By attorney Jeff Anderson and Karen Barth Menzies’s logic, Rolling Stone should be named a defendant. Instead? The fading publication serves as a platform for crisis PR and ego-driven self-promotion.
Rolling Stone Hypocrisy with Jeff Anderson and Karen Barth Menzies
Cohorts Jeff Anderson and Karen Barth Menzies drafted a lawsuit that was never served to the primary defendants – but it appeared first thing in Rolling Stone on a brisk January 2023 morning. Actress Evan Rachel Wood dutifully shared it to her Instagram story within mere minutes of its publication and the start of a nauseating smear campaign ensued.
Brian Warner aka Marilyn Manson is only named in 2/5 causes of action – but with a name that draws attention and egregious (unauthenticated) claims prompted publications to follow the lead of Rolling Stone and circulate news of a lawsuit built for public opinion – not actual court.
Oddly enough, primary defendants Interscope and Nothings Records were named in 4/5 causes of action – including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress for marketing an artist deemed controversial in the 90s.
Shortly after, Anderson and Menzies gathered an audience of around 30 to 40 people for a press conference to unveil their plans to target record labels for covering up what they said was decades of crimes. The then Jane Doe of Manson’s lawsuit was not present for the event but the lineup did include women who went onto file lawsuits about other entertainers – including Nick Carter and Danny Elfman.
Except the signage, visual aids, media kit and verbal presentation from Jeff Anderson did not make good on the promise to take down these record labels.
And curiously, weeks, months and now more than a year has gone by with the lawsuit from a woman Manson’s counsel says he doesn’t even remember meeting never being served and pending dismissal.
That’s three causes of action out there unserved, unverified by the courts – but the PR strategy to further defame Marilyn Manson in the court of public opinion was well on its way. And unlike actual court – there’s no evidentiary requirements in the public domain nor even the need to present a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyhow – back to Rolling Stone.
To say it’s ironic to see the outlet become the primary communication channel for PR spin of Jeff Anderson and Karen Barth Menzies would be an understatement.
While Interscope was promoting Marilyn Manson’s music in the 90s through “dangerous” intent to lure minors to harm – Rolling Stone was a strong supporter of Manson’s work and that support continued for decades. They’ve long celebrated his artistry – both music and written word – praising albums and live performance as well as publishing essays penned by Manson on the Columbine tragedy or the impact David Bowie has had in his life.
In 1998, after years of “dangerous” marketing tactics according to Anderson and Menzies in the 90s – was Rolling Stone concerned? No.
They romanticized his rise to global stardom – including through the Anti-Christ Superstar era that drew so much controversy. As religious groups lined sidewalks to protest Manson’s presence outside concert venues – Rolling Stone responded by celebrating his art again and again.
Is there an argument that Rolling Stone’s promotion of Manson’s unapologetically dark art was a means of “grooming” young readers and luring them into danger?
That’s how the lawsuit frames the work of record labels so why wouldn’t a music publication as prominent as Rolling Stones’s influence likewise draw concern?
SPIN AND SELF PROMOTION
And yet here we are — watching Anderson’s firm and Evan Rachel Wood attempt spin tactics to downplay the very real challenges they’re facing in court.
Does Rolling Stone not have a responsibility to their readers as Anderson and Menzies argue record labels have a duty to protect their listeners?
Or, is the magazine merely practicing freedom speech and expression?
Are we selectively and foolishly denying that marketing campaigns and print media work hand-in-hand to promote artists and always have?
Their efforts generate interest, sell albums, fill seats at concerts and clear shelves of merchandise.
TURNING TIDE
In 2021 the tides turned, though, big time. Rolling Stone evolved from a fierce supporter of Manson’s projects to a critic of accusations unrelated to music.
Evan Rachel Wood and several of her friends publicly accused Manson of sexual assault in a coordinated media campaign, and – sadly, despite a lack of evidence, Manson’s right to due process and he faced serious consequences.
The lack of any criminal charges made no difference as he was dropped by his then record label as well as several major television projects as he expanded his resume as an actor and a book dedicated to his art.
And Rolling Stone let go of their support and stood by his accusers.
Nine months after the wave of accusations began, the magazine published a defamatory exposé that branded Manson as a ‘monster’ hiding in plain sight.
Except, this article appeared after years of strong support for his art as well as a famous photoshoot from the late 90s where Manson stood with “Unsafe” painted on his bare chest. The imagery was widely circulated over the years – including by Rolling Stone still as recently as at least 2015.
How could he possibly be a monster hiding in plain sight when he’s never hid?
How could he possibly be a monster hiding in plain sight –- despite coming with an “Unsafe” label up front and center?
If we are to take everything around Marilyn Manson literally – why didn’t Rolling Stone?
Why did they actively promote him as an artist for years? Was it negligence as accused against the record labels? Was it to intentionally inflict emotional distress on their readers?
If Jeff Anderson and Karen Barth Menzies truly believe that record labels need to be held accountable for their part in Manson’s rise to fame – what about the media that also promoted such “dangerous” artists they target for settlements.
So where is their lawsuit? Does Rolling Stone get one?
Or no, because they’re on speed dial for damage control?