|
commentaries
BIAS IN PRO WRESTLING
In late August-early September 2005 news began to spread on the Internet that Matt Hardy and Lita had been sighted
together in public, suggesting that perhaps the current Edge and Hardy program has actually
been a work and not a shoot (well, worked-shoot anyway) as we were led to believe. Many seemed to be quite
distressed over this matter. Could it be true? Could it have been a work after all? (I would argue
most likely not, since it seems unlikely that Matt's brother Jeff, who works for TNA, would go along
with the angle while being interviewed as has been reported). Jim Ross, in only the second column he wrote for
WWE.com since re-debuting the online article, somewhat addressed these concerns when he noted that
many on the Internet (whom he referred to as "Internet pundits") had jumped to unfounded conclusions and let their imaginations get the better of
them. The situation itself did not pique my interest as much as the term "Internet pundit" did because it begged the question
of where do we get our backstage news? Who can we rely upon?
In a sense, no one.
While WWE has done a great job as of late in using the Internet to
their advantage by being the source to break important stories (Bret Hart and Brock Lesnar
meeting with WWE officials in Stamford), the fact remains that we will always remain skeptical
of any news that is reported on their site. This is not only because in the past (and I mean up until
fairly recently even) WWE has refused to break kayfabe on their website. This is a somewhat puzzling stance with
the way the industry works these days (real life situations, such as the aforementioned Matt Hardy/Edge/Lita love triangle, have become
actual storylines). Yet WWE has been determined to keep everything to the script, as it were, on their website. So why the change
all of a sudden? Are we indeed being worked over the Hardy and Edge program? Otherwise, what is
this amazing new benefit of the Internet that Vince and his suits have only just begun to realize?
This is of course not to say anything of the very nature of wrestling as a industry in and of itself, which is very deceitful.
No, I'm not referring to how it is presented as a legitimate competition even though everyone knows better. I'm referring
to the way WWE has a tendency to pick and chose how it wants various aspects of it's programming
to be presented. I believe that a potentially excellent essay or research paper (and, please, no one steal
this idea from me, okay?) is to examine the propagandistic nature of professional wrestling. Remember the Monday Night Wars of the
1990s? Well now that the war is over and Vince has won, he's ready to admit that WCW won the ratings
war for a time and WWE officials openly discuss some performers past accomplishments (Booker T's five time reign as WCW Champion
comes to mind obviously, but also other matters such as mentioning Rob Van Dam's past in ECW or Eddie Guerrero in Japan, ECW and WCW. That would have never
have happened before. And things are no different today either. Ever hear any mention of Jeff Hardy's name since he went to TNA? Ignore the fact
that his brother Matt is still wrestling with WWE, Jeff is now part of the competition and cannot in any way be promoted. WWE has reverted to their old ways and ignores that there is even another company, willing to just believe that ignorance is bliss and that maybe if they ignore it, it will just go away.
And let's not forget how exaggerated things are on WWE television. When Shane McMahon took the plunge off the TitanTron at Summerslam 2000, Jim Ross
noted that Shane had to have fallen about a hundred feet. Do you have any idea just how high that would have to be? It was obviously more like thirty feet (still
a significant height to fall from mind you), but WWE wants you to believe it was more magical. It is the same reason some guys are announced as being taller or heavier than they really are
(even though Big Show is not quite five hundred pounds, he is often referred to as being OVER five hundred pounds in weight, simply because it sounds more impressive). Heck, now
guys like Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho have all new hometowns they are announced as hailing from. We all know that Benoit is from Edmonton and we all know that Jericho is from
Winnipeg, so get over it. Yet, even though he was normally announced as "now residing in Atlanta, Georgia," at Backlash 2003 Benoit for that one night only was announced as being from Edmonton, simply
because he was the hometown hero. WWE just picks and chooses want they want you to know. So can we trust them?
Of course not. WWE is, first and foremost, a business and they obviously want to portray themselves in the most favorable light possible. WWE is one of the most unique companies operating in the world today, in the
sense that is is a publicly traded company, whose entire business relies on television, merchandise, pay per views and a product which is, for lack of a better word, "fake." Never mind the fact that WWE is one of the
few companies in the world were you will ever see executive members get actively, physically involved in their product. And the McMahon family does so as though they are just other characters on the show. Truly a odd
business, but a business nonetheless. WWE seems to have the mentality that if you are not with WWE, you are against them.
Look at the recent Ultimate Warrior DVD. Instead of chronicling his career highlights and talking about what a great performer he was, such as recent tribute sets devoted
to Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Ric Flair, etc. have done, this set mocks the Warrior. In fact, this set is seemingly trying to destroy the Warrior, who has not been actively or prominently
involved in the wrestling industry in several years. So why do it? Well nostalgia sells and Vince will do anything for a quick buck, but I feel it is mostly because Warrior has been
ranting on his website for years about the evils of WWE and how inept he feels both Vince McMahon and the company are.
