Marilyn Manson on O'Reilly - a Critique ...
Eric Shapiro - University of London, Goldsmiths - Spring 2011 - Language and the Media
Culture Warriors and Media Manipulators: An Analysis of Marilyn Manson’s Interview on the “O’Reilly Factor” Using Jonathan Bignell’s Introduction to Television Studies as a Framework
Various artistic mediums ranging from comic books, to television, to music, to video games, have had their time in America’s puritanical limelight. While a general consensus has long held that adults are entitled to view any materials they wish in their own home (provided those materials do not violate any laws, e.g. child pornography), debate still rages over those that appeal primarily to minors. Opinions on this loaded issue are of course varied and sometimes highly nuanced, but for the sake of argument it is expedient to define a pair of conflicting ideological umbrellas. Since these two overarching arguments are subject to infinitely many rationales and justifications, any attempts at summary are bound to be reductive. However, it is impossible to discuss the subtext of Marilyn Manson’s interview on the O’Reilly Factor without first laying out, however imperfectly, the opposing arguments that its participants purport to represent.
Social conservatives, concerned parents, religious institutions/individuals, and cynical politicians appealing to these parties represent one side of the debate. They link an alleged moral decline in society to undesirable messages encoded in art and the media. Rap music, violent video games, and risqué television shows, if left unregulated, pollute the minds of the youth. Parents, as the natural protectors of children and those most responsible for teaching them morals, are either unable or unwilling to halt this disturbing trend. Furthermore, art and the media, as part of some covert liberal agenda or simply to profit on children’s natural fascination with the obscene, serve to undermine the traditional Judeo-Christian values on which society rests.
The opposing side is associated with social liberals, artists, entertainers and companies that profit from creating controversy. It holds that art and the media are at best effective tools to challenge societal norms and promote new ways of thinking and at worst harmless entertainment. Portrayals of violence and sexuality, as well as the use of profanity, are not inherently immoral. On the contrary, they are sometimes necessary for an artist to make a point. Proponents of this argument do not believe that 9-year-olds should be exposed to “adult content” at an early age, but rather that it is the role of parents to decide what their children are exposed to. The efforts of moral watchdog groups to ban or censor controversial materials infringes on this parental role, and serve to stifle the creativity of those who would push the envelope.
An interview of shock rocker Marilyn Manson conducted by socially conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly is laced with references (coded and otherwise) to the aforementioned conflict of values that comprises a key part of a broader “culture war.” It is not just about pundit, Bill O’Reilly, interviewing performer, Marilyn Manson. Both individuals tie their arguments into broader themes prevalent in American culture, as portrayed on a popular current affairs show. Jonathan Bignell’s An Introduction to Television Studies, specifically the chapter entitled “Television Text and Television Narratives,” provides the ideal framework for examining the implications of the aforementioned interview as a snippet of television media. Bignell’s method combines elements of conversational and semiotic methods to arrive at a form of analysis best suited for studying television, one that draws on visual as well as verbal methods to explain the dynamics between those who are filmed and their audiences.
In his interview, O’Reilly pushes a simplistic binary opposition between moral decency and moral depravity in order to fan the flames of outrage and fear in his audience regarding the media forces consumed by children. He makes use of both symbolic and iconic signs to provoke a visceral and negative response to the interviewee and cement his preferred (or dominant) reading. Manson, however, consistently frustrates O’Reilly’s efforts to impose this preferred meaning by both defying and playing into the connotations of his media persona.
O’Reilly articulates his show’s preferred meaning before Marilyn Manson is even onscreen. His introduction begins: “Thanks for staying with us I’m Bill O’Reilly and in the Children at Risk segment tonight we continue our reporting on the corrosive effects of the (-) popular music world on some American children” (O’Reilly). Already, the audience is invited to perceive Manson as a “corrosive” influence. O’Reilly adopts a journalistic discourse, maintaining an even tone and using the word “report” in order to convey objectivity.
Although Bicknell claims that no discourse is in fact objective, “legitimate” news shows tend to showcase opposing conventional wisdoms on a given issue to at least provide the illusion of being unbiased (Bignell 95). O’Reilly, on the contrary, only discusses the side he seeks to promote as his preferred narrative, disguising his opinions as objective journalism by means of deceptive discourse. To the same end, O’Reilly makes use of iconic signs. As he speaks, the viewer is confronted with the image of stick figure children holding hands above the words “Children at Risk.” Thus, O’Reilly’s frames his position as the preferred reading and portrays Manson as a sinister figure that poses a threat to the nation’s youth.
