Log in

View Full Version : Wade Keller Vs. JBL


Marc the Smark
01-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Wrestling Journalist Blasts Trip to Iraq
Even if you were a radical left-wing activist, you wouldn't want someone in the midst of eulogizing a loved one at a funeral to interject out-of-context political views. The point of view being presented wouldn't matter so much as that the time and place to espouse any point of view was inappropriate, especially when emotions were running high, as they do at funerals.

Vince McMahon did a good thing this week. He and his roster of volunteers dedicated a week before Christmas to travelling half way around the world to entertain soldiers in extremely dangerous and unluxurious conditions. For that he deserves a ton of credit. For that the troops are better. And because of that, I would say more good was done than harm. By far.

Yet, when someone bends over to pick up an old man's cane that was just dropped, but it turns out he bent over more so to look up a girl's skirt that was near the fallen cane, that good deed loses a little luster. Last night, Vince McMahon looked up the proverbial skirt while picking up the cane.

I don't have a problem with Vince McMahon patting himself and his organization on the back for their good deed as he did this week in the mainstream media. A lot of good deeds are in part motivated by the goodwill it generates - especially in the corporate world. Those corporations that give to Muscular Dystrophy each year do so out of compassion, but their gift isn't so altruistic that they don't show up with a big check on the telethon with their company's logo in big print right next to the dollar amount. That's all acceptable because without that good publicity, there'd be a lot less corporate charity.

What got to me last night is that McMahon chose this situation, where entertaining the troops -- regardless of how you feel about the war or politics in general - should have been the one and only story and purpose for being there, and got political. He stepped into the ring and within two minutes was bashing the media for dwelling on the negatives and not covering enough positives about the war. He may have a point. But his timing was 100 percent wrong.

Keep in mind, while these soldiers have some communication with loved ones and some media access, it's limited compared to us. McMahon was basically telling the troops that the media is telling the American public bad things about this war. The troops should have been given an opportunity to enjoy pro wrestling and not think about the politics of war and how their sacrifices are being portrayed back home. But because McMahon had a message he wanted to get across - which has a lot more to due with a long-standing grudge against the media than it does his actual outrage over media coverage of the war (which, given what everyone says about his relentless working hours, he probably has little time to take in first-hand anyway) - the troops became a backdrop for his agenda.

He blamed the media "back home" for only portraying the negatives and not the positives. That sounds a lot like McMahon's problem with media coverage of his organization over the years. But when he complains over the years about the media only paying attention to a few disgruntled wrestlers making claims about sexual misconduct on the part of his executives and not paying enough attention to all the smiles his wrestlers bring to kids faces; or when he complains over the years about the media only focusing on illegal steroid abuse by his contracted wrestlers and not paying enough attention to the charity work his wrestlers do with sick children, it's tough to get a sympathetic ear. After all, few people would think that sexual misconduct and steroid abuse should be "offset" by the entertaining of children and charity work.

But Vince and his family have been so frustrated with their media coverage over the years, this presented an irresistible opportunity to stick it to them. What better time to present himself and his organization in a sympathetic way with a positive image than when they're volunteering to entertain the troops. (For the second year in a row! With an all-volunteer crew!!)

So, weaved throughout the show, were messages - subtle, subliminal, and overt - that "if this soldier wants to be here (and reenlist!), then who are you to second-guess whether this war was fought under the right pretense, with the proper planning, and with a realistic end-game." That's not reading into anything. In the context of the whole show, that is what was going on. It's fine that McMahon feels that way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him having that point of view and espousing it. But this wasn't the time or place.

Instead, he tainted the sacrifice his wrestlers made by using their efforts to forward his political point of view. It's so obvious it shouldn't have to be said, but someone who believes the war is being fought under false pretense, with poor planning, and an unrealistic end-game are not betraying the troops by saying so. Someone who says the war is being waged for valid reasons, with excellent planning, and a realistic end-game is not necessarily supporting the troops, either. Especially if they're wrong about their reasons for supporting the war.

Vince McMahon was taking one situation in Iraq - the one he was in - and using it as evidence that the whole war was good and all troops are happy. He may be right, but his reasoning is flawed. You can't look at one patch of grass, determine it's healthy, and conclude that the entire yard is in great shape.

If this show had been filled with Mick Foley taking digs at Bush, I would not be cheerleading, either. I would be taking the same stand - which is that this show should have been about entertaining the soldiers and about WWE wrestlers bringing smiles to their faces (and vice-versa), not forwarding a political point of view - especially one so poorly argued and indelicately handled as it was (as opposed to the story of the troops, which was handled with grace by WWE otherwise).

It's not right-wing or left-wing to say Vince should have stuck to entertaining the troops and not used the goodwill and good feelings he and his staff and his wrestlers generated to forward a political point of view. Any other week and any other show but this one would be fine.

