by Mick Foley
Perhaps the best example of this was his personal friendship with and professional admiration for controversial comedian Lenny Bruce, an early pioneer of foulmouthed entertainment. Mr. Allen, however, didn't see this fact as being inconsistent with his recent views on television. "People have said to me, 'If you're against all the four-letter words in comedy, how come you were such a big fan of Lenny?'" Allen said in the Buffalo News story. "The answer is simple: Lenny never used four-letter words for a cheap shock laugh."
Okay, does that mean that the PTC scans through every instance of language they find offensive and then crosses the ones that are not done for "a cheap shock laugh" off the list? Or is it simply okay for Steve Allen's friends to use offensive language but not anyone in the World Wrestling Federation?
In many ways, I view SmackDown! and Raw as being like a variety show or a circus. There is a little bit there for everyone. If you don't enjoy the tightrope walker, you'll probably laugh at the thirteen clowns piling out of the Pinto. There's also some T&A, but the backlash against it is disproportionate to its use and importance on the shows. And honestly, I saw as much skin and as many sexy outfits at last summer's Sydney Olympics.
At its best, however, the World Wrestling Federation is about suspending our audiences' disbelief, and getting them caught up in the lives of the wrestlers. Sometimes suspending disbelief does include rough language, and I defend my right to let such language fly on the appropriate occasions.
For example, in January of 2000, within the context of our World Wrestling Federation story line, I had been publicly fired, barred from the arenas, laughed at by my opponents, had my book ridiculed, my wife used as fodder for jokes, and had a Mick Foley impostor portray me as a mentally challenged, bumbling fool. Then, upon my return, I was ganged up on and beaten bloody.
In the words of Bob Thompson, "If you're going to tell a story about an ambiguous, ugly brutal experience, I think one needs to be able to use ambiguous, ugly, brutal language."
So, when I got on the microphone to describe what might lie ahead in my opponent's future, I used language that one might very well be able to make a case for calling offensive.
Still, I'd like to get my hands on that PTC study. As I mentioned earlier, most offensive language is deliberately kept off SmackDown! and most of what remains is bleeped out. Does the PTC count these bleeped words as being offensive? Do they count offensive words that might appear on a sign in the crowd? Or do they count offensive words like "asshole" that the crowd may chant at our less likable (or heel) performers? And if, say, 17,000 people were chanting, would they count the word 17,000 times?
I don't know. I tried to ask these questions to the good and moral people at the PTC, but they were unavailable for comment . . . oh, I'm sorry, they were available, but they decided to hang up on me instead of talking.
Who knows, maybe someday Mr. Bozell will change his mind and offer me his double secret study. By then, however, the study will be of no use to me, so I would simply roll that study up and tell him where to place it...in an ambiguous, ugly, brutal way.
Violence
That should be easy, right? I'm sure Brent sits down and gives his crack staff pointers on what is violent, and what is not, and then makes them adhere to very strict standardized criteria. All to avoid the possibility of personal interpretation. Or maybe, better yet, he personally supervises all of the prime-time action. Or at least SmackDown!, his own pet project. After all, if Mr. Bozell's father could write all of Senator Goldwater's book, then I'm sure Brent III could tolerate at least supervising our show for two hours a week.
Let me take you on a fictional journey inside the PTC compound for a hypothetical look at the scientific standardized tests that constitute the PTC study.
"Mr. Bozell, we've got a hardcore match between Al Snow and Test on SmackDown!"
"Oh, very good, this should be interesting."
"Um, Mr. Bozell, Test's matches are usually not very interesting."
"I know that, but if they would have only pushed him a little harder after his breakup with Stephanie instead of having him lose to . . . um, never mind. Okay, let's monitor the content."
"Okay, Test is coming down to the ring to this cool entrance music."
"Do you think his ring attire is suggestive?"
"Well, kind of."
"Good, put that on our sex list."
"But, Mr. Bozell, don't you think that—"
"Shut up, look at those sculpted deltoids, look at those chiseled abs ... he's teasing us! Count it."
