WWE: Everyone Needs to Relax with A.W. and Tensai Comments Made This Week
All of this political correctness is another example of WWE being a public company is the root of most issues today.
I don't advocate sexual abuse allegations or have any prejudice towards Asian people.
That being said, I'm annoyed with the apologies, taking down videos and PR statements. It's live entertainment television. Does Saturday Night Live issue an apology every time it airs something controversial? Does Lewis Black apologize for a comment in his stand-up routine?
If A.W. Made comments regarding Jerry Sandusky, I would understand a big deal being made. It is current and involves the welfare of children.
If A.W.'s comments about Kobe Bryant were made while Raw was in Colorado, I'd understand it being deemed as significant.
The Kobe Bryant case was in 2003 in Colorado and was settled out of court. A.W.'s comments were made in 2012 in Cincinnati, OH. Its the same as Jericho and the Brazilian flag―old-fashioned bad guy wrestler getting heat.
For those who think A.W.'s comments were a scripted part of the show, think again. The belief by many people who have never worked in professional wrestling is everything is scripted down to the word because you know, “its all fake.”
A.W.'s comments are live and unscripted, or at least they were prior to this incident. He had a live microphone, trying to get his character over. Like what he said or not, a lot more people know and are now talking about that manager A.W. than they ever were before.
Then we have Tensai then touting a video where he makes a comment about Asian people and their eyes.
First off, I find it hilarious and ironic he caused commotion via Tout and that's WWE's new social media flavor of the week.
Secondly, if you watch it, it's two guys who are friends traveling for several hours on the road to the next show and obviously agreed to do a comical bit to entertain themselves that ties in to their current character storylines.
I guess WWE's more concerned over the feelings of Asian people or those who have been involved in sexual abuse cases than they are someone who suffers from Bells Palsy. We all know those jokes never get old in the WWE comical Rolodex.
What happened to Jerry Lawler making off-the-cuff remarks on commentary; we seemed to move on from that. Let's not forget John Bradshaw Layfield making comments about Mexicans while he was on SmackDown commentary.
Public company, excessive focus on entertainment for children and political aspiration to take over the world―blame them all.
Thirteen years ago none of these comments made this week would have been thought about twice. No shareholders to answer to. The company is private and can do what it wants. Thirteen years ago, the focus is to the same crowd who is enjoying Celebrity Death Match or South Park. Thirteen years ago, nobody in the McMahon family is trying to beat the Democrats; they're just trying to beat Ted Turner.
Today, WWE is on Wall Street, but its price per stock has been cut in half over the last two years. That's like being the CEO of a business that has more expenses than profit, but you keep throwing money in just so you can say you're a CEO. WWE loves to say it is public and on Wall Street for the mainstream association, but is it really a positive in the long run?
Today, WWE tells everyone not to be a bully (while making fun of Jim Ross) and promotes it on its entertainment program which is based on conflict. That's like driving around in a car going neighborhood to neighborhood telling people to boycott buying gas so prices go down. Are you practicing what you preach?
Today, WWE is letting talent releases and company policies be partially determined all in relation to Linda McMahon's political aspirations because, like it or not, she will always be tied to WWE, even if she's not an employee. WWE does realize Senator doesn't have the power to make people watch or buy pay-per-views, because that's what there talent and policies need to be ultimately geared towards.
Today, WWE is taking everything else too serious while too many significant aspects of its product are being laughed at.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?