TPWW Forums - View Single Post

**Marc the Smark** · 01-03-2005, 02:42 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.

01-03-2005, 02:42 AM	#2
Marc the Smark Posts: 2,064	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.