The Wall Street Journal Vince McMahon Thread.

[Elsalvajeloco]

Paul Levesque waffles between corporate exec and the same clever jerk who took that asscutting from Julie Hart in Wrestling with Shadows and cowered cause he didn't want Bret to extend his KO streak that night on him. That's a tough world to navigate when you just can't joke your way out of it.

Re: what @Craig H brought up: Yeah, you're getting cooked as the old Adrien Broner meme goes. In situations like this, cooked pretty severely no matter what cause there are no "right" answers. That said, knowing you're going to have that platform that night, there still several wrong answers. Moreover, you have to find delicate balance where (1) you're showing some level sincere concern (2), not providing window dressing in respect to what's being alleged, and (3) not over stepping boundaries legally. So while saying you haven't read the lawsuit isn't really right or wrong, you probably should provide clarification regarding that you in fact know what's going on. 

[Greggulator]

41 minutes ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

Its probably part of a much broader conversation we shouldn't have here/now, but I'm of the belief that we've reached the point of advancement as a tribe/society/species (however you want to phrase it) where media literacy needs to become a mandatory, standardized subject in public schools and universities in the US just the same as math, history, or anything else. The amount of otherwise perfectly rational adults I encounter on a daily basis who can't even identify an obvious phishing attempt, let alone misinformation or opinions-as-newz (both in and out of wrestling) is far, far too high.

Subscribe to your local newspaper. That is the best thing to do. The newspaper industry has been absolutely gutted for all kinds of reasons. Almost every good reporter starts off at a small newspaper (or the local news desk at a bigger regional paper) — even if they end up at a really big daily or magazine or end up like I did in niche financial trade publications. 

Off the top of my head since I read a lot of sports writing — Zach Lowe of ESPN started at a small daily in Connecticut (even with a Dartmouth diploma.) Bill Simmons wrote local sports for the Boston Herald, which is not nearly as prestigious as “Boston” would make you believe. Adrian Wojnarski worked for the Fresno Bee and then the Bergen Record (where a bunch of my old colleagues/friends ended up — they said he was a really good guy.)

It’s grueling work. Out of college, I routinely worked 60 hours a week writing things like “This guy grew a really big cucumber in his backyard” to “Debate ensues over how deep the new school swimming pool should be” for a bunch of weekly small-town suburban newspapers. I also had to take photos, so the layout m, open the Mail and even at times deliver the newspaper I also wrote. Those subscriptions go a really long way in helping develop good journalists since you literally have to do everything. And I think the most I made doing this was $28,000 a year. Poverty wages.

Local news reporting is also really friggin’ taxing emotionally. One of my old colleagues/friends worked at the small newspaper in Connecticut headquartered s few miles from Sandy Hook. She knew a bunch of the parents who had kids who died from stories she wrote beforehand. She had to quit a few months after because she could not handle anymore memorials/events/etc. I got freaked out the one time I ever covered a murder because I went to the crime scene — a distraught mother freaked out and killed her newborn. That sent me straight to a therapist. The best editor I ever worked for was David Mamet’s roommate in college — my editor was an awesome writer, but he was a severe alcoholic and womanizer and went through a few marriages. 

I found my niche writing about business and finance. I was the “business reporter” at a small newspaper in Massachusetts. That was mostly writing about new tourist trap businesses or covering real estate planning commission meetings. I went to this traveling seminar in business journalism that a university put together. I learned from there that niche trade publications for different industries have stability. I also learned how to write about publicly traded companies — where to find the documents and what they meant. I actually used the WWE to help me “train” because I actually knew what the WWE did, and it is a really easy business to understand.

So whenever I read about “wrestling journalists” it makes my skin crawl. A few are good with breaking some things like injuries or whatever like Dave and the other ones who are legitimate. The Wrestlenomocs guys are good with some things I’ve read but I have seen some of the more “finance” stuff they have written and they don’t quite get it. And that’s absolutely fine — this stuff is hard. I have to look up terms and definitions all of the time, and I have a lot of experience and was about halfway done with a MBA before I had a kid instead. And I also do not think I wold be a good wrestling reporter because you need all kinds of reliable sources and do you really think the wrestling world has those?

But most anyone who says they are a “wrestling journalist” is absolutely not. 

[Gorman]

When I had a wrestling column in the local paper, I would get free tickets to WWF PPVs (SummerSlams 95 and 96 and King of the Ring 98), sit in the crowd and then write the column when I got home.

I never got to interview the wrestlers or attend a press conference.

