This is an illusory rebuttal. You seem to be insinuating that history shows there to be a significant chance that these accusations will be "far less" than the initial reporting "or flat out wrong", without providing any evidence in support of your claim.
> Your deference to the professionalism of journalism is about a decade or two out of touch with modern reality.
Here is a list of all the times I mentioned "journalism" or "journalists" in my post which you replied to. I would be grateful if you would enumerate which makes you think I am affording undue deference to the profession, bearing in mind that OP is suggesting that the media concocted this story and that the use of "actors" in its retelling is somehow evidence of its incredibility:
1. "[These are not anonymous allegations.] The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand."
2. "I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist."
3. "In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation."
4. "it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of [the victims of serious crimes] with a mixture of actors and altered voices."
> It is only rational to wait for proper processes play out.
I'm sorry if you thought I was suggesting that "proper processes" were not playing out. In fact, I believe that private businesses which entered into contractual relationships with Brand are free to use the rights those contracts afford them to distance themselves from him, given the seriousness of the allegations against him.
> It’s sad that such a thing has become politicized
It isn't political except to say that the people defending Brand appear to be, overwhelmingly, fringe and far right figures who espouse similarly discredited views and are now joining dots which most of us don't see: this is not an endorsement of Brand's guilt, but Occam's Razor suggests that a man who bragged for decades about his relentless and at times violent sexual appetites, and who is accused of rape by multiple independent accusers with – again – reams of evidence _including a series of messages from Brand in which he appears to apologise for raping one of them_ is, simply, a rapist who happens to have the same nonsense views as a lot of those supporting him.
> one has to feel the need to tar and feather someone at the first reporting of accusations and any dissent of immediate overreactions is dismissed as conspiratorial
If you believe that the credibility of investigative journalism is in some way undermined by the use of actors to protect the identities of victims, or that a decade passing between the alleged crimes and the victims coming forward is suggestive of anything other than it being very, very scary and humiliating to come to terms with and be open about being raped, then you deserve to be dismissed in the harshest possible terms. It's simply another conspiracy theory masquerading in a not-very-compelling disguise.
> or itself motivated by a distasteful political agenda or merely getting their information from unclean sources.
That's what it boils down to, though. Assuming, for example, that you do not believe the earth to be flat, you have to rationalise and account for the fact that there are people who do sincerely believe it to be. My armchair assessment of such individuals is that they are probably somewhat predisposed to such beliefs (in my experience it's a rare thing to find a conspiracy theorist who believes just _one_… for example OP seems to be supporting Brand's discredited fringe theories about big pharma, and now believes the equally inane and vanishingly unlikely theory that Brand is being falsely accused in order to silence him), but also that their faith in the public institutions which overwhelmingly do more good than harm (serious news organisations, public bodies such as NIH and the WHO, colleges, etc.) has been eroded to the point where they seek out laughably ill-informed "news" sources like Brand and Rogan.