I don't like to see anyone "used," especially not our troops. Next year, WWE will be back. And that will be a good thing. I just hope WWE doesn't exploit the circumstances again next year to forward another part of the McMahon agenda. (Wade Keller, PW Torch)


JBL Responds to Attack by Wrestling Journalist
Coming on the heels of the WWE's trip to the Middle East, WWE Champion John Bradshaw Layfield saw fit to respond with a letter to Pro Wrestling Torch writer Wade Keller in regards to Keller's column "Next Year Entertain the Troops and Keep the Politics Out of It" where Keller wants WWE to leave Vince McMahon's political views out of their trips to the Middle East.

Mr. Keller,

I am having trouble with my internet connection over here, I am not sure if the e-mail I sent you went through, so I will try another. I am still in Afghanistan visiting our soldiers, I do this every year with the SMA and the USO, I stayed after everyone left to go home. I am sure you didn't know that because I try to make sure the media doesn't cover it.

I was looking on the Internet to see our ratings, and I saw your column. I wanted to respond.

You are wrong about how much the soldiers get to watch the media on TV. Every mess hall has a TV along with every rec center and gym. They get to see more news than a lot of us do, mainly FOX but also CNN.

Your take on Vince I respectfully believe was wrong. The media has done a bad job of covering the war. They all sit in a hotel in Baghdad reporting the news. They might as well be in Des Moines, I saw no reporters in any FOBs (forward operating bases), and there were no reporters on the ground in Afghanistan. The troops are very sick of how the war is being portrayed, I know this because I have just spent almost two weeks with them.

The morale is high and all of them have sufficient armor when they leave base. Make no mistake, this is a rotten place, and I believe we could have planned better, but the enemy always has a plan also.

I do not believe it is a liberal bias necessarily, I believe it is a tabloid mentality by the media. What Vince did was good for the troops, remember he spent a lot of his money and the company's money to come here, a lot of people who talk about what he did have not been here themselves. By the fact he was here should give him some credibility.

You are entitled to your freedom of speech, I firmly believe that. As long as you believe in America, I have no problem with that. Let me clarify, I believe in Freedom of Speech always, but when a person does not believe in America I have a problem with them (I don't feel this applies to you).

Al Franken is over here with me, and he is a very dear friend. We disagree across the board about politics, we do not disagree about our soldiers and about our love for America, we just think it should be run different ways.

Vince did a great thing by bringing the WWE to Iraq, I feel your criticism was unjustifed. Vince is as good of a person as I have ever met, and a great American, I know you may disagree, but I don't. Look at what he has done over here.

I held the hand of a soldier that was hit in the Mosul attack that had lost almost all of his face to burns, he asked to see me because he was a wrestling fan. If I live a thousand lives I will never replicate that moment, Vince was the reason I was there.

I respectfully ask that you take things in a bigger perspective than your own beliefs, I thought what he did was great.

Now you can go back to bashing me as a terrible champion, which is your right.

John Bradshaw Layfield

Marc the Smark
01-03-2005, 01:42 AM
The Wrestling Journalist's Response to JBL's Reaction
I appreciate your comments and value your first-hand perspective. I, too, have gotten first-hand perspective by speaking to friends who have been in Iraq and heard from others with family members in Iraq. There are definitely diverse opinions on the war. Not all are positive and not all are negative. I've definitely heard first-hand of complaints about equipment problems and shortages. I have a hunch the military doesn't send celebrities to areas where equipment problems are a major issue or morale is particularly low.

Obviously there are areas where morale isn't as high, as evidenced by the questions Donald Rumsfeld faced a few weeks back and based on what I'm hearing from people I know who have been over there. The people I know who have been over there were never presented with any entertainment to boost their morale or any celebrity visits. Obviously, not every single soldier can be given the benefits that your charitable and generous efforts provide for others. I think the story of one soldier being ill-equipped is more important than telling of thousands who are - because it should be a given that the soldiers are sent there with proper equipment. If I were president sending kids to war, I'd sell my house and car and cash in my retirement account and sell any oil fields I owned if I thought it would help prevent one more family from losing a loved one. If that were my decision to send someone to war, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't give everything I had to make sure everyone was equipped properly.

As far as soldiers accessing media reports, I was under a different impression from the soldiers I talked with and heard about. I have no doubt, though, that those who do have media access want what the positives of what the are doing to be covered as much if not more so than the negatives.

Regarding the media being negative, the man stealing a purse from an old lady makes news and the other man who helps 12 old ladies across the street isn't going to make news. In a sense, it's the old journalism saying: "Dog bites Man" isn't news, but "Man bits Dog" is news. The public doesn't want to hear about what's commonplace and expected, they want to hear about the unusual and anything that threatens their and their loved one's security. That's why the media (besides laziness in many cases) covers negatives. It's simply, by definition, more newsworthy.