In a sense, Manson plays into O’Reilly’s narrative by presenting himself visually in a way that defies prevailing cultural notions of propriety. He wears white makeup, eye shadow, black lipstick, and all black apparel. This image is loaded with what Bignell refers to as connotations, or cultural associations an audience makes with certain signs (Bignell 90). Manson’s image is tailored to shock and provoke controversy. Even those who are not easily offended may be hard-pressed to take him seriously when he resorts to such an over-the-top presentation. Before so much as speaking a word, Manson colors the audience’s perception of him through code. His words may be entirely reasonable and his positions more sophisticated than those of O’Reilly, but his appearance puts him in a position where it will likely be much more difficult to win over the audience.
O’Reilly’s appearance is also, quite deliberately, loaded with connotations. Bignell writes that “smart clothes [help to]… denote authority, seriousness and formality” (Bignell 90). In his attire, O’Reilly takes advantage of cultural assumptions that a man in a suit commands respect and credibility. In contrast, Manson’s gothic appearance brands him a misfit, a dangerous influence that deserves condemnation by social conservatives. Since television is a visual medium, such aesthetic differences have the potential to undermine Manson’s points and strengthen O’Reilly’s completely independent of their actual merit.
In a different context, such as a show aimed at a youthful, rebellious audience, the inverse could be true. Manson’s outlandish appearance might make him naturally sympathetic to outsiders. On the other hand, O’Reilly’s smart, mainstream attire would connote an authority figure, rendering him an object of mistrust, even derision. Be that as it may, in the context of the “O’Reilly Factor,” a show that promotes culturally conservative values, Manson’s appearance is more likely to serve as a disadvantage. However, he makes it clear over the course of the interview that winning over the audience is not his objective.
Several telling comments reveal that Manson is not, unlike his interviewer, trying to look appealing. Doing so would likely prove impossible given the cultural preconceptions of the show’s audience. Instead, he takes a far more sophisticated, subversive approach aimed at subverting these preconceptions.
Manson’s objective is not to change the audience’s mind. If, as Bignell posits, an “audience” is an artificial construct that invites the viewer to identify with an unseen group of others with similar views, then trying to win it over is a futile venture. O’Reilly, as the show’s narrator and supposedly the viewers’ on-screen representative, will always define and represent the “audience” (Bignell 101-105). Therefore, Manson is after something else.
O’Reilly’s objective is far more clear. It is certainly not to investigate his subject’s opinions, as is evidenced by a lack of follow up questions and unwillingness to address the details of the shock rocker’s argument. Instead, O’Reilly seeks to placate his socially conservative audience by regurgitating talking points and expressing moral indignation. In addition, given O’Reilly’s position as a widely followed, mainstream television host, he is in an ideal position to condescend to Manson, whose aforementioned odd manner of dress and white makeup naturally lesson his appeal to the show’s predominantly conservative audience.
O’Reilly, in an ostensibly uncritical tone, asks Manson: If you want to get those kids those lonely kids and you want them to be able to (-) be creative [mhm] (-) and burst outta that (-) why the bizarre presentation (-) <adopts condescending tone> which could be misinterpreted” (O’Reilly)? Manson understands the importance of presentation, and suggests that while his might be particularly outlandish, what he is doing is, on a basic level, not so different from other people: “I think everybody’s got a presentation everybody looks a certain way because they want to convey a certain image you look a certain way because you want people to (-) listen to you in a certain way” (Manson). Manson implies here that his presentation, which O’Reilly describes at various points as “bizarre,” “shocking” and “disturbing,” is key to understanding not only his general goal as an artist and as a performer, but also his goal in coming onto the show, which is to legitimize self-expression by providing a particularly extreme example and playing with the connotations of certain words and symbols. If he chooses a certain appearance because it will cause people to look at him in a certain way, than clearly Manson’s presentation on the O’Reilly factor is no coincidence.
Manson consistently comes across as quite eloquent; even O’Reilly admits: “you’re a pretty well-spoken guy” (O’Reilly). He adopts the discourse of mainstream, civilized society, rather than that of a shock rocker courting controversy or trying to sound hip. At times, he sounds like an intellectual, using words like “reprehensible” and “profanities.” He even pauses before trotting out the former term, betraying a concerted effort to show off his vocabulary.
