Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu
Brand repeated himself out of necessity as I see it. It was Paxman more or less asking the same infantile "well what are you going to do about it?" questions over and over - wrapped up in this smug mirth about having to interview The Sun's 'Shagger Of The Year' about the political spectrum - that pushed Russell to have to eschew his values and suggestions again and again and again ad nauseam.
How do you know people were taken in by the color of his vocabulary and not by the contents of it? I'm sure there were a few fans who watched the video essentially because he is sexy and a bit funny but I imagine the vast majority of people the interview struck a chord with - myself included - had absolutely no trouble both understanding and empathizing with his pretty obvious, clearly spoken suggestions on how to improve the sociopolitical paradigm.
The end goal to Brand's revolution is clear. A resource based ...
|
Paxman was being irritating, but Brand wasn't answering his question so the interview went round in circles. Paxman asked him why people should take him seriously when he's never voted and he's not suggested any ideas, he's just stated the obvious that the system is broken. Brand proceeded to talk around the issue and tried to detract from it by derailing the conversation, that's why I think people are just blindly praising him - most of the comments were "what a legend, love his way with words" or "fancy him so much" - i.e. superficial comments that don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the content of the interview. Despite the way I've posted in this thread, I think his points are fantastic and I look forward to hearing more political thoughts from Russell - I just wish he'd gone into this interview prepared. He's clever enough to talk his way through something he doesn't want to talk about (as all the best politicians do, incidentally) - I think he's an interesting man with some fantastic ideas, he just needs to research them and formulate them instead of batting off direct questions with archaic, wordy sentences.
It's not that I don't understand him, it's that I don't think he understands what he's talking about, with regards to discussing a "revolution" or how the system is broken and needs to be fixed. His points are valid but there's no basis to them, what will happen in this revolution? What needs to happen for it to come about? What should people be doing?