"Yes, sir, Mr. Bozell. Here comes Al Snow."
"Look at that mannequin's head he's carrying. Everyone knows that it's just an easy way to get a cheap double-entendre 'head pop.' Count that on the sex list."
"Yes, sir."
"But it also is clearly meant to be a severed head, which as everyone knows is a textbook lesson on spousal abuse. So count it on the violent list also." "But, Mr. Bozell, we can't put it on two lists at once."
"Dammit, don't mess with me. Do you know who you're dealing with? I kicked Teddy Kennedy's fat ass! I—"
"Mr. Bozell, you just said a bad word."
"No, that was the TV. Count it on the violence list. And the sex list. And the foul-language list. Count it! Count it! Count it!"
Yeah, I know this is a little ridiculous. But what is the standard for judging violence? Mr. Bozell's own words shed a very dubious light on this question. In his own October 31, 2000, Washington Times column, Mr. Bozell leveled harsh criticism against the ABC network for fairing poorly in the PTC letter-grading report.
In the column, he wrote that "ABC avoided family oblivion in terms of scripted material last season only by dint of its TGIF comedies Sabrina and the now cancelled Boy Meets World"38Hey, I was on Boy Meets World last year; I must be a good person. And I can say that the cast was all extremely nice, and that teen heartthrob Danielle Fishel calls my house once in a while. That should be good for some Bozell brownie points, right? It truly is a great show, and one that I enjoy watching (in reruns) with my family on a regular basis. Even if the January 22, 2001, 4:30 p.m. show on the Disney Channel did have themes of cross-dressing and implied homosexual thoughts. You see, when Shaun dressed up as a girl to cover a story for the school newspaper, Corey couldn't help but feel attracted to him, in an innocent PG kind of way. Should I count it?
Come to think of it, I believe there was some violence on the show I was on. I'll go find the tape!
Okay, I'm back (and I really did just go watch the tape). Unfortunately, the violent content on this PTC tested and approved show was staggeringly high. On this episode, entitled "For Love and Apartments," I tallied:
two knees to the midsection (I did these)
one choke (I did this one too)
one body slam onto a couch (I did the slamming)
one attempted punch to the face (blocked)
one sleeper hold
four slams of the head into a plate of sandwiches
one slam of the head into a wood table
two grabs of the nose (one by me)
one throw into a stair banister
three punches to the upper pectoral region
one throw into the stairs
one kick to the ribs one pull of the hair, resulting in victim being dragged across the floor
one rear chin lock (submission hold resulting in victory)
two soft-drink cans crushed on the head
one mandible-claw submission hold administered with the aid of a sweatsock (me)
one toss in the air (show went off the air with actor Will Friedle in midair, leaving a frightened nation to contemplate his fate)
Oh, the humanity! Twenty-five despicable acts of violence on a half-hour sitcom—and one that the PTC ranked in their top-ten, no less. No wonder our children are so confused!
A ridiculous example? Certainly. But is it really any more ridiculous than a PTC representative sitting back and counting every act of "violence" on a two-hour episode o
f SmackDown!} I don't think so. Think about it. Depending on whose criteria were used to count the violence, a wrestling-match total would add up quicker than Roger Daltrey's pinball score in the rock opera Tommy.
Out of curiosity, I called Bob Tischler, who was the executive producer of Boy Meets World and the man responsible for bringing me onto the show. I wanted to find out why he could bring me, the proud possessor of only half a right ear, the veteran of vicious Japanese barbed-wire matches, and recipient of over 325 stitches, onto a show that so many impressionable youngsters were watching? Well, Bob, why?
"We liked your character," Bob said, "and we thought it would be great to have a wrestling thing on the show. And we thought that if we put on a wrestler that everyone knew, that it would really amp it up a lot."
"But, Bob, weren't you worried about any negative feedback for having a guy like me on your show?"
"No," Bob said with a laugh, "not one bit. We knew that our viewers would be into wrestling."
