Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 19, 2012 23:08:27 GMT
I read this short piece by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail:
I wasn't familiar with the documentary, and I certainly wouldn't have watched it as I can't stand Brand. So I ran a search on the BBC website. Since the 15th June this year they have 20 articles on him. 2 of them from the 25th and 26th of July concern an incident in which he threw a photographer's iPhone through a window, and was subsequently ordered to do 20 hours of community service.
I found the links to his documentary - 'From Addiction to Recovery', which was shown last Thursday 16th and some related articles about it. One of them - Russell Brand wants drugs available through chemists from the 14th August, shows as Peter Hitchens noted above, that the BBC really relate to this piece of scum like he's some sort of expert in the field.
Point is, how is it in none of the articles mentioning this documentary, does the BBC make note that just a month ago Brand was involved in an act of vandalism? Is this what we should think of as 'recovery'?
For sure if Brand was somebody, or an entity, that the BBC didn't favour, they would have definitely inserted this incident into the text.
Why did the BBC choose Russell Brand, the alleged comedian (and tormentor of Andrew Sachs), to make a documentary about drugs?
Apparently, admitting to having used a lot of illegal drugs makes you an expert.
When I challenged Mr Brand’s qualifications on live TV, he screeched at me a bit, then offered to kiss me. I declined.
A viewer complained about the way I was treated on this programme, and was told ‘… as impartiality is the cornerstone of our entire programme-making process there is certainly no bias against Peter Hitchens’.
I am going to have this sentence stuffed and mounted, so I can keep it in a glass case.
I wasn't familiar with the documentary, and I certainly wouldn't have watched it as I can't stand Brand. So I ran a search on the BBC website. Since the 15th June this year they have 20 articles on him. 2 of them from the 25th and 26th of July concern an incident in which he threw a photographer's iPhone through a window, and was subsequently ordered to do 20 hours of community service.
I found the links to his documentary - 'From Addiction to Recovery', which was shown last Thursday 16th and some related articles about it. One of them - Russell Brand wants drugs available through chemists from the 14th August, shows as Peter Hitchens noted above, that the BBC really relate to this piece of scum like he's some sort of expert in the field.
Point is, how is it in none of the articles mentioning this documentary, does the BBC make note that just a month ago Brand was involved in an act of vandalism? Is this what we should think of as 'recovery'?
For sure if Brand was somebody, or an entity, that the BBC didn't favour, they would have definitely inserted this incident into the text.