Valentine's Day has long been a significant day for Marilyn Manson for many reasons, but this year it so happened that Marilyn Manson and his wife Lindsay celebrated Valentine's Day in Brno, Czech Republic while on his European tour. Earlier in the day, both Manson and Lindsay posted a series of photos for Valentine's Day. The photos of Manson were photographed by Lindsay, and one was captioned "They’d remember this as Valentine’s Day" (which Lindsay captioned as "Always") while the other said "Meet Me In Purgatory" (which Lindsay captioned as "within the fog and trees"). View this post on Instagram A post shared by Marilyn Manson (@marilynmanson) View this post on Instagram A post shared by Lindsay Elizabeth Warner (@lindsayusichofficial) View this post on Instagram A post shared by Marilyn Manson (@marilynmanson) View this post on Instagram ...
I. INTRODUCTION
In the first two minutes of part one of the three-part docuseries Marilyn Manson: Unmasked, you have a bunch of clips edited together to serve as an introduction to what you are about to see, and it is meant to put you into a mentality from the very beginning that Marilyn Manson is immoral, a deviant, a misogynist, dangerous, provocative, a pedophile, extreme, conflicted, a puppet master, manipulative, unpredictable and someone who brings out the worst in people, meanwhile this is someone "YouTubers" are defending for their own selfish gain. Then the credits roll to open the series.
This is an example of media manipulation at its finest, a classic "moral panic" in which actual context is wiped out to establish the formulated narrative of the one doing the reporting.
Indeed, Marilyn Manson has been the perfect scapegoat of what we can call a "moral panic" since the 1990's in various forms, being accused of dozens of evils by all sorts of people, whether they were religious or not, whether they were conservative or liberal, the "idea" of Marilyn Manson has fueled the imagination of many to provide easy answers to complex societal questions. We have especially seen this since the rise of the MeToo Movement and Cancel Culture, which has in many ways served as a tool for the "moral majority" to purge society of its deviants.
It was Stanley Cohen who first investigated a series of "moral panics" in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book Cohen is interested in demonstrating how agents of social control amplify deviance, in that they potentially damage the identities of those labeled as "deviant" for being outside the central core values of society and as posing a threat to both the values of society and society itself, hence the term "folk devils." Cohen thereby identified five sequential stages of moral panic:
1. An event, condition, episode, person, or group of persons is perceived and defined as a threat to societal values, safety, and interests.
2. The nature of these apparent threats are amplified by the mass media, who present the supposed threat through simplistic, symbolic rhetoric. Such portrayals appeal to public prejudices, creating an evil in need of social control (folk devils) and victims (the moral majority).
3. A sense of social anxiety and concern among the public is aroused through these symbolic representations of the threat.
4. The gatekeepers of morality – editors, religious leaders, politicians, and other "moral"-thinking people – respond to the threat, with socially-accredited experts pronouncing their diagnoses and solutions to the "threat". This includes new laws or policies.
5. The condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.
Cohen observed further:
"Sometimes the object of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folk-lore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself."
Four key agents in moral panics are then identified by Cohen:
1. Media – especially key in the early stage of social reaction, producing "processed or coded images" of deviance and the deviants. This involves three processes:
a) exaggeration and distortion of who did or said what;
b) prediction, the dire consequences of failure to act;
c) symbolization, signifying a person, word, or thing as a threat.
2. Moral entrepreneurs – individuals and groups who target deviant behavior.
3. Societal control culture – comprises those with institutional power, such as the police, the courts, and local and national politicians. They are made aware of the nature and extent of the 'threat'; concern is passed up the chain of command to the national level, where control measures are instituted.
4. The public – these include individuals and groups. They have to decide who and what to believe: for example, the public may initially distrust media messages, but ultimately come to believe them.
In recent times, the mass media have become important players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in sensationalism or in muckraking. Simply reporting a subset of factual statements without contextual nuance can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.
Cohen stated that the mass media is the primary source of the public's knowledge about deviance and social problems. He further argued that moral panic gives rise to the folk devil by labeling actions and people.
According to Cohen, the media appear in any or all three roles in moral panic dramas:
1. Setting the agenda – selecting deviant or socially problematic events deemed as newsworthy, then using finer filters to select which events are candidates for moral panic.
2. Transmitting the images – transmitting the claims by using the rhetoric of moral panics.
3. Breaking the silence and making the claim.
Since February 2021, when Evan Rachel Wood and other women with her came out against Marilyn Manson on their own social media pages and accused him of being an abuser and rapist, the accusers and those who followed the same ideology as them (who felt compelled or threatened to believe anything they alleged or risk being labeled "evil", "misogynists" and "rape apologists" among other things, otherwise they would be "canceled"), which includes the media for the most part, have followed to exactness the blueprint of what makes up a "moral panic" according to what Stanley Cohen put forward in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. The new three-part docuseries Marilyn Manson: Unmasked should be seen as just another example of what a "moral panic" instigation is, and it does this along the same lines Rolling Stone Magazine among others conducted their so-called "investigation" into Marilyn Manson in 2021, which this docuseries is an extension of since it was produced by Rolling Stone. The media moral panic about Marilyn Manson has been relentless since 2021, and it needs to finally be exposed for what it really is, making it no better than any other misguided witch hunt in history.