[Matt D]

Here's the CNN take:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/29/media/vince-mcmahon-wwe-risk/index.html

[odessasteps]

 

[zendragon]

There's more Vince McMahon allegations out there | Bryan & Vinny Show (youtube.com)

[Greggulator]

29 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

 

This and the CNN article have a TON of merit. There is so much insane stuff that both Endeavor/TKO and WWE put in what they reported to the SEC. I wrote this before. Sorry if I'm just saying these things again.

1) Vince's payoffs came out of the WWE's piggie bank instead of this own checkbook. Because of that, the WWE had to go back and tell the investing public: "Hey, we lied to you about how much money we made over the years. We made less because we didn't know Vince paid hush money with company revenue." That's the single biggest no-no in publicly traded companies. That's essentially what Enron did (albeit more complicated and for a lot more money.) That's what led to the reported grand jury sniffing around Vince right now. And grand juries can go into all sorts of directions, so something like what was included in the lawsuit could end up leading to criminal charges. (That's not my area of expertise -- there could be limits on what can be presented to a grand jury, but who knows.) Oh, I also forgot about the whole illegal campaign contributions thing.

2) One of the things companies have to disclose to investors are the "risk factors" that could cause the company material harm. A lot of these are just common sense -- an oil company could end up having to pay a lot of money if an oil well blows up. Endeavor/TKO and all of that listed Vince McMahon himself, as a board of director, as a risk factor because of the possible negative publicity and all of that. That's just completely insane to see that. It definitely opens up a lot of questions like "why did you keep this guy around?" and "what did you know about what Vince did to this woman?"  Who knows what the hell was in Vince's personal agreement when he sold the company. But if he sold the company and can be fired (or forced to resign), then they certainly could have found a way for him to not be the chairman of the board with the ability to name other people to the board. That's just insanity. 

But, hey -- the company owns UFC, which employs Dana White to manage guys who get paid to fight in cages. I don't follow UFC at all but that seems like it's a pretty fertile breeding ground for horrible human behavior. And the CEO of Endeavor is Ari Emmanuel, who was the basis for Jeremy Piven's character in Entourage. What does that say about how much they take company culture seriously?

(Oddly, the WWE also listed Vince as a risk factor -- but saying that his sudden death or incapacitation could be detrimental to the company's business. I've never seen that anywhere else, either.)

[zendragon]

odd but understandable given the nature of Pro Wrestling and how hands on he was over the decades

[Greggulator]

Also, the notorious time he "died" on-air and it sent their stock price crazy. 

[Phantom Lord]

31 minutes ago, Greggulator said:

Also, the notorious time he "died" on-air and it sent their stock price crazy. 

That always amused me. I mean they say it's a male soap opera, so they do a story straight from a soap and people reacted like it happened for real.

[Eivion]

Just now, Phantom Lord said:

That always amused me. I mean they say it's a male soap opera, so they do a story straight from a soap and people reacted like it happened for real.

That and Donald Trump buyout reaction really showcased just how dumb people can truly be.

[piranesi]

4 hours ago, Greggulator said:

That's essentially what Enron did (albeit more complicated and for a lot more money.)

 

I guess the big question is this.  Even Enron wasn't too big to take down 20 years ago. But that was before the landscape was dotted with billionaires each owning their own media outlets, political parties, and apparently judges.

I wonder if that's changed today so much that even this stupid cage fighting company is too big to take down today.

[Octopus]

7 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Paul Levesque waffles between corporate exec and the same clever jerk who took that asscutting from Julie Hart in Wrestling with Shadows and cowered cause he didn't want Bret to extend his KO streak that night on him. That's a tough world to navigate when you just can't joke your way out of it.

Re: what @Craig H brought up: Yeah, you're getting cooked as the old Adrien Broner meme goes. In situations like this, cooked pretty severely no matter what cause there are no "right" answers. That said, knowing you're going to have that platform that night, there still several wrong answers. Moreover, you have to find delicate balance where (1) you're showing some level sincere concern (2), not providing window dressing in respect to what's being alleged, and (3) not over stepping boundaries legally. So while saying you haven't read the lawsuit isn't really right or wrong, you probably should provide clarification regarding that you in fact know what's going on. 

I think the issue was less whether he could or could not say anything regarding the lawsuit but the poor optics of your executive saying “I haven’t read it” and “I don't even want to get bugged down in the negatives, just want to focus on the positives." Not a great look, BUT to his credit he did say “Everything possible. And that is a very important thing to us, a very important topic to us. It’s as simple as everything possible” when asked about what they do to keep workers safe, which I would say comparatively to what else he said was a better answer.

It’s a near lose-lose situation that requires a heartfelt response by a much better an tactful orator to skillfully manage.