Built into any good reporter's mindset is a distrust of authority - which is healthy and required of a free society to remain free. When the government publicizes good deeds, the media feels their resources should be used to dig up the corruption and the negatives. They don't (or at least shouldn't) be motivated by anything other than wanting to shine a light on the negative so that it doesn't fester or spread.

I don't believe it's healthy to make blanket statements about the media's lack of balanced coverage of the war as a way to scapegoat the media for what might be a poorly planned war. Even many staunch Republicans have big problems with how this war has been waged. There is nothing right-wing or left-wing about critiquing how this war has been planned and executed. Once policy decisions were made, the execution of it should be evaluated on a separate plain from whether we should be there in the first place. The media's focus, from my viewing and reading, has been focused on criticism by public officials - Democrats and Republicans - who believe this administration had a bad plan to begin with, has been inflexible after receiving new information, and is on a course that may cost a lot of lives unnecessarily along the way.

My problem with the Dec. 23 Smackdown was that Vince McMahon chose to politicize a TV program that should have remained pure of politics or media-bashing. By introducing media-bashing and various pro-war (as opposed to pro-troops) messages during the show, it created unneeded controversy. I don't know if you have seen the final edited product yet.

I have bent over backwards, though, to praise Vince McMahon and everyone with WWE who have supported the troops. The second paragraph of my editorial stated: "Vince McMahon did a good thing this week. He and his roster of volunteers dedicated a week before Christmas to travelling half way around the world to entertain soldiers in extremely dangerous and unluxurious conditions. For that he deserves a ton of credit. For that the troops are better. And because of that, I would say more good was done than harm. By far."

My only gripe was that he needlessly introduced politics into the show. Whether it differs with my point of view doesn't matter. I would have had a problem with Mick Foley presenting anti-war or pro-media comments on the show. That's why I also wrote: "It's not right-wing or left-wing to say Vince should have stuck to entertaining the troops and not used the goodwill and good feelings he and his staff and his wrestlers generated to forward a political point of view. Any other week and any other show but this one would be fine. I don't like to see anyone 'used,' especially not our troops. Next year, WWE will be back. And that will be a good thing. I just hope WWE doesn't exploit the circumstances again next year to forward another part of the McMahon agenda."

If you haven't seen the final version of Smackdown yet, maybe you will at least see where I am coming from after seeing it. I have gotten a lot of letters on this matter, and many from conservatives who are pro-war who were also taken aback by the politicalization of the final edit of the show.

Shadow
01-03-2005, 01:57 AM
Ahahahahahahaha...this is great. And the tone of voice I heard for JBL....priceless.

loopydate
01-03-2005, 02:04 AM
I, too, was really disappointed in Vince's politicizing of the event. He did a good thing, but it's not his place to make that kind of statement.

JBL made his point very eloquently, I thought, but don't you think Vince could have gotten a better spokesperson than the guy who literally goosestepped in Germany last year?

Also, shouldn't JBL get buried for reading an online column? *fingers crossed*

Marc the Smark
01-03-2005, 09:23 AM
shouldn't JBL get buried for reading an online column? *fingers crossed*

:lol:

Innovator
01-03-2005, 12:29 PM
"Now you can go back to bashing me as a terrible champion, which is your right." - WOOOOOOOO JBL

What Would Kevin Do?
01-03-2005, 12:58 PM
Heh, go JBL.

Fignuts
01-03-2005, 01:10 PM
Further reasons why JBL is the man.

The CyNick
01-03-2005, 01:56 PM
I agree with JBL on this one.

Out of the two of them, he's the only one who has spent time in Iraq. Keller sits behind a desk in the safety of his parents basement and makes judgements about someone who is going out of their way to bring a smile to people's faces.

We all know that Vince is opinionated, he's going to say whats on his mind. But if he was just out to bash the media, he could have done that from the safety of his office in Connecticut. He didn't need to fly to a war zone to do it.

I would wager the vast majority of soldiers agree with what Vince said, do I agree with it? Frankly, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. Vince has the right, even in Iraq, to speak his mind, especially on his own show.

If Keller wants to dig up some proof that Vince went over there solely to make an attack on the left-media with the soliders as a backdrop, then I'd listen to him. But somehow, I dont think that proof exists.

Corkscrewed
01-03-2005, 02:23 PM
Both men present good arguments in eloquent ways. Actually, I think they're both right, but it just depends on where you're talking about. I'm sure there are places with high morale and places with low morale. But yeah, you can't apply one statement to everything. Some troops love helping out in Iraq. Others resent it.

JBL definitely came up looking smart in this one. No childish criticism like in some of his previous articles.

Altho I also have expected his email to turn into:

"I am having trouble with my internet connection over here, I am not sure if the e-mail I sent you went through... oh my word, it's Brock Lesnar! And he's... help! HELP!!! CALL FOR HELP NOW!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

Anyway, I'd say both people made good points. The media is more negative than positive, but that's how it's always been. Throughout history. On the other hand, Vince could have definitely toned down the politics in the show.