Russell Brand: trial by media?

The allegations against Russell Brand are "shocking", said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail, but "even a toe-rag like him should surely be given a fair hearing".

The former comedian – "now a self-styled alternative lifestyle guru and wildly successful conspiracy theorist" with 11 million followers on X and 6.5 million YouTube subscribers – is accused by four women of "a catalogue of abusive behaviour, including rape and numerous sexual assaults" between 2006 and 2013.

The investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4's "Dispatches", published and broadcast on Saturday, included the story of a woman who said she was in a sexual relationship with Brand when she was 16 and of another woman who was treated at a rape crisis centre after Brand allegedly forced her to have sex against a wall in his Los Angeles home. Brand denies the allegations and released a video on Friday denouncing the "extremely egregious and aggressive attacks" by "mainstream media outlets" trying to construct a "narrative".

'Everyone deserves a fair hearing'

"No one should downplay what is being said about Brand," said Brendan O'Neill at Spiked. "Yet should we now accept that he is a rapist? That he is guilty of it all? To my mind, no." This scepticism does not mean thinking that accusers are liars, but "reserving judgement until all the evidence has been presented and tested to its limits".

One of the "unintended consequences" of the #MeToo movement has been that alleged assaults are no longer examined "in an objective court setting", added Vine, but "judged in the court of public opinion". When it comes to allegations of such seriousness, "everyone deserves a fair hearing" – even "dubious individuals" like Brand.

'Legally bombproof'

"There is already a clamour," countered Ian Birrell on the i news site, "carefully stoked by Brand", that he is "the real victim; that we are witnessing trial by media". Yet trial by media is sometimes the only course of action.

Of course it would be better if such cases did not have to be "thrust into the public domain by reporters", but it is the job of journalism to "reveal wrongdoing". It would be better if the police "could be trusted to investigate rape and sexual assault cases properly", and if the criminal justice system "did a decent job convicting abusers and rapists", said Birrell. It would be better "if women did not often feel defiled a second time when seeking justice as they are dragged through the system".

But we live in the real world – where "far too many men still get away with errant behaviour due to systemic failures".

And these allegations are the result of a long, carefully sourced investigation, points out Sam Leith in The Spectator, which "all parties concerned will have sweated blood to try and make legally bombproof".

The two newspapers have published a detailed timeline of their investigations, going all the way back to 2019. Journalists contacted hundreds of people, interviewed alleged victims for hours, and pored over "substantial evidence" – including notes from a rape treatment centre, text messages and photographs. The Times now says it has been contacted by several women with fresh claims, and that their allegations would be "rigorously checked".

Yet social media is filled with people "parroting the 'innocent until proven guilty' line", said Leith, "as if criminal conviction was now the minimum standard of verification for a newspaper investigation".

We don't know whether Brand is guilty, he continued, but if your first reaction is "to speculate about the motivations of the reporting, you're a damn fool".