"Rolling Stone" Publishes an Embarrassing Propaganda Hit Piece On Marilyn Manson, Calling it an "Investigation" (Part 3 of 6)


...continued from part two.

36. We are now coming to the paragraphs where Rolling Stone highlights Manson's violent behavior on stage and at hotels and so forth, which are all part of his act based on the behavior of his rock idols of the past, but the "investigators" at Rolling Stone see something more ominous in this behavior, something that translates in the bedroom behind closed doors as well. This is their narrative about everything Manson does. Nothing is "just an act" for Manson, it is all real, and it is all unleashed on his girlfriends. If Manson traveled to a poor African country and personally fed the hungry, no doubt Rolling Stone would say he was just observing the effects hunger has on the human body for when he refuses to feed his girlfriends. Everything is twisted with these "investigators". They will say, "But we tried to contact all these people for comment and they did not respond!" Maybe they did not respond because they knew you would be wasting their time by keeping them on the phone for hours only to to use one phrase out of context, like you did to everybody else that you contacted that supports Manson and offered nothing that corroborates your narrative.

37. The Kenneth Wilson (Ginger Fish) quote is from an interview that is not cited, and this was clearly done on purpose. The whole quote from the interview is this, after he was told by the interviewer "You're very sharp on everything" regarding the need as a drummer to always hit the perfect note:

"The typical person can't decipher what's happening, it's all just drums to them. I play everything live and (keyboardist) Pogo plays toms too. On a couple tunes I have the drum machine fattening up my toms. I have drum triggers on my snare and bass drum, but I'm not using them for anything special. And I have the sampler going. I'm running all that, and playing the drums, and also trying to read Manson's mind. He will change a part in a song, and I have to know what Manson's going to say, what he's thinking. If I miss a cue I'm liable to get a mic stand thrown at my skull. The drums make a nice pretty mess when you wreck 'em. It could be a perfect night and I play my ass off, and I still get hit. (laughs)"

This is what Rolling Stone wrote:

"Behind the scenes, tensions in the band were mounting. A 1996 label showcase devolved into violence when Warner vaulted his microphone stand into drummer Kenneth Wilson, sending him to the hospital. '[I’m] playing the drums, and also trying to read Manson’s mind,' Wilson said in an interview the following year. 'If I miss a cue, I’m liable to get a mic stand thrown at my skull.' (Wilson did not reply to requests for comment.)"

The whole tone of the interview is laid back and Ginger Fish is finding humor in it all, while Rolling Stone reports it as tension growing in the band, which is not true. Why didn't they report on all of Ginger's other great quotes in the interview, like when he was asked if it was all worth it:

"There is a sick amusement to it all. The band is fun, and the music is challenging. Manson envisions everything; he sees everything. Some people call that a dictatorship, some call it one man's vision. He's great at what he does. He's not going off half-cocked. He knows exactly what is going on."

Indeed, people see things different ways, but Rolling Stone does not want to consider that. They have a very myopic vision of Manson's entire career, and it all leads to and stems from ABUSE.

38. The Tony Ciulla section reveals only that he knew this was all part of Manson's act. As for the hotel that had a lot of damage, today they have a plaque commemorating it, and it draws fans and makes them money. It gives character to an otherwise non-noteworthy hotel.

39. When they refer to Rose McGowan's statement, they conveniently leave out the fact that she was one of the pioneers of the Me Too movement, to put her statement in its proper context of their mantra: "Believe all women".

40. "Throughout this time, Warner continued making art imbued with intense misogyny." This is a moralistic statement and interpretation, which has no part in an investigation. This statement is in reference to the Groupie film featured at the end of the documentary Dead to the World. They interviewed the star of the film, Pola Weiss, but were only able to extract this from her interview that lasted a few hours:

"It was acting, it was hamming it up.”

Pola complained about this after the interview, that they basically wasted her time. Rolling Stone however does not care if it was real or fake, or how the accusers were painting Manson as Pola's murderer (which they don't mention at all), but they focus on how Manson's accusers said he showed it to them with pride. And why not be proud? This was Manson's first film. It's only a matter of taste if they liked it or not. And I'm willing to bet at the time they did like it, or at least said they did.

41. I find it very odd that Rolling Stone pretty much skips the entire Antichrist Superstar period. They hardly cover it at all. Is this because they don't want to associate themselves with conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, who were at that time trying to take Manson down? God forbid their far left publication associate in any way with the far right.

42. While talking about the accusations of Manson being involved in school shootings, Rolling Stone adds in the same paragraph:

"One of his friends from Florida recalls this as the point in which the Marilyn Manson persona overtook Warner; if this person, who wished to remain anonymous, were to call him 'Brian,' he’d insist on being called 'Marilyn.'"

Every Manson fan knows that Manson changed his name officially as a brand from Brian Warner to Marilyn Manson (he kept his name Brian Warner legally, and still uses it and identifies himself with it). Usually when people change their names, they don't want to be called their old name anymore. There is nothing sinister about this. His persona never overtook Brian Warner; it was just a name change. This is a baseless accusation from an anonymous friend that probably wasn't a friend who supported Manson's rise to fame, and was viewing Manson as having changed, being more Hollywood than Florida, because Manson no longer had time for him, or probably didn't want to, or maybe was never even a friend but thought he was a friend. You never know what is going on with anonymous sources, which is why they should never be given consideration. If they have something to hide, it's probably because they are not telling the truth. The pathetic thing is, Rolling Stone bases its whole article on this one statement, and formed a narrative around it.

