Expose:

The BBC Is Into Smearing Now

June 3, 2009 by Kyle Brady
Tags: BBC, Marilyn Manson, Offensive, Smear Piece, Smearing
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics

---

BBC, I'm ashamed of you.  For years, I've held you in high regard as a media outlet that's above the fray - sort of like a smarter, more fit big brother (pun intended!) of CNN.  I've followed your feeds online, enjoyed productions such as "The Mighty Boosh", and revel in the BBC World Reports that come on KQED when I'm in the car.

And now you've gone and run a smear piece against what some might call an "easy target" - how dare you.

The article is about a supposed interview with Marilyn Manson, shockrock glamartist of the industrial music scene.  I wouldn't suggest reading the article if you're a Defender of the Faith, because it will only infuriate you - the text of the interview is never given, with only snippets chosen to make him look exactly as they want.

The author (note: obviously not a journalist), Ian Youngs, concedes that he expects coherence and intelligence out of Manson, since that's how he usually presents himself to the media in interviews.  I conveniently couldn't find any biographical information about Youngs from the BBC, so we have no idea how he is biased - old?  Orthodox Jewish?  Evangelical Christian?  A member of an anti-Manson organization?

Manson is well known to be very smart, if not a genius.  The infuriated moms and mobs of the 90's were a calculated ploy for attention (except, of course, for Columbine), which for him meant record sales by targeting the mentality of the average teenager.  His cross-medium talents are obvious with a little research, which makes sense given he's more of a performer than most musicians.  Even the music is laced with surprisingly deep subject material, and pokes fun at many stodgy ideas and organizations.

So why would a well-spoken, intelligent person act like he allegedly did in this so-called interview?

Because he's Marilyn Manson.  Don't ever forget that.

It's well documented that Manson has a love affair with attention, drugs, and alcohol... not to mention refusing to meet "normalcy" standards put up by society.  Assuming for the moment that the interview wasn't entirely manipulated to smear Manson, there could be any number of reasons for such behavior:  he wanted the bad press, he was playing with Youngs, he was very drunk, he was very high, etc.

Who really knows?  But don't light firecrackers and expect them to always be duds... very often you find a live one.

Young's smears should be obvious by now to any clever reader:  he picks the most nonsensical quips from the interview, resolutely refuses to mention the state of Mansion's sobriety, and turns an interview into an opinion piece.  I counted merely twelve short quotations, all of which were out of context and given negative setups.

Young refuses to address that this may merely be an aspect of Manson, the very obvious side that doesn't like conforming to preconceptions or standards.  But you'd think this would be an important part of every interview with him, yes?  Even Rolling Stone manages to interview him properly, allowing him to speak and giving full context... yet Rolling Stone is not the most intelligent of magazines.

Titled "The Mad World of Marilyn Manson", it opens with negative comments, and closes with:

At the time, it was in parts surreal, awkward and amusing. In hindsight, it seems a bit more disturbing. Not scary though. Just sad.

Honestly.  Does anyone want to even pretend Young didn't have an agenda?

Expose pieces are irregular posts attempting to hold people and organizations accountable for their actions.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.