘Who really cares what this freak thinks? He’s not even a citizen of this country. …’ I anticipate this to me an American citizen that does not accept brands views. However what the media did not report was that there was plenty of support for Brand’s suggestions and his open minded attitude. For example another anonymous comment related to the Guardians online article said ‘…Brand is saying what many of us are thinking. It is rare to hear it on the tightly-controlled corporate news’. This once again highlights the media bias to only report the version of the story that best suits themselves. 

Source: Twitter

Source: Independent online article

Source: Mediaite.com

Primary research 

To express how vague Evan Davies’ comments were that lead to this supposed ‘fury’ and media outrage I decided to ask a similar question to my peers in university. I asked the question ‘Can you completely rule out that American government had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks in 2001?’ with the multiple choice answers ‘YES (they 100% had no involvement)’ and ‘NO (I cannot be 100% sure)’. I created the survey using the on online resource; ’Survey  Monkey’ as it was simple to design and allowed me to create a hyperlink in order to use it through social networks. I found that 92% of my survey said ‘NO’ they could not be 100% sure that the US government had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks in 2001. This shows me that Russell Brands views are not that extreme and when questioned vaguely the media can intensify the outcome to suit the type of story they want to produce. For example the media could then use headlines such as ’90% of students believe 9/11 conspiracy theories’ when in actual fact all that was actually said was that 92% of a small sample of students can not be 100% certain that the US government had no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

My opinion 

I feel there were a host of different responses to this story. that range from factual to opinion to subjective, I feel the representation of Brand and his views is carefully calculated to fit in with the target audience and the corporation ethos. Overall I think this story created a missed opportunity to report on poise causes such as the Focus E15 Mums and countless other Brand mentioned in his Newsnight appearance. I feel the ambiguity of the media has in some cases subjectively reported biased accounts for the sake of a headline and political affiliations caused a disregard for relevant information. Finally I think Russell Brand has been unfairly represented in the majority of articles and sources I have analysed as articles seem to dismiss for his past actions and most importantly disregard his views because the source of this information (brand himself) is not portrayed as credible because of his past and occupation regardless of whether this information is valid and logical.