by Mick Foley
Brent, come on, get a grip on yourself, and I don't mean that in the sexually self-gratifying sense. (Wow, is that a scary thought.) I mean, come on, let's inject a little dose of reality into the picture. For crying out loud, Lawler's art depicts a scene in which selfish kids are waiting on a line to see Santa—some brandishing long lists of toys.
The words are meant to convey Santa's growing unhappiness with the commercialization of Christmas.
I sit inside these shopping malls, while little girls and chaps
All rattle off long lists of toys, and pee on Santa's lap.
It used to be so easy, the boys liked choo-choo trains,
The girls just wanted dollies, or a single candy cane.
Now the lists are longer, the kids want bigger things—
CDs, TVs, VCRs and gigantic wrestling rings.24
The Chyna action figure is on a list that visibly includes J.R.'s BBQ Sauce, Al Snow's Greatest Hits video, and a Kat T-shirt. The Lawler drawing is eight by eleven inches. The words "Chyna action figure" take up exactly one-eighth by one-half of an inch. They are so small as to be almost invisible. So small that Mr. Bozell had to be looking for things to criticize. So small that with his criticism, he has brought the art of nitpicking to previously unknown lows. Please, Mr, Bozell, leave the book alone; surely your time could be better served backward-masking old Beatles records in an attempt to find satanic messages or looking for hidden penises in the ice cubes of magazine ads.
Look, nothing can come away completely unscathed when it's put under the type of moral microscope which Mick Foley's Christmas Chaos was viewed through. Nothing. I wondered how Mr. Bozell himself would fare when placed under such a microscope? As it turned out, Mr. Bozell didn't fare too well at all. And I didn't even need a microscope. Just a library card. No, indeed, Brent seems quite adept at this type of thing; in fact, as far as I could gather, it's the only thing he really is adept at. Besides raising money for his negative spin campaigns, which he also seems to have a remarkable talent for.
In 1991, when legendary Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall retired, George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for his position. With a history of conservatism, Thomas was sure to appeal to the political right, and as an African-American, it was thought that he could at least divide the civil rights and women's groups that had fought so hard against Judge Robert Bork, whose Supreme Court nomination had been rejected in 1987. The conservatives, however, were taking no chances, and called in the Conservative Victory Committee, whose executive director was ...gasp! ...one L. Brent Bozell III.
A week before the important Judiciary Committee hearings began, Bozell previewed a television commercial for the press. The ad said little about Thomas, but instead leveled harsh personal attacks against the three men that seemed to be his most obvious opposition in the Senate—Joe Biden, Alan Cranston, and especially Ted Kennedy.
The ad was vicious in its attack on Kennedy, "dredging up the old embarrassments about his suspension from Harvard for cheating, and his departure from the scene of an accident on Martha's Vineyard where a young woman died in his car."
The ad set new standards for bad taste, and was decried even by several Republicans. Clarence Thomas himself hated the ad, as did President Bush, who personally asked his chief of staff to call Bozell and tell him to pull it. Bozell refused. He loved the controversy, which saw the ad receive increased attention via replays on national network news shows, which had probably been his plan all along. As his Conservative Victory Committee partner Floyd Brown said, regarding the Thomas ad controversy, "We like being attacked, because when we're attacked, our donors like it, they send us more money." And this was all before the Judiciary Committee hearings made "Long Dong Silver" a part of our cultural landscape.
As I mentioned earlier, nothing and no one can withstand a microscope as powerful as the one Mr. Bozell uses to examine his opponents. Nothing. It doesn't take a genius to attack a person's character, just as it doesn't take a genius to cherry-pick a few offensive segments of SmackDown! and present them to the public as if they were an accurate representation of the show as a whole. They're not. It's misleading and unfair, and there are a number of comparisons you could make within the political arena that display these unfair tactics.
