“Let me start this by saying I stand with all victims,” Rose McGowan said in a new video. “I think what's being done right now in the Russell Brand case with the Guardian and the other news outlets is part of a concerted effort to turn the public in general, against anybody who comes out and one of the reasons and ways they're doing this is a concerted effort to bend journalistic rules that have always been in place such as having to be on the record with who you are and what your name is, in order to accuse.”
McGowan was outspoken during the MeToo era. She alleged that she was raped by Harvey Weinstein and that when she didn't take a pay off and sign an NDA, she was railroaded out of Hollywood. Weinstein later went to prison for a string of sexual assaults after multiple criminal convictions.
What is the true narrative they’re pushing and who really loses? pic.twitter.com/kx1dFUsWpY
— Rose McGowan (@rosemcgowan) September 19, 2023
“I didn't make these rules,” McGowan continued. “These are the rules. They were the rules. So there's something strange going on. When these rules are being bent in order to push a narrative, it's almost like Icarus flew too close to the sun. He's a low lying fish and not one of the truly powerful so he can be thrown to the wolves. I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know if he's innocent. That's not what this is about. This about driving us further apart. And mainstream media and media outlets protecting people on a higher up level, from true consequence from what they're really doing and what they're really getting away with.”
Brand has be demonetized on YouTube, where he has four channels and millions of subscribers. He still has a presence on Rumble and Twitter, both platformst that have made a point of upholding free speech. Brand speaks out against the war in Ukraine, Covid restrictions, and other authoritarian measures.
“And the real losers in this are actual victims,” McGowan said. “I'm sorry and hurt for anybody who's been hurt. But this narrative and the way it's being done is just pushing this culture war, pushing us farther apart, and pushing any gains gotten by people believing accusers to the edge and this is a way to have us not be believed. This is not the way the reporting is done.”
The allegations against Brand were published after a years' long investigation from The Times, The Sunday Times, and Channel 4 Dispatches, in which four women claimed Brand had either raped them or been a controlling, manipulative boyfriend. With the exception of an ex-girlfriend, none of the women allowed the allegations they made to be published alongside their actual name. The women cited in the investigation told The Times that they had not intended to come forward until they were contacted by journalists. They also said that it is in part due to Brand's recent, new found success that they felt it necessary to do so.
“You have to go on the record. It has always been that way,” McGowan said. “I didn't make it so it didn't make me happy to have to do so. Neither did it. make others happy to have to do so. But to blindly and anonymously accuse none of these high level journalistic outlets would have ever let this be published before. So I have to ask why. Why now what is the true narrative they're pushing?” She asked.
After her experience with media, Hollywood, and speaking out, McGowan has been an advocate for victims. She also has demanded transparency, honesty, and has no time for perceived hypocrisy. She is not the only one who has recognized that a public trial by media, based on anonymous allegations, is not exactly a recipe for justice.
“The situation has created an uncomfortable feeling for many who have become wary of the sensationalism of the press and the trial by media era we seem to be living in,” Fiona Dodwell writes.
“Should the media be allowed to orchestrate and release such bias material which has the risk of ruining lives, before a court of law?” Dodwell asks. “Before a criminal investigation? This issue is no longer about what you think of Russell Brand, or whether you personally “feel” he is guilty based on what you’ve heard. Only those involved know the full story. Yet this whole debacle raises a larger question: should the media essentially be delivering verdicts and rolling out justice? Should it be there place at all?”
“I do support victims, I want them to receive justice and I do want them to be heard – but not through the lens of craftily edited TV shows and sensationalist headlines. There are channels through which crimes are investigated and reported, and this new era of ‘trial by media’… pic.twitter.com/yGvuGokhG1
— Fiona Dodwell (@Angel_Devil982) September 19, 2023
“Furthermore, are we comfortable watching a man’s livelihood being torn apart before due process?” she continues. “Think about the answer carefully. You may not be a fan of Brand – but to answer yes to the above means the same applies to anybody out there – any person in the public eye is fair game to this treatment.”
