What if I told you that World Wrestling Entertainment had partnered with the National Education Association to do an anti-bullying campaign?
Would you think it was a bad joke?
It's no joke.
The WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, recently announced the "Be A Star" bullying prevention program in partnership with the National Education Association's (NEA) Health Information Network (HIN) and the Creative Coalition; an association of well-respected advocacy organizations who focus on youth, racism, homophobia, education, and violence prevention. According to their joint press release, "Be a STAR will promote positive methods of social interaction and encourage people to treat others as equals and with respect because everyone is a star in their own right."
This is how the WWE role-models positive social interaction:
CEO of The Creative Coalition, Robin Bronk was clear in her support. "We're proud to be an architect with WWE of "Be A STAR."
Ms. Bronk must be confused about WWE. According to Jackson Katz Ph.D, author of The Macho Paradox and creator of the video Tough Guise, "WWE is one of the most culturally destructive and blatantly misogynistic businesses in the history of popular entertainment."
When I asked Nora Howley, manager of NEA's HIN programs why they decided to work with WWE, her response was, "WWE wrestling is silly, scripted matches. And there's no body of evidence that proves wrestling causes violence."
Ms. Howley is right; you can't prove wrestling causes violence. Unfortunately, that fact entirely misses the point ( as it does for violence in any TV program, video game or movie).
It's precisely these "silly" scripts that are the problem. Storytelling teaches us the values, attitudes, and beliefs of our culture. This concept is fundamental to effective education and media literacy and has been amply described in this very context in works such as "Packaging Boyhood." The late George Gerbner, professor of communications and Dean Emeritus of the Annenberg School of Communication defined the impact of this kind of violence, not on behavior but on attitudes. Here's a partial list of the effects he describes:
As I have written on other occasions, bullying is stripping a person of their dignity based on a characteristic such as race, religion, gender and or sexual orientation. Watch how WWE does exactly this:
Depiction of Women:
Homophobia:
As explained in this video clip, explicit homophobia is a cornerstone of the model of masculinity portrayed by WWE. Ironically, or perhaps appropriately, there are countless YouTube clips of WWE viewers either gay bashing or making fun of the homoerotic undertones going on between the wrestlers.
So why did the NEA and Creative Coalition agree to do this?
Members of the Creative Coalition include the American Library Association, the Girl Scouts, National Black Justice Coalition, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, and the Mathew Sheppard Foundation among many others. I count many of them as colleagues and respect their work immensely, and I don't believe for one second that these people support the mission of WWE.
Here's what I think may have happened.
The people at the NEA and the Creative Coalition haven't watched a WWE event or visualize the cartoonish Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant from the 1980s.
The people at all these organizations took WWE on face value when they said, "We are committed to this issue and we are taking it seriously," even though WWE states in its own communication materials: "[WWE] does not represent socially responsible methods for resolving conflict."
They got stars in their eyes when they thought about reaching WWE's large fan base. According to WWE's own statistics, they have average online viewership of 8.9 million video streams per month. These organizations believe that WWE will enable the "Be A Star" program to be seen by many more people than if they didn't work with WWE. This is true and makes sense, as long as the messenger and the environment where the message is delivered are credible to the target audience.
Here's what I do know:
The WWE paid for an anti-bullying movie; "That's What I Am" starring Ed Harris, Chase Ellison, WWE Superstar Randy Orton® and Amy Madigan. It comes with curricula and will be made available to teachers throughout the country. I saw the movie and I'm having a hard time understanding why the NEA likes it so much. Plus, the DVD begins with an ad for a WWE video game.
The question is, can one movie, even if it was the best anti-bullying movie ever made, counteract everything else WWE puts out? Can Stephanie McMahon's "Be a Star" PSA be credible when so young people have seen her humiliated and mock beaten by her real life husband Triple H on the WWE mat?
Ms. Howley believes it can: "The video and accompanying materials are an amazing opportunity to speak to children and families. Our staff gave it great thought and we believe the video can live independently from wrestling." Sut Jhally, Professor of Communications at the University of Massachusetts disagrees, "We know that individual messages don't work on their own. They only work in a context and the WWE's general context is opposite of an anti-bullying message. It's like the pornography industry making a video about abstinence."
And beyond the movie's and campaign's merits, are they worth it when they help to protect WWE from scrutiny?
Fact: GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is also working with WWE. Aaron McQuade, deputy director of GLAAD's News and Field Media explained how it came about. "A few months ago we got a wave of complaints from LGBTQ people who attended a WWE event because of a gay bashing incident. WWE didn't seem to know how offensive and hurtful it was to their LGBTQ viewers. So they asked us to consult with them and we have been doing that. We have worked with their writing teams and talent management and we are running PSA's during their Monday night programming."