Saying that, these are allegations of human trafficking and rape. I don’t care if the executives representing that company are in a situation to look good or not. We need to make sure that truly evil individuals do not have the power within that company to once again be able to ruin innocent lives. That’ll come hopefully with the court case and pressure from fans and press to make right and fix the broken system. 
Sorry for the quoting. I’m riled up and continued what you were saying.

 

[The Natural]

Brie and Nikki Bella:

 

[Technico Support]

13 hours ago, Octopus said:

I think the issue was less whether he could or could not say anything regarding the lawsuit but the poor optics of your executive saying “I haven’t read it” and “I don't even want to get bugged down in the negatives, just want to focus on the positives." Not a great look, BUT to his credit he did say “Everything possible. And that is a very important thing to us, a very important topic to us. It’s as simple as everything possible” when asked about what they do to keep workers safe, which I would say comparatively to what else he said was a better answer.

It’s a near lose-lose situation that requires a heartfelt response by a much better an tactful orator to skillfully manage.

Saying that, these are allegations of human trafficking and rape. I don’t care if the executives representing that company are in a situation to look good or not. We need to make sure that truly evil individuals do not have the power within that company to once again be able to ruin innocent lives. That’ll come hopefully with the court case and pressure from fans and press to make right and fix the broken system. 
Sorry for the quoting. I’m riled up and continued what you were saying.

 

I'm just blown away because it feels so avoidable.  Everybody knew questions about Vince would be coming.  Isn't there a team in place to tell HHH what he should say?  Like maybe a guy who got hit in the head for a living for a few decades shouldn't have been up there saying whatever he felt was the correct thing to say with no guidance?  He ostensibly prepped for this and said something pretty dumb but why the hell is a pro wrestler up there as the face of your company during its worst crisis with apparently nobody giving him any pointers?  It's crazy.

Unless he did have pointers and "I didn't read it and I just want to focus on the positive and have fun" was the directive, which is just monumentally stupid.

Just...wow, man.  Wow.

But hey, he had an awesome anti-AEW zinger ready to go, so good on him, I guess.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

21 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

But hey, he had an awesome anti-AEW zinger ready to go, so good on him, I guess.

This was a good item on which to end your post, because it really does sum up everything else you said: HHH is a pro-wrestler, thinking like a pro-wrestler. I mean, how many times have we heard "Accentuate the positive, hide the negative" as a booking philosophy from everyone from Dusty to Heyman?

[Mister TV]

1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

I'm just blown away because it feels so avoidable.  Everybody knew questions about Vince would be coming.  Isn't there a team in place to tell HHH what he should say?  Like maybe a guy who got hit in the head for a living for a few decades shouldn't have been up there saying whatever he felt was the correct thing to say with no guidance?  He ostensibly prepped for this and said something pretty dumb but why the hell is a pro wrestler up there as the face of your company during its worst crisis with apparently nobody giving him any pointers?  It's crazy.

Unless he did have pointers and "I didn't read it and I just want to focus on the positive and have fun" was the directive, which is just monumentally stupid.

Just...wow, man.  Wow.

But hey, he had an awesome anti-AEW zinger ready to go, so good on him, I guess.

Back in the day I worked in corporate video production and was either running camera or audio when PR people worked with execs on what to say in touchy situations, never anything remotely as vile as this though. When the PR firm had a not horrible response for the exec, the exec usually ignored it, when the PR firm had a bad response the exec usually went with it.

[Curt McGirt]

Well, when you're used to getting to say whatever the hell you want to, and you're given the choice...

[Greggulator]

17 hours ago, piranesi said:

 

I guess the big question is this.  Even Enron wasn't too big to take down 20 years ago. But that was before the landscape was dotted with billionaires each owning their own media outlets, political parties, and apparently judges.

I wonder if that's changed today so much that even this stupid cage fighting company is too big to take down today.

I would say that the Wall Street Journal's reporting led to Vince McMahon being taken down from the monopoly he controlled for decades twice. Vince only found a way to worm his back way into power because of the pretty singular way he built the company's voting rights when they went public decades ago. But there's a very strong case to be made that the woman doesn't attach her name to a lawsuit without the reporting that came out earlier.

This was through the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, Linda ran for Senate as a Republican and worked in the Trump Administration, and Vince gave a lot of money and is personal friends with Trump himself. So, yes, I think companies and billionaires still can get taken down. 

How Enron unfolded was also largely because of the press. There's a great book about how the Wall Street Journal reported on Enron. One of their energy industry reporters read their quarterly earnings report and listened to the call. There are all kinds of footnotes in those documents and it takes a really trained eye to know what jumps out. She saw some weird footnote that made it look like the company lost nine figures worth of money, and they were trying to separate it out from the rest of the accounting. She and another reporter made some phone calls and it turns out that the company's Chief Financial Officer was cooking the books and had all of these side deals and etc. A few other people were onto it earlier than that (I think The Street maybe) but the WSJ has a lot more teeth. 