This raises a good point: should we listen to what Warrior or what other ex-WWE workers have to say about the company and the industry as a whole? Like anything, we should
take it all with a grain of salt. These days shoot DVDs seem to sell well on wrestling sites and former WWE employees Billy Gunn and Kevin Kelly have been hitting message boards in recent months, taking every opportunity to bash WWE and Vince. I'm sure some of their complaints
are legit and there is an element of truth in some of the things they say, but there is also likely a lot of inaccuracies or exaggerations because they are obviously quite biased about their former employer. I've heard my beloved Charlie
Haas bash WWE as of late, but don't you think he would want to go back there if they showed interest in him? Money talks after all. When you are bitter and angry and you do not fear the repercussions of
your words, you will say a lot of things. Some of these things may be true, but some of them will not.
Does Warrior have some valid points in his rant about the DVD set? I'm sure he does. On the other hand, he does refer to himself as
having been "in a whole other league than all you B-players at the time-yes,
Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels included." Is that true? Well, talent-wise I don't think there is ANYONE out there who would say that Warrior put on better matches
than Hart of HBK. Thus his opinions about himself and his talent are a little biased.
So if we cannot believe WWE and if we cannot believe ex-wrestlers, who can we trust? The current WWE stars? Not likely, as there are going to be two main types of
employees: those who tow the company line and are ever-mindful of watching their words so they do not upset that powers that be. Secondly, there is the disenchanted worker
who is frustrated with their current push (or lack thereof) and will willingly trash the company. The sad reality? This is likely at least one of the sources backstage that
we rely upon for all our WWE rumours.
Obviously they will focus on aspects about WWE, which are less than complimentary because their own personal bias is filtering out the positive news.
This is likely then why the majority of news we read online is usually quite cynical and negative in nature. I am aware that business is down for WWE currently, but
does that mean there are no silver linings to those dark clouds out there? Worse yet, this information is filtered once again, through the so-called "Internet Pundits" who write up the stories
and then post them to the various websites. Obviously, they have their own personal bias as well and since there is no formal rules or regulations about being impartial when reporting on this industry, they are allowed
to say what they want. Often, they even interpret things for us too. Ever read the spoilers for a Smackdown and read that the person who attended the taping and submitted the report felt that a
match or a promo was really boring? Recently I read spoilers about a Velocity match between Chris Benoit and William Regal in which the reporter said was dreadfully boring. I watched the match on WWE.com and loved it because it
was the type of technical wrestling I love.
Wrestling truly is unique because it is a form of entertainment that caters to as many people as possible. You like pure wrestling? They got that. Like storylines? Got those too. Like high-flying wrestlers? No problem.
Like the big brawlers? They're here too. Like some T&A? No worries on that front either. Mick Foley has referred to wrestling as sort of a three-ring circus with something for everyone and I truly believe this is the case.
So while I may hate a guy like Snitsky, he might be your favourite wrestler. If I were an Internet reporter writing up a story on
Snitsky, I might relate my personal bias about him into the article, which will in turn offend you.
There really is no such thing as impartiality in the wrestling industry as a whole; everything we read or watch is biased. Everyone who
discusses the industry has their own bias, whether for business or personal reasons.
We immediately jump all over the possibility that we were worked in the Hardy-Edge-Lita storyline because we want to believe
that WWE has somehow betrayed this and this, in turn, provides us with more fuel to the fire that is roasting the McMahons.
We must learn that we cannot believe everything we hear or read because surely there most be some false claims
deep within the message. You have to admit that most of what we read on news sites are nothing but unsubstantiated rumours anyway because despite what the Internet has been reporting for years now, Bret Hart
has not yet appeared on WWE television since 1997, nor is it likely that such an occurrence has ever been planned. Should I necessarily believe then that there is unrest in the Smackdown locker room?
Should I believe reports that one wrestler hates another? The answer, obviously, is a resounding "no."
So what now? Should we abandon these news sites? Should we forget about reading up on the latest news and rumours? Not necessarily. All I am saying is that in life we can be either Receivers or Gatherers of information. Receivers basically sit back passively and allow the information, filtered through
bias, to come to them and pretty much just blindly believe and follow whatever is presented to them; everything is taken at face value. Gatherers of information take what it is presented to them
and then begin to question it and try to actively pursue the facts behind that information, seeking more details, more answers. Ultimately, being either exclusively a receiver or a gatherer of information is
undesirable, so we must therefore find a balance between the two.
Do not blindly
listen to whatever is being presented to you because there is ultimately only one opinion out there and it is negative (the only positive
view is presented by WWE itself but it cannot be trusted because it is the source of the subject material). Can we find a desirable right and left spin
throughout the wrestling industry? Not in the forseeable future. We must therefore continue to read and listen to what is being said, but be sure you devise your own thoughts and feelings about the subject
material.
Maybe you'll find everything does not seem so pessimistic and, instead of always fearing the worst, we can all learn to love wrestling again.
Scott "Bret Hart to Appear on Raw Monday" Hellings
-October 13, 2005
To read Warrior's rebuttal on the WWE-produced DVD, click here.
To purchase shoot interviews (and tons of other merchandise) go to Highspots
To read Kevin Kelly's rants go to TWI
For a fairly reputable news site, go to either Figure Four Weekly or PW Torch.
 
BACK TO TOP
|