Before I begin to unmask Marilyn Manson: Unmasked, I do want to state that though it is a part of the moral panic against Marilyn Manson, it does have a certain level of balance that I was actually surprised by. It is not a total propaganda hit piece against Manson, like the Rolling Stone "investigation" was or like Evan Rachel Wood's self-funded HBO documentary Phoenix Rising was, but it did offer an alternate perspective of things I would say about 25% of the time, even if it is heavily edited. Most people I believe will walk away from the docuseries unconvinced of either side if they have an open mind, and perhaps it will inspire them to do further research. Personally I found it to be mostly boring in its presentation, as it offered very little that was new if you are familiar with the allegations and accusations, but it does leave it up to the viewer to decide what to think of Marilyn Manson, even though it clearly wants you to think one way.
This is an example of media manipulation at its finest, a classic "moral panic" in which actual context is wiped out to establish the formulated narrative of the one doing the reporting.
Indeed, Marilyn Manson has been the perfect scapegoat of what we can call a "moral panic" since the 1990's in various forms, being accused of dozens of evils by all sorts of people, whether they were religious or not, whether they were conservative or liberal, the "idea" of Marilyn Manson has fueled the imagination of many to provide easy answers to complex societal questions. We have especially seen this since the rise of the MeToo Movement and Cancel Culture, which has in many ways served as a tool for the "moral majority" to purge society of its deviants.
It was Stanley Cohen who first investigated a series of "moral panics" in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book Cohen is interested in demonstrating how agents of social control amplify deviance, in that they potentially damage the identities of those labeled as "deviant" for being outside the central core values of society and as posing a threat to both the values of society and society itself, hence the term "folk devils." Cohen thereby identified five sequential stages of moral panic:
1. An event, condition, episode, person, or group of persons is perceived and defined as a threat to societal values, safety, and interests.
2. The nature of these apparent threats are amplified by the mass media, who present the supposed threat through simplistic, symbolic rhetoric. Such portrayals appeal to public prejudices, creating an evil in need of social control (folk devils) and victims (the moral majority).
3. A sense of social anxiety and concern among the public is aroused through these symbolic representations of the threat.
4. The gatekeepers of morality – editors, religious leaders, politicians, and other "moral"-thinking people – respond to the threat, with socially-accredited experts pronouncing their diagnoses and solutions to the "threat". This includes new laws or policies.
5. The condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.
Cohen observed further:
"Sometimes the object of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folk-lore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself."
Four key agents in moral panics are then identified by Cohen:
1. Media – especially key in the early stage of social reaction, producing "processed or coded images" of deviance and the deviants. This involves three processes:
a) exaggeration and distortion of who did or said what;
b) prediction, the dire consequences of failure to act;
c) symbolization, signifying a person, word, or thing as a threat.
2. Moral entrepreneurs – individuals and groups who target deviant behavior.
3. Societal control culture – comprises those with institutional power, such as the police, the courts, and local and national politicians. They are made aware of the nature and extent of the 'threat'; concern is passed up the chain of command to the national level, where control measures are instituted.
4. The public – these include individuals and groups. They have to decide who and what to believe: for example, the public may initially distrust media messages, but ultimately come to believe them.
In recent times, the mass media have become important players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in sensationalism or in muckraking. Simply reporting a subset of factual statements without contextual nuance can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.
Cohen stated that the mass media is the primary source of the public's knowledge about deviance and social problems. He further argued that moral panic gives rise to the folk devil by labeling actions and people.
According to Cohen, the media appear in any or all three roles in moral panic dramas:
1. Setting the agenda – selecting deviant or socially problematic events deemed as newsworthy, then using finer filters to select which events are candidates for moral panic.
2. Transmitting the images – transmitting the claims by using the rhetoric of moral panics.
3. Breaking the silence and making the claim.
Since February 2021, when Evan Rachel Wood and other women with her came out against Marilyn Manson on their own social media pages and accused him of being an abuser and rapist, the accusers and those who followed the same ideology as them (who felt compelled or threatened to believe anything they alleged or risk being labeled "evil", "misogynists" and "rape apologists" among other things, otherwise they would be "canceled"), which includes the media for the most part, have followed to exactness the blueprint of what makes up a "moral panic" according to what Stanley Cohen put forward in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. The new three-part docuseries Marilyn Manson: Unmasked should be seen as just another example of what a "moral panic" instigation is, and it does this along the same lines Rolling Stone Magazine among others conducted their so-called "investigation" into Marilyn Manson in 2021, which this docuseries is an extension of since it was produced by Rolling Stone. The media moral panic about Marilyn Manson has been relentless since 2021, and it needs to finally be exposed for what it really is, making it no better than any other misguided witch hunt in history.
Before I begin to unmask Marilyn Manson: Unmasked, I do want to state that though it is a part of the moral panic against Marilyn Manson, it does have a certain level of balance that I was actually surprised by. It is not a total propaganda hit piece against Manson, like the Rolling Stone "investigation" was or like Evan Rachel Wood's self-funded HBO documentary Phoenix Rising was, but it did offer an alternate perspective of things I would say about 25% of the time, even if it is heavily edited. Most people I believe will walk away from the docuseries unconvinced of either side if they have an open mind, and perhaps it will inspire them to do further research. Personally I found it to be mostly boring in its presentation, as it offered very little that was new if you are familiar with the allegations and accusations, but it does leave it up to the viewer to decide what to think of Marilyn Manson, even though it clearly wants you to think one way.