The Wall Street Journal's reporting also to the collapse of Theranos (the Elizabeth Holmes company.) One of their reporters caught word that they were making up results, and it went on from there. Rupert Murdoch was one of the investors in Theranos (he kicked in $125 million). She went to him to try and have stories about Theranos killed. He stood to lose that money if Theranos blew up... and the WSJ still reported on Theranos. The people who served on the Theranos Board of Directors included former Secretary of State George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, eventual Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, the CEO of Wells Fargo and David Boies (one of the most powerful lawyers in American history.)  

I've often joked that Bloomberg is possibly the most far-left magazine in the country. I'm only partly kidding. They have a big profile on their cover this week of the union head from the auto companies. I only skimmed it -- but it's pretty glowing. They hold people to account all of the time. And they're owned by Mike Bloomberg, obviously, who made his billions by creating THE most prominent computing terminal system in financial history. He's totally hands off with his reporting.

The NYT and Washington Post have tons of great reporting that led to some kind of change, too. There's just an insane amount. And so many regional papers -- even though they've been gutted financially and in terms of newsroom staff -- have put spotlights on local jerks in recent years. 

The FTX collapse largely came because of CoinBase, which is the niche trade publication covering the crypto industry. But the NYT did a lot of early crypto reporting a few years ago and put a big spotlight on a lot of that industry. There's a Netflix documentary about these crypto goofs the NYT brought down.

Print journalism still absolutely works. I don't watch any TV news. That's a whole different animal. But the best print journalists out there still get a lot of results. 

[Greggulator]

1 hour ago, Mister TV said:

Back in the day I worked in corporate video production and was either running camera or audio when PR people worked with execs on what to say in touchy situations, never anything remotely as vile as this though. When the PR firm had a not horrible response for the exec, the exec usually ignored it, when the PR firm had a bad response the exec usually went with it.

I did PR for a few years before I got back into journalism. It's pretty much this.

When a company hires a PR firm, one of the first things they do is do a "media training" about what to say and what not to say to a reporter. But a lot of people who are successful enough to hire a PR firm are very stubborn and just say whatever they want. 

There's an entire industry just for crisis communications. That's for when you get wind that there's some major trouble brewing at the company. You call some of the spin doctors out there and try and find your way to get out of trouble. Usually the advice is: "Just say you can't comment on that right now." 

HHH being asked all of that and giving his "I just want to focus on the positives..." -- that honestly feels like him being told really crappy advice by someone. I mean, maybe he just didn't have it drilled in his brain "I can't comment on anything legal." But who knows.

 

[odessasteps]

I did wonder about just being a normal tech guy doing his job and all the sudden you have Vince showing people on his phone the type of things we’ve heard in the last week. Just how weird that would be. 

[Steventon]

3 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I did wonder about just being a normal tech guy doing his job and all the sudden you have Vince showing people on his phone the type of things we’ve heard in the last week. Just how weird that would be. 

And how many of them really were 'please get me involved in this' rather than just humouring Vince and hoping he'd leave them alone and they'd never have to do anything with this information. Guys in tech or production are regular folk presumably, not mutants who have had their brains and morals destroyed from years in the industry.

[Greggulator]

I was at a place (a PR agency) with this really awful dude-bro culture. It was all guys like 40-years and older sending stupid emails or talking about women in an awful manner. I got included in some of these because I was their age. But I was also the lowest man on the totem pole (everyone else had a manger's role, I didn't) and we didn't even have an HR department. My manager was this awful former frat guy in his 40s with daughters who would openly talk about his sexual escapades with people he used to work with in the office at staff meetings -- and in front of women.  There was seriously nothing you can do if you report to a guy like that and there's no checks-and-balances. I objected openly a few times and was placated but then noticed dings on my "check-ins" and why I wasn't getting a raise and etc. So I learned my lesson and kept my mouth shut until I left.

So then factor that with WWE. You work in TV production for what is legitimately one of the best produced TV shows in history. TV production is a pretty hard business. You have a full-time job. There's benefits. You don't have to freelance. And then friggin' Vince McMahon is showing you pictures. Man, those guys were probably grossed out beyond all belief -- especially anyone who has kids. But all you can do is talk with your friends at work afterwards about how awful that is. 

[zendragon]

It can be hard to walk away from a well paying job with bennies (especially if its your first one) if you don't have a secure landing spot lined up

[HumanChessgame]

I didn't watch the post Rumble presser but I'm shocked that a place like WWE where everything has always been so scripted they didn't just only include journalists who would tow the company line and only ask pre-screened questions.