WWE: R-Truth Smoking a Cigarette on TV and Why No Apology Is Necessary

A growing trend I've noticed in the entertainment world is the never ending cycle of lobbyists who have cultivated the art of being offended into an otherwise lucrative not-for-profit business. 

It goes without saying that civil rights and political correctness are important issues in today's America. Everybody–not just prominent public figures–needs to be held accountable for sentiments that are liable to offend, ostracize, of unfairly influence a certain type of group. 

However just as there is a line that is not to be crossed when it comes to being politically correct, there is certainly a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to the lobbyists who aggressively, and somewhat opportunistically, vouch to uphold these rights. 

Take R-Truth smoking on RAW this past week.  The image was something that went largely unseen in WWE since WrestleMania V, when Morton Downey Jr. decided to light up indoors at a pro wrestling event. 

Downey Jr. was portrayed as a heel then and was famously hit with a fire extinguisher blast from WWE Legend "Rowdy" Roddy Piper for his troubles. 

The uniqueness of R-Truth smoking in a WWE arena went a long way in undoing the previously ineffective verbal exchange between Truth and former constituent John Morrison, thus establishing R-Truth as an unsavory character. 

WWE had clearly established R-Truth as a despicable figure, with the icing on the cake being Truth demonstrating the audacity to smoke in a public building.  Far from an anti-hero, Truth was booed out of the building due to his despicable actions and WWE's newest heel was created. 

And while R-Truth made no friends in the O2 arena that night, he surely made no friends back in the real world, where salivating politician/anti-smoking activist Patrick Reynolds chastised Truth and WWE for utilizing cigarettes in an angle. 

Said Reynolds, who is obviously confused as to whether or not pro wrestling is real, of the R-Truth smoking segment: 

"

“For [R-Truth] to smoke in front of [children] is irresponsible. At best, it’s thoughtless, and at worst, if he calculated appealing to kids by posing as a bad-boy outlaw, it’s evil. If he wants help in quitting, I’ll be happy to be his personal coach.”

"

While WWE's response to Reynold's outrage was far from sufficient, it indeed rang true in a sense, as WWE rebutted with the following:

"

“The negative effect smoking has on one’s health and physical performance was a part of a storyline on last night’s Monday Night Raw. Negative depictions of tobacco use on television are not unusual and can be seen on other TV-PG shows.”

"

Taking this a step further, R-Truth was not appealing to anybody but himself this past Monday night, which was what made his heel turn so effective.  Being audibly booed out of a building (at one point, fans were chanting "that's illegal") is hardly exemplary, as R-Truth was clearly despised for his actions. 

R-Truth acting out of frustration after losing to John Morrison and then lighting up to a chorus of boos isn't exactly the most favorable portrayal of smoking. 

Perhaps Mr. Reynolds should stop wasting his time attacking pro wrestling, where he is clearly out of his league and go after whoever made the call to have iconic child protagonist Popeye habitually smoke from a pipe. Spinach be damned. 

There are more substantive pro wrestling examples of a bad boy outlaw portraying self-destructive activities in a positive light, for pro the wrestling illiterate Patrick Reynolds, or any other headline hungry lobbyist, to exploit. 

Look no further than Stone Cold Steve Austin drinking half of his weight in beers as arenas filled with children cheer him on, which was the case as recently as three weeks ago on RAW.  Apparently there isn't as much of a political future or mainstream attention in condemning the recreational use of alcohol. That's so 1920's.   

The thought of these glorified task forces coming out of the wood work to police irresponsibility sure is nice, however, the hypocrisy is sickening. 

Take the GLAAD (The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) group, that expressed outrage at John Cena's "homophobic taunts" towards the Rock in his hip-hop raps during their entertaining war of wars last month. 

Cena used pop culture references, such as Brokeback Mountain, to imply that the Rock had left WWE to fulfill some type of innate Hollywood homoerotic desire.  

While such implications do push the envelope when it comes to homophobic taunts and should not be condoned, I'm not quite sure that homosexuals consider a movie about two cowboys making love on a deserted ranch (the basic premise for the Oscar-winning film) their champion for gay rights.

In any event, John Cena's manhood challenging rap, at the implied expense of the gay community, drew the ire from GLAAD.  This resulted in WWE joining the group in promoting an anti-bullying initiative and rightfully so. 

But just days later, back in real life, prominent WWE announcer and RAW TV character Michael Cole tweeted a homophobic slur, meant to be a playful taunt of Josh Matthews.

I would argue that his demonstration of homophobic taunting is far more destructive than an envelope-pushing rap, yet Cole pretty much had his hands slapped after a half-assed apology. 

No fanfare.  No public outcry. 

Less of an opportunity to fulfill a political agenda due to the lower profile, yet more alarming, nature of a non-wrestling public figure freely using a homophobic slur to joke around with a friend was certainly disappointing considering GLAAD's mission statement. 

The usually pugnacious GLAAD group could not be reached for comment as it pertained to Cole's homophobic taunt.  It was later announced, rather matter-of-factly, that Cole would be attending GLAAD training seminars at the behest of WWE.  A gay pro wrestling league acted more militantly, albeit more obnoxiously, in response to Cole's unacceptable actions than GLAAD ever could.   

The more laid-back approach GLAAD took to handling Michael Cole's more offensive homophobic taunt caused me to ask myself what exactly these lobbyists are really after. 

Is it universal human rights and accountability or political ascendancy?

For different groups to pick and choose what is considered offensive certainly causes confusion and frustration, especially when the most sought after demonstrations are of a more high profile nature. 

It's understandable that lobbyists and civil rights group need to be more mindful of instances of insensitivity that are more liable to influence mass groups of individuals, but there needs to be a pattern of consistency demonstrated that holds all individuals equally accountable. 

Otherwise, these civil rights groups are guilty of the same acts of discrimination that they (sometimes) live to dispel.  

Follow Big Nasty on twitter @ThisIsNasty.