Actor and comedian Russell Brand has put out some shaky commentary recently.
But in response to Brian Stelter and
some of the critical remarks made in regard to Joe Rogan,
Russell Brand decided to jump in mock Stelter and defend Joe Rogan.
Now I think he had some interesting things to say about CNN specifically.
So let's take a quick look at the video and then we'll discuss.
>> I wanna show all kinds of opinions.
>> Which sounds great, but not all opinions are created equal.
>> Now also knew sonny Jim,
you're not only making people not trust you [INAUDIBLE].
>> And then you have talk show stars like Joe Rogan who just wing it,
who make it up as they go along.
And because figures like Rogan are trusted by people that don't trust real newsrooms.
>> And then why don't people trust me and they trust Rogan, but
I'm perfectly trustworthy.
Look how loose my tie knot is.
>> We have attention, a problem that's much bigger than Spotify,
much bigger than any single platform Kate, but that's what this is the heart of this.
>> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGH] Jealous of Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan's irresponsible, he took horse maggot medicine the other day.
Now tell me sir, and don't tell me anything other than this.
Should there be a war?
Yes, there should be a war.
Interviews done, I'd like to see you do that Joe Rogan.
>> All right, so look, Russell Brand has defended Rogan's disinformation
on ivermectin and stuff like that.
I don't agree with that, so let me get that out of the way.
But I do think it's a teachable moment, could be a teachable moment for
CNN and what I've noticed from them is just a full blown rejection of what
could be a teachable moment.
Which is, there is a reason why legacy media is
not considered trustworthy by the masses.
There is a reason and it is unfortunate that people turn to comedians,
to podcasters,
to all sorts of people who don't have much of a journalistic background.
Maybe don't even do their research, whatever,
they trust them as their top source for news.
Yes, there is an issue with that, but it didn't just happen out of nowhere, right?
I think that last part of the Russell Brand video is the best part
where he specifically references coverage of foreign policy decisions,
the rallying toward war that you see in cable media.
Like endless effort to hire people who have worked in the defense industry,
people who have worked in government, whatever.
Instead of actually hiring investigative journalists, just relying on people who
clearly have a conflict of interest to inform the public about whether or
not we go to war.
That is a long standing issue in legacy media outlets and publications.
>> Yeah, 100%.
So let's have fun with this.
First of all, I know Brian Stelter and Russell Brand a little bit.
Russell has been on the show a couple of times and a couple of great interviews,
you should check that out.
And we've been on Stelter show.
So I have decided that I'm the perfect person to adjudicate this.
I have decided that, so it must be true.
And so first of all, everyone's a little guilty.
So ivermectin is legitimate medicine.
It is not at all for coronavirus, no legitimate doctor believes that,
99.9% of the doctors say the opposite.
We've gone through that a billion times, Okay?
So be careful where you're getting your information.
Okay, now having said that, overall Russell Brand is more correct.
>> Yeah, I agree.
>> Okay, so CNN has this attitude like, we're the only people in world news and
by the way, I've been doing that accent before Russell did.
I win Russell, I win, okay?
>> Russell's funnier though.
>> How dare you.
Okay, that I think is a well established fact.
Okay, we do facts on TYT.
Of course Russell's funnier, he's a bit of a professional added, and
has made millions doing it.
Okay, but Anna is 100% right.
So apparently, not everyone is guilty.
Because CNN pretends they're doing objective news and
they'll be outraged at the suggestion whether it's from Russell Brand,
me, or anyone else that they're not doing objective news.
No, you're doing corporate sanctioned news.
>> Yep. >> So whenever there's an issue that
affects corporations, you guys are massively biased.
So I might agree with some of your takes on social issues and
sometimes they're takers and sometimes they're just facts, right?
So I don't wanna get into all the specifics cuz it's obvious on
the social issues.
Yes, everyone should have the same rights and our constitution says that we
should all have the same rights, but on economic issues CNN is comically biased.
So the one that Russell pointed out there was about wars.
Yeah, every time there's a war, you guys go on there and with pom poms and
then afterwards, you have buyer's remorse.
So you pretend to have buyer's remorse.
So the Iraq war and apparently we got a little bit wrong.
No, you got a massively wrong and you did it on purpose.
>> That I don't know, right?
Look, I think that a lot of the terrible war reporting came from
print publications that thought, I'm getting a scoop,
there's a CIA official who's giving me a scoop.
And they're just like regurgitate whatever the intelligence official has to say.
And then what happens?
CNN, MSNBC, television news, they just pick it up and they regurgitate
what was regurgitated by a print reporter based on what a CIA official had to say.
>> And those are great points but when I say they're doing it on purpose,
I explain this at length in my upcoming book and
you can get it at justice coming book.com, but it's in the hiring decisions.
So there's no memo that's written.
So the right wing is wrong about that.
They don't get together and go, what story should we make up today, right?
But when they hire people like Brian Stelter,
they know that he's gonna stay in within a very acceptable range of ideas and
thoughts, and that range is going to be solidly massively pro corporate, okay?
And so the perfect example is not CNN, it's MSNBC.
During the Iraq war as I explained in the book, they fired Phil Donahue actually
Banfield, Jesse Ventura and everyone else that was against the war.
And then internal memos showed the executive said, we're firing them or
not allowing them on air because they're against the war.
So that was very purposeful, okay?
And and so then who were the people they hired in their stead?
Well, they hired people who were pro war, very actively, very on purpose, right?
Now, CNN executives do that in a little bit more sophisticated way, so
the New York Times executives, etc.
They just think, I'm gonna hire people that think like me cuz people who don't
think like me are radicals, right?
And that definitely includes a lot of the right wing, but
it also includes the great majority of the left wing, the actual left wing.
We're not talking about Democrats and Republicans.
Most Democrats and Republicans are corporate.
They take giants amount of donor money and
then they do whatever their donors tell them to do, including start wars.
And CNN would find that outrageous.
If you said that on air on CNN,
if you're an anchor, you'd be removed within a couple of weeks.
Come on.
You think politicians are influenced by millions of dollars that they got
from lockheed Martin and Raytheon, and you think they started wars on their behalf?
Outrageous, I do declare.
No, I do think that that is a fact, it happens all the time.
We can't even negotiate drug prices with drug companies.
It's unheard of.
It's not capitalism, it's not free market,
it's literal crony capitalism, monopoly behavior.
They took over the government completely through donor money and
no one is, CNN ever reports it.
So please, spare me your righteous indignation about Joe Rogan,
if you're not coming correct and you're not coming anywhere near correct.
So overall, Russell Brand is definitely more right