Although I still hold faith in voting, Brands message really needs to be heard and embraced. Once he gets going, his points are incredibly well spoken and relevant. Through virtue of their ability to access a camera willing to broadcast, there are quite a few celebrities who tend to voice (read: regurgitate) their political and social opinions regularly. However, when the rare celebrity actually makes a habit of good points (Brand, Louis CK, Colbert), they are dismissed by the larger media corporations. Swept aside - and generally without reason (I assume offering reasoning would be engaging the speaker - which aught to be avoided by the general western media) - my impression is that being funny (in addition to any point, fair or not) is cause enough for dismissal. Our system (in the West, at least) is a wonderful environment for a person or corporation with tremendous wealth - not just to exist but to have the power to actively mold a world increasingly beneficial to them. Again, I believe in the vote but also I believe in the painful reflection of our society Brand sheds light on regarding releasing the valves - orchestrated and timely consumerism, events, re-branded social values - meant to distract, redirect, or appease a frenzied populace that might have otherwise begun to organize themselves into something other than living-for-Friday automatons. However, I also thank the interviewer (Paxman) for his thoughtful questioning of Brand - you rarely get interactive interviewers in the media. His lead question, who are you to be editing a political magazine? is quite a fair point and the conversation is allowed to progress well from there. Whether I agree or not, I really love a socio-political discussion that initiates further thinking - not causing me to recite my own values back to myself in an effort to rebuff but rather to really start my own, new conversation and to seek out the thoughts of others. Thoughts?
Posted on: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:18:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015