43. This is one of my favorites. According to the article:

"'Manson is the kind of person who looks for weakness in people,' says a source who was present during the sessions for 1998’s Mechanical Animals."

They found some arbitrary individual that would actually talk to them who had something to say that fit their narrative, who was only present during the recording of Mechanical Animals, and he makes a statement as if he knew Manson for years, and spent a lot of time with him. I have no doubt Manson may have been hard to deal with during his creative process in a room full of people, especially for the album that would define the rest of his career and which changed the trajectory he was on prior to it, and which he was pressured to change from executives of his record company, but this statement seems way overboard beyond what he could have experienced, and there is absolutely no context for us to evaluate it. According to Michael Beinhorn, the producer of the album, he seems to give a more accurate account of what was going on in the studio:

"[Manson] had a special trick with [his voice while making the album]. It's funny what he would do. He would get a box of Starbusts, not an individual package of Starbusts, but an entire box full of individual packages, and he would be chewing them constantly during the whole [production]. It would lube his vocal chords. [laughs]. He would be jacked up with sugar. It was difficult to manage that after. [laughs]. And he put the engineers through hell, he was so mean to them sometimes. It was like dealing with a very large child after having a great deal of ice cream. [laughs]."

Context makes a difference.

44. The incident with Spin editor Craig Marks is recalled with not the entire truth. It says "[Warner’s bodyguards] physically attacked him.…" The way Rolling Stone edits this makes it sound like they beat him up, when in fact they only lifted him up against the wall, Manson issued a threat, and he was let go. I have recounted elsewhere Manson's history with journalists, which is a mixture of good and bad, but he did come to change his behavior and accepted he was wrong at times, but Rolling Stone does not report that part.

45. After a few good paragraphs recalling the Columbine incident, Rolling Stone had to make sure to end with a blow below the belt while no one was looking. They write after quoting Manson's acclaimed comments from Bowling for Columbine:

"Years later, his tone was more flippant. 'I got blamed for Columbine, and I had absolutely nothing to do with it,' he said in 2012. 'At least [the killers] had their kicks before the whole shithouse went down in flames.'"

Again, this quote is taken out of context. In context he says:

"I can have a sense of humor, and I have every right to have one, since I got blamed for Columbine and I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Those guys, at least they had their kicks before the whole shithouse went down in flames. And obviously, they didn’t kill themselves - they were shot down."

First, Manson is saying this in the context of humorous things he was saying; second, he was quoting Jim Morrison; and third, we don't know if the reference was to the killers, because the killers did kill themselves, and I'm sure Manson knew this. So what is Manson talking about? It's hard to say, but you certainly can't say he was definately talking about the killers.

46. This paragraph is just plain ridiculous:

"Offstage, Warner worked to distance himself from his past. He checked into hotels under the pseudonym “Patrick Bateman,” the murderer in American Psycho, and he had trouble maintaining relationships with band members."

This is all entirely untrue, in the context that it is put. I've never known Manson to distance himself from the past all the years I've been following his career, since the 90's. When you say distancing, you are implying escaping, and I just have never understood this to be true at all. Manson has had many pseudonyms, usually movie characters, and Patrick Bateman is one of them. There is nothing sinister about this. It only shows Manson to be a film buff, which he is, and he loves American Psycho, as he should, because it is a great movie and a great book, and a character he modeled The High End of Low on, among other film characters, just like almost every album he has done. As for band members, this article makes it sound like Manson couldn't keep people in his band, which is not true, but most often the case was Manson evolving with different sounds and going in directions that required change which no longer suited some members. This is one of the best and defining characteristics of Marilyn Manson as a band. And Trent Reznor, who is the only one quoted and refused to get back with Rolling Stone, has had a rocky on and off relationship with Manson for many years, and both never really got along with each other because they were very different types of people. These days Reznor wants to be more a part of the mainstream Hollywood crowd and win Oscars, while Manson prefers the more alternative side of it.

47. "An associate from later in his life"? If Manson ever reveled in calling black people the n-word, then some black person would have reported it. Till I hear that testimony, I'm not going to trust what some elusive "associate" says.

48. Joshua Keasler wanting Manson to be listed a sex-offender for a theatrical performance is ridiculous. Maybe Manson shouldn't have touched a security guard, but he flatters himself by wanting it to be something sexual.

As I look at the next sections of the article, there is so much horrible reporting that it becomes more and more slanderous and defamatory. I hope Marilyn Manson sues Rolling Stone for a lot of money for this defamation. Till then, I'll continue analyzing it. Whereas my analysis and commentary was supposed to be no more than a two part series, I now foresee it being at least six parts, that's how many errors there are in this disgusting piece of "journalism". Nothing so defamatory has ever existed in the history of Marilyn Manson's career, and that says a lot. Not even the wacky accusers of the 90's or after Columbine were this bad. The sick thing is that Rolling Stone is probably reveling in its slanderous attack. May they reap what they have sowed.

PART FOUR