It's like judging Michael Dukakis's career solely on the Willie Horton debacle rather than on his impressive record as governor of Massachusetts. A governorship that actually saw the crime rate fall in that state. Or judging Ted Kennedy's career solely on his personal problems rather than thirty years of distinguished senatorial service. How about representing John F. Kennedy's whole career as a series of extramarital affairs rather than acknowledging that he rescued our country from the brink of nuclear disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962? Or what about judging President George Bush's career on the basis of a shoddy civil rights record during the 1960s, as opposed to recognizing him as a voice of reason during the Gulf War. Should we focus on his son George W. Bush's record as one of endless executions, instead of pointing to all the positive things he accomplished? (Although, off the top of my head, I can't think of any.)
I don't know why Brent Bozell founded the PTC. I really don't. I imagine the real truth lies somewhere at the intersection of making lots of money and doing some good in the world. I can, however, give a good guess as to why he singled out SmackDown! as his cause celebre. After all, Mr. Bozell isn't just anti-SmackDown!, he's anti just about everything on television. By his own admission, "out of almost 100 series on prime-time broadcast television, there are only about a half dozen left that aren't radioactive for youngsters." Jeez, Brent, that's quite a bit of radioactivity coming out of those television sets. Not quite as much as your dad advocated unleashing on millions of innocent people in Russia, but quite a bit nonetheless.
So why target SmackDown!? I mean, why systematically attempt to destroy this one show with millions of charitable dollars, when there is just so damn much radioactive stuff out there? Not to mention cable. Why focus almost the PTC's entire sponsor boycott energy on SmackDown!} Besides, as Brent said on CNN's post-Republican Party Convention coverage, "I have nothing against wrestling." Which I guess means what—that Brent is an ECW fan, or a student of Japanese wrestling, or maybe women's apartment wrestling? Brent, a quick tip from someone who has addressed a crowd or two ...when speaking in public, try not to sound so damn ignorant.
Why not target Ally McBeal or Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Drew Carey Show or Will and Grace} I mean they all made the PTC's top-ten list of "worst shows," despite the fact that they are all critically acclaimed. Maybe because if those shows were targeted, the PTC would suffer a media backlash. But what television critic in their right mind is going to come to the defense of SmackDown!, a lowly wrestling show? Answer—none. No, nobody's going to come to our defense, and the overall feeling among those in the media is probably that the PTC is doing an honorable thing. What a perfect marriage. All of the media attention meets none of the media criticism.
And surely, no one is going to question your study concerning sex, violence, and foul language. After all no one (save a one-eared New York Times #1 bestselling author) questioned the Indiana University study, which I've got to believe had something to do with your targeting SmackDown! in the first place.
Yes, indeed, when it comes to lowbrow entertainment like professional wrestling, not only can the media take potshots, but by golly, they don't even have to do their homework in order to do it. Isn't that right, Margaret Carlson? Margaret Carlson is a respected political journalist who on the August 13, 2000, edition of the Capitol Gang show on CNN, said of The Rock that he was "a white skinhead hateful wrestling guy." Thataway, Margaret! You go, girl! Except for one little point. Um, Margaret, I don't know how to break this to you, but, um . . . The Rock is black. And I haven't always been in favor of his hairstyles, but he's not a skinhead either.
But hey, why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of Margaret Carlson's opinion? Because a w
eek later she was in the pages of Time magazine writing that The Rock was "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, with language so coarse and vulgar that I can't repeat it here."
Shame on you, Margaret Carlson, shame on you! Your destruction of a man's character without any background checking is reprehensible. Your groundless, mean-spirited accusations are a disgrace to your profession.
Could you imagine if she had said that about General Colin Powell? Or Michael Jordan? There would be outrage. And lawsuits. And possibly termination of journalistic duties. But because it was wrestling, Margaret Carlson, to the best of my knowledge, was able to skate away without even a slap on the wrist or a stain on her reputation. But on behalf of The Rock, I would like to say to Margaret Carlson, "KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH."
Now, with that being said, let's look into that study, shall we? My goodness, Mr. Bozell's allegations are strong. After all, according to the PTC study, SmackDown! is the worst show on broadcast television and "was responsible for more than 11 percent of the sex, cursing and violence on broadcast TV in the 1999 study." According to Mr. Bozell, the study counted "both visual depictions and verbal allusions to sex and violence [as well as] all offensive uses of language."
