As I See It: Vince McMahon Bullying Jim Ross, WWE Legal Bullying, More
|By Bob Magee | June 18, 2012 | Comments|
On last week's RAW, Vince McMahon proceeded to ridicule Jim Ross, up to and including his Bell's Palsy.
For those who tune out RAW shortly after it airs, McMahon placed put a cowboy hat on, and attempted to impersonate Jim Ross does his "Stone Cold" call, then twisting up his own face as if ridiculing Ross's Bell's Palsy, then handed the hat back to Hornswoggle, laughiong at the impression, and told Hornswoggle (ala Ross), "Sauce it."
Despite the fact that fans want to see Ross on air as much as his health will allow, McMahon continues to play this running S&M show with Ross and piss off fans; and makes WWE's anti-bullying efforts look like so much window dressing for Linda McMahon's perpetual Senate campaign.
Speaking of bullying and Linda McMahon's perpetual Senate campaign; there was the recent attempt at legal bullying by WWE; after Manchester Journal Inquirer Managing Editor Chris Powell wrote two columns stating that Linda McMahon could not on one hand use her experience as a businesswomen (aka "job creator") to sell her candidacy to the people of Connecticut; and on the other hand say that linking her to WWE's storylines and dramatic depictions is unfair.
Powell went farther, claiming McMahon's "...practical qualifications for office did not extend beyond her fantastic wealth, and that wealth derived from the business of violence, pornography, and general raunch,"
Brian Flinn, WWE's senior vice president of marketing and communications, charged the Manchester Journal Inquirer of libel in a May 24, and threatened a lawsuit if the paper didn't retract the statement.
Not only did the Journal-Bulletin not retract the column, but it filed suit against with the Federal Election Commission, stating that WWE was in violation federal election laws by illegally helping McMahon's Senate campaign by threatening the lawsuit.
Flinn claims the lawsuit by the newspaper is without merit. "WWE is not attempting to prevent the media from exercising its First Amendment rights....WWE acted solely and specifically to defend its business and corporate reputation from the reckless and false statement that WWE is in the business of pornography."
Unbelievably, Linda McMahon claimed that she had no knowledge of WWE's threats against the Journal-Inquirer.
While by the strictest definition WWE's programming is not pornography, it's a bit difficult to claim that WWE's programming over the years had hardly been family-friendly entertainment, as the company would have you believe it is these days.
On-air storylines about "hot lesbian action", Edge and Lita's supposed "Live Sex Celebration", HHH drugging and marrying an unconscious Stephanie McMahon, and Trish Stratus being forced to get on her knees in the ring and bark like a dog... to name a few... were hardly content for your local Baptist church picnic's entertainment.
WWE campaigned against right-wing bullying against this content by the Parents Television Council many years ago. WWE can't try to pretend the company didn't have this content in the "Attitude era".
The company has made a business decision to change the content; both to benefit the public standing of the company to stockholders and advertisers, AND to benefit Linda McMahon.... an effort that sometimes has gone way too far in sanitizing WWE's PPV and TV product.
If Linda McMahon wants to use her WWE experience to sell herself as a Senate candidate, she has to deal with the scrutiny that comes from having been a part of it. Trying to muzzle or threaten the press when they point out the inconsistencies in having it both ways AND in the deliberate change of the product's content to benefit her 2 campaigns for the Senate in simply wrong.
Got a news tip or correction? Send it to us by clicking here.