In the last hour, I saw a short interview of Linda McMahon on CNBC. McMahon has refused to take money from PACs, lobbies, and other large givers. No contribution can be made to her campaign over $100. In that way, she can assure the people of Connecticut that she will not be beholden to anyone who gave her money. So what does CNBC ask about? The reporter asked whether McMahon's use of her own funds made from wrestling (the WWE) is distasteful. In other words, did Linda make her fortune from an unsavory enterprise (like organized crime)?
Only on an NBC station (or NPR) could a reporter actually ask such a question. McMahon runs a large corporation that employs many people in Connecticut. That company must compete every day for the dollars of consumers in order to remain in business. Wrestling is entertainment to millions of folks. In short, there is nothing wrong with it.
I wonder when the last time was that NBC questioned a Hollywood personality whether the money being used for political purposes (or some other cause) was made in a distasteful wey. Are the movies of Sean Penn or some of the other Hollywood lefties any more real or socially valuable than WWE? Think of Oliver Stone's movies. The Stoner comes out with a pro-Nazi, anti semitic statement and there is barely a ripple in the press. Mel Gibson, on the other hand, comes out with an equally outrageous batch of statements and gets crucified.
I guess the true point is this. Being involved in entertainment is neither a positive nor a negative insofar as it concerns the merits of ideas that it finances.
No comments:
Post a Comment