Commentary on a Newspaper Article by Russel Brand

The English society today is affected by big social differences, which results in a very sharp and clearly defined divided class society, where social mobility is not very easy ore even almost not existing. The lower range haven’t got a place to fit in, and many youngsters from these social lower classes, young people with no education, young people with bad family backgrounds, often feel out of the community, they are not getting any recognition and the politicians have ignored them and the fact of it way too long! In an article published on The Guardian’s website in august 2011, the author Russell Brand pin down some of these conflicts and problems. The author is more explicitly commenting on the riots that happened last year in England. The article’s receiver could be intellectual people, people who have an interest in politics and in society, certainly the working-class, also students as elders, the article is mainly directed to leftist, as the guardian is a traditional left- winged newspaper and the paper stand in opposition to the ruling government. Inasmuch the article is a website article, the audience properly is a bit broader than its ordinary audience is, also assuming readers from the right- wing would have an interest in reading the article, they may even get into a debate on the internet side, fighting and arguing for their point of view. The article very much invites the readers to an open debate. In this next part, I am going to comment and analyze Russel Brand’s commentary, and I am going to comment on his writing style and his attitude to the subject. The article written by Brand’s, is as I have mentioned, a comment on the Riots of 2011 that took place last year in England. Brand points out that the riots says more about the society’s condition than any other thing and that the government should do something about the problem, instead of calling the actions egoistic material gains. He does not think that these young people are mindless as everybody, inclusive the politicians, are calling them. Brand considers the problem much deeper and declares that the government is marginalizing the young people, and says that we ought to ask why the government sweeps the problem away under the carpet. He declares that these young people don’t have a suitable community because the politicians haven’t been given them one and he claims the problem is a consequence of the conservative politics which the government has been carried out the last decades: â€Å"These young people have no sense of community because they haven't been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron's mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there's no such thing. † All of these very strong points and opinions are of cause wrapped up in a very well written commentary. Brand starts the whole article telling his reader why he should not comment on this case at all, and by doing this, he has pre-empted and prevented that this kind of criticism would come his way. His reasons why he shouldn’t write about the topic in the first place, are very paradoxical which makes it very comically, and at the same time it gives him some kind of credibility cause the reader feels comfortable when a writer dares to look critical at them self and especially when they are also, like Brand, knows how to express a good portion of self-irony . Brand’s writing style is very fluent, he distinctly uses humor as a very well working poetic- device, such as sarcasm and irony. It makes the text much lighter and much more consumable, even though the topic is a tough one. He has a special talent of setting up scenes in his reader’s mind, which also makes the text very alive. The text’s composition has kind of the same setup as a standup comedy show, and Brand sets up several scenarios and merges them well together, connecting the dots all the way through the article with just the right flow. He tells about some personal happenings, which he makes a point with, again with a good portion of self-irony, for example, when he tells his audience about his own rebellion time, and then connects it to today’s youngsters and compares the two episodes to make his point. He uses a great deal of sarcasm, an example for his sarcasm is, the part he writes about, that some may say the real victim is the conservative politician, that had to shorten her holidays and then came out saying the behavior were â€Å"unjustifiable† and â€Å"unacceptable: his comment to this is : Wow! Thanks guys! What a wonderful use of the planet's fast-depleting oxygen resources. Now that's been dealt with can we move on to more taxing matters such as whether or not Jack The Ripper was a ladies' man? † He also uses some metaphors, such as the reality show Big Brother. The Big Brother episode described in the article is a criticism of the TV station because they censured an unfavorable episode, the purpose by using the episode is to set up a mirror reflecting the riots. Brand is actually implying that the government aka Big Brother, does not have the nerves to face reality, which must make the reality show a fake, aka the government is a fake they won’t face reality. Brand claims they are ignoring society’s real big problems by sweeping them under a carpet – that is why Big Brother isn’t watching you – as the title of the article claims. This way of using a known episode as a metaphor, is very effect full, and many people can relate to it and have a opinion and attitude about it. In the last part of the comment, Brand changes from using â€Å"I† to using â€Å"we†. From now on, the article directly speaks to the reader. Brand claims he does not know anything about politics and tells why he clearly can’t have a solution or answer to this issue – again his rhetorical trick is a good portion of self-irony and he closes the paragraph by quoting Gandhi: â€Å"Be the change you want to see in the world. † For some readers this may seem too much, and for others it would be very powerful. I think the quote has a well-functioned purpose in the text – these accurate words shows the reader Brand’s solution to the main problem even though he claims he doesn’t know anything. From here on Brand gets more serious and more poetic in his language use, his syntax, and sentence structures. He clearly wants to make a statement by moving his reader. He is appealing with pathos, and emotional words and you can see he uses a very well-known rhetorical technique, called an Anaphora often used in speeches, which is a repetition of a word or a phrase. â€Å"We must include them, where they feel represented, we must represent them and where they feel love and compassion for their communities then we, the members of that community, must find love and compassion for them† It often gives a very good outcome to repeat word ore sentences, because it supplies the text a consonants, and the reader is seduced by this way of using the language – and I must say, Brand uses the technique so its outcome gets very effective. The last passage sums the whole commenting on the subject up, into some few poetic phrases. Brand clearly comes out with his point of view and attitude – he want his reader not to close their eyes for what is happening – he requests them not to sweep away these problems even if they are not out in the open. I must say Brand is a very talented writer with brilliant skills that touches a broad audience. Besides an observable writing talent, his writing contains a strength approaching a serious problem using humor. Brand’s word combinations makes his text easy to read and he has an adventurous natural flow, which makes it very exciting. However, most important in this commentary, is the attitude to the problem. Brand’s article contains a strong cultural and social criticism and he expresses his wish for individuals to face the injustice unequal society. He encourages his reader to not only leaving it all up by voting on the right party, and not only by leaving it all up to our politicians – who apparently aren’t doing anything about these problems – he encourage his reader to sweep away the carpet and face the problem right out there in the blue by giving the young people what they really need!! Very well said Mr. Russell Brand – I couldn’t agree more!