Hmm. Considering my talk with Dr. Ganz about his Indiana University study, I would say that Mr. Bozell's comments leave the door fairly wide open for interpretation. I decided to find out.
Unfortunately, as I've previously discussed, the PTC representatives were not quite as accommodating as Professor Ganz had been, and so, with my writing deadline rapidly approaching, I stepped up my calling campaign. In each of my phone calls, I was unfailingly polite, and made sure to mention my name and what my purpose was. The PTC representatives were polite as well, as they continually took messages and directed me to other representatives in a sort of awkward chain of command that I had not experienced since trying to get a decisive answer in my WCW days. Finally, I got a definitive name. Tom Johnson, I was told, was my man. On January 19, 2001, at 5:15 p.m., I dialed Mr. Johnson's number.
"Hello, Mr. Johnson, my name is Mick Foley, and I'm writing a book on professional wrestling. I'm planning on writing a chapter on the PTC, and I was hoping that you could help me clarify the study that your organization did last year concerning sex, violence, and foul language on broadcast television."
"Um, just a second," Mr. Johnson replied.
When he came back, he had a question of his own. "Okay, what did you say your name was?"
"Mick Foley."
"THE Mick Foley?" he said, with his voice noticeably higher.
"Well, I'm a Mick Foley," I replied.
"I mean Mankind, are you Mankind?"
"Yeah, that would be me."
"Oh, um, wow. Hold on, I'll be right back."
Oh, um, wow? Oh, um, wow? Now look, I can't prove anything from Mr. Johnson's words, but as a wrestler who has met with and spoken with several thousand wrestling fans over the course of a sixteen-year career, I certainly think I know one when I hear one. And in my expert opinion, well, if Mr. Johnson wasn't a wrestling fan, he certainly sounded like one.
Mr. Bozell, I don't want to be a stooge, but have you looked into the backgrounds of your employees for subversive elements? In the name of Senator Joe McCarthy, I urge you to eliminate any wrestling infiltrators from your midst. Bring back the loyalty oaths from the fifties. Better yet, start making groundless accusations. Fire now . . . there will be plenty of time for half-truths, exaggerations, and guilt by association later. For crying out loud, Brent, our children are being dragged down a moral sewer.
In a short while Tom Johnson was back. Not the same Tom Johnson who had fawned over my name like a sixth-grade girl at an 'N Sync concert. No, this Tom Johnson was bolder. Badder. Better. This was a Tom Johnson who got on the phone and blurted out, "We're not allowed to talk to the World Wrestling Federation!" Click. No, he didn't say "click," that was the sound of the phone hanging up.
Or was it? Yes, I was 99 percent sure that I'd been hung up on by a man who displayed all the emotional maturity of a twelve-year-old breaking up with his first girlfriend, but I had to be sure. I wasn't Margaret Carlson, dammit, I was Mick Foley, a New York Times #1 bestselling author. And I needed to be sure. So, while clinging to the hope that some technical error had separated me from Mr. Johnson, I dutifully dialed the phone. To do anything but that might result in a case of premature exaggeration.
"Hello, Parents Television Council."
"Yeah, Tom, it's me, Mick. I think we were somehow disconnected."
Click. Now I was sure.
I hate to make assumptions. Because I read what can happen "when you assume" on the front of a drunk guy's T-shirt one time. But Mr. Bozell and his Parents Television Council really left me no alternative. So, based on the fact that no one would return my calls, based on the fact that I was hung up on by the PTC, and based on my analysis of a similar study (Indiana University), I'm going to make an educated assumption here. I am going to assume that even though Mr. Bozell's PTC is a very conservative organization, his interpretations of what constitutes sex, foul language, and violence are very, very liberal.