"You did?"
"Yeah, Mick, demographically, we found that the audiences for the two shows were not that different at all."
Gee. I wonder if the PTC tests for things like demographics and crossover audiences? Do they? I don't know, they refused to discuss their findings with me. But I think that Mr. Bozell fails to understand that television shows shouldn't have to fall into categories that he defines. Programs that he finds offensive might be found by others to be intelligent, thought-provoking, and cutting edge. Besides, I think his definitions of "good" and "bad" and "violent" and "nonviolent" could use a little reexamining. And what better time than now? "
What family programming is left on the Disney-owned network [ABC]?" Bozell asked. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Monday Night Football— but no dramas or sitcoms."
I've caught a few glimpses of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, but since my name was an answer to one of their questions, I will applaud Mr. Bozell's decision to advocate such a fine and morally upstanding show. But Monday Night Football} Is he kidding me? It's not that I have anything against the venerable Monday-night institution, even if it does go head-to-head with our Raw show. But how could a man such as Bozell approve of such a violent sport?
Bottom line: Football is a violent game. If you don't believe me, take it from the players.
"I like to think my best hits border on felonious assaults." So said Jack Tatum, the Oakland Raiders' defensive back with the decidedly nonviolent nickname "The Assassin" in his 1979 autobiography, They Call Me Assassin.41
Conrad Dobler, in his 1988 autobiography, They Call Me Dirty, expressed similar sentiments when he said, "I could never find a nonviolent way to hit a guy."
Granted, Tatum had a reputation as a vicious hitter, and Dobler was known as "the dirtiest player in the game." But what about Tim Green, a former all-pro lineman, a respected announcer, and the author of several critically acclaimed novels as well as The Dark Side of the Game, which in my opinion is the best book ever written about life in the NFL? And no ghostwriter for Green, either. Unlike Tatum, Dobler, and Arizona senator and 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Green actually writes his own books. What did Green have to say about the NFL? Well, he described it as a place where "you hit hard and you hit first, where bashing someone unconscious is a badge of honor, and breaking bones is a treat." Furthermore, he wrote, "You need to be bad on the playing field, vicious and mean, that's part of the game. That is the game."
I spoke with Darren Drozdov, a former World Wrestling Federation wrestler (Droz suffered a career-ending injury that was written of earlier) who played two seasons with the Denver Broncos and is best remembered as the guy who threw up on the ball on a Monday Night Football broadcast. I asked him to tell me a little about the violence in an NFL game, and he was happy to do so.
"I've always seen football as a sport like boxing where you could get all your frustrations out and not be punished for it. We get to hit someone as hard as we want on every play ...and the man who beats the other man up worse wins. Bottom line."
"So," I asked, "is the violence in football worse than that in pro wrestling?"
"Yeah," he said without hesitation. "Because you're not pulling hits in football. Whether you want to believe it or not, people are trying to hurt each other on every play."
Let me reiterate, football is a violent game. So why is it a show that Mr. Bozell approves of? Does the violence not count if it happens to occur on a program that Mr. Bozell enjoys? Or do his stooges make it a point not to count the "real" violence on television? Therefore the breathtaking quarterback sack that sends Steve Young into a concussion-induced early retirement doesn't count, but a People's Elbow does?
Or maybe in his heart, Mr. Bozell doesn't believe the contact on a football field is violent. Despite the overwhelming consensus of NFL players that football is a violent game, L. Brent Bozell III, a man who doesn't appear capable of whipping cream with an outboard motor, knows better. He always knows better. That's why he's L. Brent Bozell III, dammit!
Mr. Bozell, it seems, would like to blame all of our country's problems on offensive television programs. After all, listen to the narrator on the PTC National Campaign to Clean Up TV Now video. (Imagine a very deep, official-sounding voice while you read.)
"By the time our children reach age eighteen, they will witness sixteen thousand murders and over two hundred thousand acts of violence on television . . . the result: an epidemic of teenage sexual disease, 1.5 million unwed teenagers pregnant each year, and an explosion in juvenile crime."