On the other hand, Manson does not compromise his values or his persona in a bid to make himself more palatable to social conservatives. He responds to O’Reilly’s query regarding his attitude on sex: “-if some kid [who they see] if a kid asked me (-) “should I have sex?” I’d say how old are you and I’d say “well I lost my virginity when I was 16” (-) so there’s my inspiration to you [alright] and uh I would have tried sooner but I just couldn’t find any girls that liked me <laughter>” (Manson). Manson is clearly being facetious in the latter part of his comment, showing a complete disregard for the puritanical sensibilities of much of O’Reilly’s audience. On another occasion, he describes how his parents watched from the audience as he groped a man on stage at a concert. Again, this is not a serious argument, but a statement designed to push oversensitive buttons and challenge puritanical values.
Nevertheless, Manson remains principled when it comes to issues that he deems important, refusing to allow his proclivities as a provocateur to diminish their seriousness. When O’Reilly asks Manson if the shock rocker’s lyrics can be construed to glorify teen suicide, Manson brings up the Columbine High School Shootings, a tragedy that left Americans grasping for explanations. Mindful that many people blamed him for the even in the aftermath of the shooting (the shooters were fans of his music), Manson explains that the glorification of suicide is:
“a reflection of (-) not necessarily this program but of television in general (-) if you die and enough people are watching you become a martyr you become a hero you become well known (-) so when you have things like Columbine when you have these kids that are angry and they have something to say and no one’s listening (-) the media sends a message that (-) if you do something loud enough and it gets our attention you will be famous for it” (Manson).
Manson refuses to be isolated as a unique source of malevolent influence on children, recognizing that it is the wide exposure granted individuals in the media, not satirical shock rockers, that encourages teens to perpetrate crimes like Columbine. He pointedly brings up O’Reilly’s own show as an example of this phenomenon, although he subsequently widens his critique to all television. Nevertheless, Manson forces the “O’Reilly Factor’s” viewers to reconsider their knee-jerk conclusions to an event with far-reaching implications, particularly pertaining to the media’s treatment of criminals and the message it sends to desperate, attention hungry youths.
Throughout his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Marilyn Manson establishes himself as a intriguing contradiction. On the one hand, his “shocking” (to use the host’s words) appearance and antics confirm exactly what social conservatives are afraid of. On the other hand, he speaks eloquently (notably moreso than O’Reilly) and contextualizes his behavior as a matter of presentation, a means of provoking thought by challenging assumptions people have about certain words and images. By maintaining this contradiction, Manson complicates the simplistic terms of the culture war in a key area, at the same time as he clearly takes a side. He comes across well in the interview, as one who is willing to promote his values in front of an audience certainly to respond with hostility, but also laying out sophisticated arguments that challenge “The O’Reilly Factor’s” preferred reading.
O’Reilly comes across less favorably, falling back on tried-and-true talking points all the while usually refusing to confront Manson’s arguments. Nevertheless, he displays a clear understanding of what Bignell refers to as the “language of television,” adopting a journalistic discourse to portray his highly ideological framing of the interview as objective reporting, and using iconic imagery to back his words. He certainly knows how to play to his audience and provoke a visceral response, which is in and of itself a talent, even when gone about disingenuously.
Above all, Marilyn Manson’s interview on the O’Reilly factors shows two individuals adept at communicating their point of view to an audience via the media. Regardless of whether you agree with their methods, it is easy to admire the skill with which they advance their goals. O’Reilly prevents his show’s discourse from taking on too much of an intellectual flavor, but he is successful in giving Manson the opportunity to provoke the audience, which in turn gives himself the opportunity to prove his culture warrior bona fides. In the end, neither O’Reilly nor Manson “wins” the debate, because they are pursuing different objectives, but the audience is treated to an informative example of television as a unique type of media.
Works Cited
1. Bignell, Jonathan. "Television Texts and Television Narratives." An Introduction to
Television Studies. London: Routledge, 2008.
