For years, commentators have seen fit to criticize the "universe" of pro wrestling. In the 1980s, the industry was blasted on "The Morton Downey Jr. Show" (though not by the host; he enjoyed wrestling events). The 90s saw Phil Mushnick (a writer for the "New York Post") take pot shots at both WWE and WCW. Then, in the 2000s, a group called the "Parents Television Council" sought to remove pro wrestling from TV altogether (what's worse, they ALMOST succeeded).
As such, the comments of one John Oliver are not exactly "breaking news". If you haven't heard, Mr. Oliver has taken it upon himself to call out the WWE. On his HBO show "Last Week Tonight", the commentator advanced what I call "the Bob Costas argument". Let me explain this in detail.
Like Mr. Costas, Oliver contends that the men and women of wrestling are forced to take dangerous risks, and that this should not be permitted. The commentator is clearly misinformed regarding this issue. It is true that wrestlers risk severe injury from the moves that they perform. However, these are calculated risks (as opposed to non-sensible risks), and performed of the wrestler's own free will. Nobody (Vince McMahon included) is physically forcing the stars of WWE to "get in the ring"; they do it because they want to.
This being the case, I wonder who Mr. Oliver (or anyone, for that matter) is to make individual choices for others? If certain people were incapable of making decisions for themselves, then I might understand his point of view. However, realizing that most wrestlers can and do make their own choices, those decisions aren't Oliver's call.
The other part of the debate centers on certain actions and attitudes expressed on wrestling programming. In the past, WWE has (to some extent) objectified women, as well as had a perceived bias against African-Americans and Hispanics (see Chavo Guerrero Jr.'s "Kerwin White" storyline). Some observers (myself included) see this as objectionable behavior, or at least events that young children should not see. Nevertheless, the question of what a child is permitted (or not permitted) to watch is best handled by that child's parents. Again, who is Mr. Oliver to decide this?
Now, let's compare "Monday Night Raw" to some other popular television programs. Most of the time, there's a difference between what happens on the show and "real life". The longtime fan (such as myself) realizes that there is a scripted aspect to wrestling programming. By that, I mean that the individual men and women of the business portray different characters. Some of these characters are likeable; others are not. Some characters say and do outrageously unacceptable things; others take the so-called "high road". This is no different from most other television shows (for example, HBO's own "Game of Thrones", or NBC's "The Blacklist"). And quite frankly, if you are of the opinion that pro wrestling is completely "real", then much like a non-used mid-carder, I "have nothing for you".
Knowing this, let me quote Vince McMahon in saying that pro wrestling isn't everyone's "cup of tea". However, nobody is holding you at gunpoint, and forcing you to watch WWE events. If you don't like the current product or show, you have the right to switch stations, or even turn the whole TV off. Nevertheless, there are many people who get a great deal of enjoyment out of watching others get smacked around. I believe that it is inappropriate for Mr. Oliver (who might best be described as a man who thinks he's "holier-than-thou") to tell such people what they can and cannot watch. There is, indeed, some content that could be deemed "offensive" to certain viewers. To this, I can only say that "viewer discretion is advised".
No comments:
Post a Comment