I really wish I had a chance to talk with Mr. Bozell. I had so many questions for him. Like, "Is testicle a verbal allusion to sex, or is it offensive language?" Or is it both? Is it a word so foul that it constitutes a double whammy and winds up on both of these lists? Or "testicular fortitude." Would this rather unusual way of saying "courage," a word that I myself brought into mainstream America, be placed on both of the PTC lists?
Or better yet, I'd like to ask Mr. Bozell about the word "ass," as in the familiar wrestling battle cry, "I'm going to kick your ass." Is this a verbal allusion to sex? After all, the human ass can be a very sexual body part, although even the staunchest wrestling critic could be hard-pressed to find anything sexual about mine. Is it a threat of violence? Or is it foul language? Or is it all three? Is it a phrase so vile, so immoral, and so disgusting that it merits inclusion on all three of the PTC's clinically documented lists? Is it that ultrarare trifecta of filth? Is it a once-in-a-lifetime triple play of such epic "gutteral" proportions that it becomes a putrid potpourri of sex, violence, and foul language all rolled up in one? Or is it simply a phrase that I've heard on Malcolm in the Middle}
What about sexual innuendo? Double entendres? Is there a different subcategory if they are done in a clever way, like on Frasier} What about a sexy tone of voice? Or, say, a girl rubbing a guy's arm . . . you know, as long as it is done provocatively.
Is all sex bad? Is an act that is more or less responsible for every single person on earth being here automatically vilified? Or does Mr. Bozell and his staff subcategorize sexual material into "good" and "bad"? Or "hot" and "so-so." Or "acceptable to his own tastes" and "not something he's into."
Before delving into the issue of offensive language, I would like to share a fact with all of you. Because SmackDown! is taped on a Tuesday and is aired on Thursday, I have had the chance to watch almost every single episode with my children. Sometimes I get slightly embarrassed. Sometimes my children ask questions that need to be answered gently. But I will say without even a hint of exaggeration that I had less sexual questions to answer after a full year of SmackDown! than I did following my daughter's kindergarten visit to a petting zoo.
Language
"Go to a mall and listen to the obscenities," Mr. Bozell tells us on his National Campaign to Clean Up TV Now video. "Turn on the television and watch the latest school shooting. Look at the statistics of all the unwed teenage girls who are walking the streets pregnant. Something is going on here. Today's youth is being poisoned." Pretty serious stuff. Lucky for us that L. Brent Bozell III has the antidote. Just send ol' Brent a few bucks and he'll get that damn SmackDown! off the air, and then all of the problems just listed will simply cease to exist.
Is there really any research that supports the idea that television leads to school shootings or teen pregnancy? Or cursing?
I'm
not an expert on the effects of television on teenage pregnancy. For all I know, unwed teenage girls get a look at me in my sagging sweatpants and flannel shirt and hop right into the sack. And I will share a few thoughts on school shootings in just a little while. But for now I'd like to take a look at Mr. Bozell's first comment: "go to a mall and listen to the obscenities."
Hey, I've heard obscenities at shopping malls. But then again I've heard them at ball games and at picnics, in courtrooms and on boats and just about any conceivable place where people speak. And don't quote me on this, but I think some of these people may have learned to curse from a source other than TV.
Professor Robert Thompson, the director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, agrees. "Television not only didn't teach us how to swear, it was unbelievable how long it took for television to learn how to swear from everybody else," said Thompson. "It's only recently that television has begun to sound remotely like so many Americans talk."
I was always somewhat confused by the PTC's selection of Steve Allen as its honorary chairperson. I know I'm skating on thin ice here, because Allen was justifiably a legend in the entertainment field and certainly seemed to be a genuinely nice guy. So I'll try to be as nice and respectful to his memory as I can, but I don't think that it would be in bad taste to question some of his words and actions as it pertains to the PTC, the World Wrestling Federation, and the issues that stand between them.
As the Buffalo News wrote in a November 3, 2000, article about his death, "Allen was an unlikely public face for what was an adjunct of conservative advocate L. Brent Bozell's Washington, D.C.-based Media Research Center. The entertainer had long been an advocate for both liberal politics and culturally daring artists."