Russell Brand, the Boogeyman Fallacy, and Mainstream Media

Russell Brand has become the latest Hollywood distraction from the Ukrainian War, worker’s wages, and just about everything else we should be talking about. That’s not to say that rape accusations shouldn’t be taken seriously, they absolutely should be. It’s the reaction on social media and in mainstream media that exceeds all normal expectations. For example, earlier today, journalist Jonathan Cooke pointed out an outrageous tactic recently deployed by The Guardian in an obvious attempt to manipulate readers:

What The Guardian‘s Jim Waterson is trying to do here is discredit the message by attaching it to someone or something that’s been stigmatized, denounced, disgraced, boycotted, condemned, or censured, leaving people with few, if any, choices. And no, in the big scheme of information operations (IO) it doesn’t matter if the subject of stigmatization has been falsely (or truthfully) deemed socially unacceptable. What matters is a herd mentality.

This tactic of poisoning the well, if you will, and false association has been been heavily used since the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. I like to call it the “Boogeyman Fallacy,” and in the case of Brand, he’s obviously now the boogeyman. So, rather than focus solely on what he’s been accused of doing, Waterson purposely included in his article Brand’s completely unrelated critique of the media in an effort to taint it.

In other words, his goal here is to connect media criticism with rape apology in the minds of his readers. Unfortunately, he unwittingly played into social media’s conspiracy theories such as Jimmy Dore’s “Brand is being targeted because he was over the target” rhetoric and other such nonsense.

If what Dore had to say was accurate, “they” would actually do this to every person “who’s a problem for the oligarchs” but they clearly don’t. The only thing he’s done here is admit that the Establishment doesn’t consider his message or platform to be a threat to their agenda, livelihood, or capital gains.

As for Waterson, his tactic is far from original and it’s meant to elicit fear and shame in his readers i.e. rather than critiquing the media out of fear of being harassed by others or risk being labeled a rape apologist by peers, family members, online communities, employer etc, one will now choose to remain silent.

At least that’s the goal.

Below is a similar tactic being used on social media. If you have the audacity to believe in the presumption of innocence—a guiding principle essential to a fair trial—you are either an “ignorant” or an agent of the State. There are no other options. This is what we call a false dilemma fallacy.


The bottom line is that regardless of how this plays out and how much, if any, irrefutable evidence is presented against Brand, which might, indeed, prove that he’s a rapist (innocent until proven guilty, folks), it will never change the fact that the sexual allegations lodged against him have absolutely nothing to do with holding the media accountable. Unless, of course, you’re Jim Waterson or a geriatric member of Anonymous.

Post Disclaimer

Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.

If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.

If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.

If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.

That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at with any questions or concerns.

I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.

If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.

This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.

The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.

The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.  The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

Leave a Reply