artDDP Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Jingus, you are correct in that several ECW wrestlers used insider terms to bond with their audience. I am only commenting on how Joey used them. I felt that Joey came off as sort of corny, like the type of announcer parodied in old sketch comedies. I much prefer the announcing of NWA Jim Ross, Gorilla Monsoon and Jesse Ventura, and at times Tony Schiavone and Larry Zbyszko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I felt that Joey came off as sort of corny, like the type of announcer parodied in old sketch comedies The one thing I can say for Styles is that I enjoyed him when he was doing straight up corny comedy; complaining when Simon Diamond announced Dick Hertz..." His name is Richard!!!". Him as corny guy who didn't like double entendre's or degenerates was always amusing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 From WON: Joey Styles was told outright no more Twitter posts talking about politics. There was tremendous heat on him from the corporate side for fear of an advertiser backlash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Advertisers have really become the "Big Brother" in modern-day America. Everything is dictated by what advertisers will tolerate. A local radio talk show was recently castrated into doing a three-hour apology to transgender people for an offhand joke because Chipotle pulled their spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That "offhand remark" was one of the hosts saying he'd beat his son with a shoe if he turned out to be transgendered as well as referring to said people as "idiots" and "freaks". Also that transgendered kids can be cured by either beatings or shock therapy. So yeah, sometimes advertiser pressure is what it takes to make people not act like mentally challenged inbreds. Just like in this case, WWE (even as conservative as the upper echelon tend to be) realized it's not good business to have an employee taking fringe talking point stands on a public forum with WWE's name all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That "offhand remark" was one of the hosts saying he'd beat his son with a shoe if he turned out to be transgendered as well as referring to said people as "idiots" and "freaks". Also that transgendered kids can be cured by either beatings or shock therapy. Yeah, that's a horrible thing to say and not remotely funny. I read that news tidbit as the corporate side were actually worried that advertisers would come to realize how batshit crazy their boss really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I read that news tidbit as the corporate side were actually worried that advertisers would come to realize how batshit crazy their boss really is. I mean, if they haven't figured it out by now, those advertisers are never going to find it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Sadly, while the Republican brand is damaged, if Chris Benoit murdering his family leading to all the embarrassing PR leading to the Signature Pharmacy scandal didn't result in advertisers pulling out, neither will WWE being outed as a corporation run by right-wingers. People know Vince is crazy. They just don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 The problem isn't advertisers pulling out, the problem is being able to attract new, more upmarket, better paying advertisers. Advertisers already know Vince is crazy and runs a sleazy product. They've known that for almost two decades. That's why most companies avoid advertising on WWE programming and those that do pay poorly for the opportunity. It's hard enough to repackage yourself as advertiser friendly if you've got WWE's PR track record, that I'm not surprised WWE's corporate wing are sensitive to a toadie trying to score brownie points with the boss by cutting wrestling promos on the President via Twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 What I don't understand is if the advertisers fear is based in criticizing the office of the President, being outed as Republican, or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkeats Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 What I don't understand is if the advertisers fear is based in criticizing the office of the President, being outed as Republican, or both? I think it's neither. It's most likely a fear of offending potential customers who don't believe what Joey Styles believes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think the advertiser fear is based in how the criticism is delivered. It's one thing if Joey Styles says, "I don't like what Obama is doing and I disagree with his plans." It's another thing if he drops an "Obama bin Laden" comment or that "Obama supports abortion because he wants to kill babies," as that type of extremist opinion is what causes advertisers to freak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted July 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Let's not forget the WWE tries very hard to appear non-partisan with things like Smackdown Your Vote, so Joey doing a AM talk show gimmick probably caused some worry that their cover would be blown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't know for sure, but I get the feeling that Vince is the type of Republican that cares only about money, taxes, regulation and that sort of thing. I seem to remember reading that he paid for Pat Patterson's boyfriend's funeral. I don't see him going crazy (well, more crazy) over abortions and the black president having an Arabic name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Considering the God feud of 2006, it's pretty safe to say that Vince isn't some kind of fundamentalist neocon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Schneider Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Considering the God feud of 2006, it's pretty safe to say that Vince isn't some kind of fundamentalist neocon. You can tell his views on the purpose of military intervention based on a wrestling angle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 What does that have to do with being a fundamentalist? Maybe "neocon" was the wrong word to use there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.