I've already talked a little about the teenage-sex issue, which frankly I'm not an expert on, as I was nineteen and 351/365ths years old when I had my first sexual encounter. But what about violence? Is there really a correlation?
Certainly, there have been many studies to support the theory that watching violent television programs results in more aggressive behavior, but as one reporter asks, do these studies "prove that such shows make people aggressive, or rather that aggressive types are attracted to entertainment matching their temperament?"
These studies also don't explain why the crime rate in Canada is so much lower than in the United States, when their television viewing habits are almost identical. These studies also don't explain the marked contrast in violence between the United States and Japan. I don't claim to be an expert on deviant behavior (although it was my major as a college freshman), but I do think that fifteen trips to Japan in 1995-97 makes me something of an expert on the Japanese people.
So drawing upon my personal experience, I can tell you that the television that children are exposed to in Japan is far more violent; nudity is allowed on public television, the pornography is far more deviant and degrading to women, and the wrestling can be far more violent. In addition, photos of nude women are featured in many of the respected newsmagazines, and comic strips depicting every imaginable sex act are included in most respected newspapers. These strips contain graphic language as well, which for some reason is printed in English.
Pretty shocking, huh? Even more shocking is the fact that the frequency of violence is extremely low, with the rape of women, especially, being almost unheard of. When there is violence, such as the "sarin nerve-gas attacks" on a Japanese train in 1995, it is a source of major news and embarrassment to the Japanese people. The nerve-gas attacks were committed by a radical religious group, the Aum Shinrikyo, whose leader Shoko Asahara's past behavior included breaking into a student health center while swinging a large wooden cross and an attempted assault on a feminist speaker. Oh wait, I think I just confused Asahara's radical behavior with that of Mr. Bozell's mom and dad.
"Children watch an average of twenty-eight hours of television a week," the deep-voiced narrator of the National Campaign to Clean Up TV Now video tells us. Almost immediately after, celebrity PTC spokesman Dean Jones serves up his own scientifically tested remark by telling us "children watch an average of seven hours of television a day." Um, Dean, I don't know how to tell you this,
but if you multiply the number of hours a day that the children in your quote watched TV by the number of days in a week, the result would be forty-nine hours a week. Or almost double the total that your own narrator just told us. Unless, of course, the children that Dean Jones was talking about only watched television on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and alternating Saturdays and Sundays.
At one point Steve Allen mentions (in a hushed tone) the tragedies of "Paducah, Jonesboro, Columbine High School" and then says, "Today's violent programming does incite the mind of our impressionable youth," thereby clearly drawing a correlation between television and the aforementioned tragedies.
This is where I start to take things personally. SmackDown!, you see, is the show that Mr. Bozell has called "despicable," and to him it is clearly the most offensive show on broadcast television. So when Steve Allen, the tape's narrator, talks about "poisoning our children" and being led down a "moral sewer," he is clearly indicating that SmackDown! is the worst offender.
During the ten-minute (approximately) duration of this tape, no one image or person is seen more than twice. Except for me. My image is seen eleven times. Over and over again I am seen being thrown off the top and through the top (two different moves) of a sixteen-foot-high steel-mesh-cage structure. The match in question didn't take place on SmackDown! either, but on a June 1998 Pay-Per-View, a full fourteen months before SmackDown! premiered.
As possibly the single wildest match in the history of sports-entertainment, it is in no way representative of our show as a whole. It is also the match I hear most about from wrestling fans. Actually, I hear so much about that match that I'm sick of talking about it. Literally thousands of people have asked me questions and offered their opinion of the match. Never have I heard it called "offensive" or "sick" or "poison" or "filth."
By deliberately choosing to feature my image eleven times, I very strongly feel that he is telling the public that "on that sick show, Mick Foley is the sickest; of all the things that poison our children, Mick Foley is the most poisonous, and of all the filth out there, Mick Foley is the filthiest."