2. Manson, Marilyn. Interview with Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly Factor. FOX News, New York. 20 Aug. 2001
Note: I was unable to burn the video onto a disc because downloading a video off youtube apparently requires software that I don’t have. Instead, here are links to both the video and a partial transcription of the interview.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o
Transcription: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32588,00.html
Culture Warriors and Media Manipulators: An Analysis of Marilyn Manson’s Interview on the “O’Reilly Factor” Using Jonathan Bignell’s Introduction to Television Studies as a Framework
Various artistic mediums ranging from comic books, to television, to music, to video games, have had their time in America’s puritanical limelight. While a general consensus has long held that adults are entitled to view any materials they wish in their own home (provided those materials do not violate any laws, e.g. child pornography), debate still rages over those that appeal primarily to minors. Opinions on this loaded issue are of course varied and sometimes highly nuanced, but for the sake of argument it is expedient to define a pair of conflicting ideological umbrellas. Since these two overarching arguments are subject to infinitely many rationales and justifications, any attempts at summary are bound to be reductive. However, it is impossible to discuss the subtext of Marilyn Manson’s interview on the O’Reilly Factor without first laying out, however imperfectly, the opposing arguments that its participants purport to represent.
Social conservatives, concerned parents, religious institutions/individuals, and cynical politicians appealing to these parties represent one side of the debate. They link an alleged moral decline in society to undesirable messages encoded in art and the media. Rap music, violent video games, and risqué television shows, if left unregulated, pollute the minds of the youth. Parents, as the natural protectors of children and those most responsible for teaching them morals, are either unable or unwilling to halt this disturbing trend. Furthermore, art and the media, as part of some covert liberal agenda or simply to profit on children’s natural fascination with the obscene, serve to undermine the traditional Judeo-Christian values on which society rests.
The opposing side is associated with social liberals, artists, entertainers and companies that profit from creating controversy. It holds that art and the media are at best effective tools to challenge societal norms and promote new ways of thinking and at worst harmless entertainment. Portrayals of violence and sexuality, as well as the use of profanity, are not inherently immoral. On the contrary, they are sometimes necessary for an artist to make a point. Proponents of this argument do not believe that 9-year-olds should be exposed to “adult content” at an early age, but rather that it is the role of parents to decide what their children are exposed to. The efforts of moral watchdog groups to ban or censor controversial materials infringes on this parental role, and serve to stifle the creativity of those who would push the envelope.
An interview of shock rocker Marilyn Manson conducted by socially conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly is laced with references (coded and otherwise) to the aforementioned conflict of values that comprises a key part of a broader “culture war.” It is not just about pundit, Bill O’Reilly, interviewing performer, Marilyn Manson. Both individuals tie their arguments into broader themes prevalent in American culture, as portrayed on a popular current affairs show. Jonathan Bignell’s An Introduction to Television Studies, specifically the chapter entitled “Television Text and Television Narratives,” provides the ideal framework for examining the implications of the aforementioned interview as a snippet of television media. Bignell’s method combines elements of conversational and semiotic methods to arrive at a form of analysis best suited for studying television, one that draws on visual as well as verbal methods to explain the dynamics between those who are filmed and their audiences.
In his interview, O’Reilly pushes a simplistic binary opposition between moral decency and moral depravity in order to fan the flames of outrage and fear in his audience regarding the media forces consumed by children. He makes use of both symbolic and iconic signs to provoke a visceral and negative response to the interviewee and cement his preferred (or dominant) reading. Manson, however, consistently frustrates O’Reilly’s efforts to impose this preferred meaning by both defying and playing into the connotations of his media persona.
O’Reilly articulates his show’s preferred meaning before Marilyn Manson is even onscreen. His introduction begins: “Thanks for staying with us I’m Bill O’Reilly and in the Children at Risk segment tonight we continue our reporting on the corrosive effects of the (-) popular music world on some American children” (O’Reilly). Already, the audience is invited to perceive Manson as a “corrosive” influence. O’Reilly adopts a journalistic discourse, maintaining an even tone and using the word “report” in order to convey objectivity.
Although Bicknell claims that no discourse is in fact objective, “legitimate” news shows tend to showcase opposing conventional wisdoms on a given issue to at least provide the illusion of being unbiased (Bignell 95). O’Reilly, on the contrary, only discusses the side he seeks to promote as his preferred narrative, disguising his opinions as objective journalism by means of deceptive discourse. To the same end, O’Reilly makes use of iconic signs. As he speaks, the viewer is confronted with the image of stick figure children holding hands above the words “Children at Risk.” Thus, O’Reilly’s frames his position as the preferred reading and portrays Manson as a sinister figure that poses a threat to the nation’s youth.
