Anything but Brand new

Today's news has been forefronted by the story of Russell Brand giving his views to the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee. The MPs involved are conducting an inquiry into drug policy. Apparently, the committee suggested that Brand's celebrity status could make him a role model for young people. Brand retaliated, "who cares about bloody celebrities? Their role is insignificant."

The fact that this has been all over the news, however, kind of ignores his input. It's a prime example of celebrity culture - Brand disregarded his celebrity status as important and he gave evidence because it was something he felt passionate about. Yet, this has only been picked up by the media because of his celebrity status - and that was the angle of every story. The majority of the articles I've read dissect his outfit before reporting on what he was saying.

The Telegraph felt it necessary to tell the reader that during the inquiry he addressed an MP as 'mate' and that he 'bamboozled' MPs. The Mirror took a personal angle on the story, writing about Brand's own struggles with drugs and, again, slightly missed the point. The Independent, however, managed to wait until the third paragraph to tell the reader what Brand was wearing. One article said:

"'You can tell what party they're in from their questions innit?' This was just one of many gems uttered by the comedian as he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee at the House of Commons". Surely,the 'gems' should have been Brand's points?

In the video footage of Brand's argument, he is seen to make a joke in almost everything he says. He is told that they were running out of time, to which he cockily replied, 'time is infinite'. I'm slightly doubtful, therefore, as to whether Brand really did completely put his celebrity status to one side, and why he didn't take it more seriously. The media may have taken it out of context, but there's a chance that Brand doesn't mind. 

No comments:

Post a Comment