In a sense, Manson plays into O’Reilly’s narrative by presenting himself visually in a way that defies prevailing cultural notions of propriety. He wears white makeup, eye shadow, black lipstick, and all black apparel. This image is loaded with what Bignell refers to as connotations, or cultural associations an audience makes with certain signs (Bignell 90). Manson’s image is tailored to shock and provoke controversy. Even those who are not easily offended may be hard-pressed to take him seriously when he resorts to such an over-the-top presentation. Before so much as speaking a word, Manson colors the audience’s perception of him through code. His words may be entirely reasonable and his positions more sophisticated than those of O’Reilly, but his appearance puts him in a position where it will likely be much more difficult to win over the audience.
O’Reilly’s appearance is also, quite deliberately, loaded with connotations. Bignell writes that “smart clothes [help to]… denote authority, seriousness and formality” (Bignell 90). In his attire, O’Reilly takes advantage of cultural assumptions that a man in a suit commands respect and credibility. In contrast, Manson’s gothic appearance brands him a misfit, a dangerous influence that deserves condemnation by social conservatives. Since television is a visual medium, such aesthetic differences have the potential to undermine Manson’s points and strengthen O’Reilly’s completely independent of their actual merit.
In a different context, such as a show aimed at a youthful, rebellious audience, the inverse could be true. Manson’s outlandish appearance might make him naturally sympathetic to outsiders. On the other hand, O’Reilly’s smart, mainstream attire would connote an authority figure, rendering him an object of mistrust, even derision. Be that as it may, in the context of the “O’Reilly Factor,” a show that promotes culturally conservative values, Manson’s appearance is more likely to serve as a disadvantage. However, he makes it clear over the course of the interview that winning over the audience is not his objective.
Several telling comments reveal that Manson is not, unlike his interviewer, trying to look appealing. Doing so would likely prove impossible given the cultural preconceptions of the show’s audience. Instead, he takes a far more sophisticated, subversive approach aimed at subverting these preconceptions.
Manson’s objective is not to change the audience’s mind. If, as Bignell posits, an “audience” is an artificial construct that invites the viewer to identify with an unseen group of others with similar views, then trying to win it over is a futile venture. O’Reilly, as the show’s narrator and supposedly the viewers’ on-screen representative, will always define and represent the “audience” (Bignell 101-105). Therefore, Manson is after something else.
O’Reilly’s objective is far more clear. It is certainly not to investigate his subject’s opinions, as is evidenced by a lack of follow up questions and unwillingness to address the details of the shock rocker’s argument. Instead, O’Reilly seeks to placate his socially conservative audience by regurgitating talking points and expressing moral indignation. In addition, given O’Reilly’s position as a widely followed, mainstream television host, he is in an ideal position to condescend to Manson, whose aforementioned odd manner of dress and white makeup naturally lesson his appeal to the show’s predominantly conservative audience.
O’Reilly, in an ostensibly uncritical tone, asks Manson: If you want to get those kids those lonely kids and you want them to be able to (-) be creative [mhm] (-) and burst outta that (-) why the bizarre presentation (-) <adopts condescending tone> which could be misinterpreted” (O’Reilly)? Manson understands the importance of presentation, and suggests that while his might be particularly outlandish, what he is doing is, on a basic level, not so different from other people: “I think everybody’s got a presentation everybody looks a certain way because they want to convey a certain image you look a certain way because you want people to (-) listen to you in a certain way” (Manson). Manson implies here that his presentation, which O’Reilly describes at various points as “bizarre,” “shocking” and “disturbing,” is key to understanding not only his general goal as an artist and as a performer, but also his goal in coming onto the show, which is to legitimize self-expression by providing a particularly extreme example and playing with the connotations of certain words and symbols. If he chooses a certain appearance because it will cause people to look at him in a certain way, than clearly Manson’s presentation on the O’Reilly factor is no coincidence.
Manson consistently comes across as quite eloquent; even O’Reilly admits: “you’re a pretty well-spoken guy” (O’Reilly). He adopts the discourse of mainstream, civilized society, rather than that of a shock rocker courting controversy or trying to sound hip. At times, he sounds like an intellectual, using words like “reprehensible” and “profanities.” He even pauses before trotting out the former term, betraying a concerted effort to show off his vocabulary.
On the other hand, Manson does not compromise his values or his persona in a bid to make himself more palatable to social conservatives. He responds to O’Reilly’s query regarding his attitude on sex: “-if some kid [who they see] if a kid asked me (-) “should I have sex?” I’d say how old are you and I’d say “well I lost my virginity when I was 16” (-) so there’s my inspiration to you [alright] and uh I would have tried sooner but I just couldn’t find any girls that liked me <laughter>” (Manson). Manson is clearly being facetious in the latter part of his comment, showing a complete disregard for the puritanical sensibilities of much of O’Reilly’s audience. On another occasion, he describes how his parents watched from the audience as he groped a man on stage at a concert. Again, this is not a serious argument, but a statement designed to push oversensitive buttons and challenge puritanical values.
Nevertheless, Manson remains principled when it comes to issues that he deems important, refusing to allow his proclivities as a provocateur to diminish their seriousness. When O’Reilly asks Manson if the shock rocker’s lyrics can be construed to glorify teen suicide, Manson brings up the Columbine High School Shootings, a tragedy that left Americans grasping for explanations. Mindful that many people blamed him for the even in the aftermath of the shooting (the shooters were fans of his music), Manson explains that the glorification of suicide is:
“a reflection of (-) not necessarily this program but of television in general (-) if you die and enough people are watching you become a martyr you become a hero you become well known (-) so when you have things like Columbine when you have these kids that are angry and they have something to say and no one’s listening (-) the media sends a message that (-) if you do something loud enough and it gets our attention you will be famous for it” (Manson).
Manson refuses to be isolated as a unique source of malevolent influence on children, recognizing that it is the wide exposure granted individuals in the media, not satirical shock rockers, that encourages teens to perpetrate crimes like Columbine. He pointedly brings up O’Reilly’s own show as an example of this phenomenon, although he subsequently widens his critique to all television. Nevertheless, Manson forces the “O’Reilly Factor’s” viewers to reconsider their knee-jerk conclusions to an event with far-reaching implications, particularly pertaining to the media’s treatment of criminals and the message it sends to desperate, attention hungry youths.
Throughout his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Marilyn Manson establishes himself as a intriguing contradiction. On the one hand, his “shocking” (to use the host’s words) appearance and antics confirm exactly what social conservatives are afraid of. On the other hand, he speaks eloquently (notably moreso than O’Reilly) and contextualizes his behavior as a matter of presentation, a means of provoking thought by challenging assumptions people have about certain words and images. By maintaining this contradiction, Manson complicates the simplistic terms of the culture war in a key area, at the same time as he clearly takes a side. He comes across well in the interview, as one who is willing to promote his values in front of an audience certainly to respond with hostility, but also laying out sophisticated arguments that challenge “The O’Reilly Factor’s” preferred reading.
O’Reilly comes across less favorably, falling back on tried-and-true talking points all the while usually refusing to confront Manson’s arguments. Nevertheless, he displays a clear understanding of what Bignell refers to as the “language of television,” adopting a journalistic discourse to portray his highly ideological framing of the interview as objective reporting, and using iconic imagery to back his words. He certainly knows how to play to his audience and provoke a visceral response, which is in and of itself a talent, even when gone about disingenuously.
Above all, Marilyn Manson’s interview on the O’Reilly factors shows two individuals adept at communicating their point of view to an audience via the media. Regardless of whether you agree with their methods, it is easy to admire the skill with which they advance their goals. O’Reilly prevents his show’s discourse from taking on too much of an intellectual flavor, but he is successful in giving Manson the opportunity to provoke the audience, which in turn gives himself the opportunity to prove his culture warrior bona fides. In the end, neither O’Reilly nor Manson “wins” the debate, because they are pursuing different objectives, but the audience is treated to an informative example of television as a unique type of media.
Works Cited
1. Bignell, Jonathan. "Television Texts and Television Narratives." An Introduction to
Television Studies. London: Routledge, 2008.
2. Manson, Marilyn. Interview with Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly Factor. FOX News, New York. 20 Aug. 2001
Note: I was unable to burn the video onto a disc because downloading a video off youtube apparently requires software that I don’t have. Instead, here are links to both the video and a partial transcription of the interview.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o
Transcription: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32588,00.html