I don't believe WWE's claim that they didn't know how homophobic their fights are. Beyond their own common sense, there's a documentary by Media Education Foundation called "Wrestling with Manhood" that clearly lays all of this out. But I understand GLAAD's motivation; they were acting in response to their constituents. GLAAD is an incredible organization. I just don't know how they, or anyone, can hold their own against the WWE.
In situations like this I always check my judgment by seeking the opinions of young people. After all, this program is targeted at them. So I asked boys what they thought about this partnership and this is what they told me:
Q: Based on what WWE does, Does it make sense for the WWE to get involved with bullying prevention? Why or why not?
It does not make any sense because these guys in the WWE are fighting all the time until their opponent gets knocked out. Max, 12
I don't think it makes a lot of sense because of what WWE does. I have watched the show a couple of times and the entire match is beating the other person up, and violence and hurting people is a part of bullying. If I saw a WWE wrestler talk about the bad things of bullying I would be a bit confused. First I see him knock someone out and then next moment I see him talking about how bad bullying is. Nate, 12
The NEA probably finds it a good publicity stunt for their purpose to have an organization that both has popular recognition and influential content to help promote a serious issue, one that may even connect to material in WWE itself. At first thought it seems like a good idea, but then the logical response to that alliance would be, "Isn't kind of backwards to have a fighting organization disapprove?" Marcus, 15
Why would WWE want to work with the NEA and the Creative Coalition?
Companies always want to look good to the public, and benefiting from the association of these organizations is an incredibly smart way to do it. But there's more. WWE is losing money. WWE stocks, attendance and profits are all down. As a result it's re-branding itself to be more family friendly and "Disneyfied".
Why is it in financial trouble? Ironically, it's being out-manned by a more masculine competitor: Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the mixed martial arts promotions company that has grown since 2001 into a billion dollar corporation, is sapping precisely the audience advertisers and WWE depend on: men between 18-34.
It's important to highlight the difference between WWE and UFC and why people are moving over to UFC. While WWE's scripted fights rely on scenarios like wrestlers having to literally kiss WWE CEO Mr. McMahon's butt to have the honor of joining his "ass kissing club," the UFC has come in and delivered the real thing. Unscripted, no costume, brutal fighting conducted with a few strict rules. No stories except the fighter's backgrounds. No plot except who is going to survive in the fighting cage.
In fact, the UFC would have been a very interesting partner for an anti-bullying program because they have so much credibility with kids and teens. If the NEA and Creative Coalition had partnered with them, I'd be writing a very different article. And I'm not alone in this idea.
When I was in elementary school WWE was the hot topic all around. Not so much now. If NEA still finds it imperative to have a fighting-oriented supporter have a production such as UFC, which is way more times appropriate. It'd be a better move. Marcus, 15
Another possible motivation for WWE's participation is the political agenda of its owners. Linda McMahon ran for Connecticut senate in 2010. She lost, but if she has future political aspirations speaking out about bullying has become an easy way to be a family friendly politician.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Of course working with corporations is complicated. There are countless partnerships between corporations with questionable products and/or business practices and advocacy organizations who still manage to do something for the greater good. MTV is the creator of Jersey Shore and Bully Beat Down but they also have public awareness campaigns about teen depression, voter registration, and safe sex to name a few.
What we seem to be missing are articulated standards to help us make better decisions about these partnerships.
Here are a few questions to begin the conversation:
1. What is the mission of the company? Not what it says in their marketing materials but what it looks like in public?
2. Are the people responsible for the program honest with themselves about their knowledge of popular culture? If they aren't, what is their strategy to become more informed?
3. Will the partnership come across to the target audience as hypocritical? Who did you talk to come up with your answer?
4. A public awareness campaign is always going to be second tier to the company's regular programming. Will the day to day activities of that company overshadow or counteract the campaign?
5. How will the corporation use the advocates' brand in their own marketing strategy and have the advocates thoroughly thought through the pros and cons of how the partner brand will come across?
In the near future, conferences are being held around the country on how for-profits and non-profits can work together on this issue in effective ways. I urge all of us to reflect on the choices we make and the assumptions that underlie those choices. Please hear me on this. Kids aren't taking us seriously. If they don't take us seriously we are useless to them. We have an opportunity to do it right -- let's seize the moment.
Follow Rosalind Wiseman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rosalindwiseman
Sheila C. Johnson: Women Have to Champion One Another
(TNA) Former WWE Stars in Jeff Jarrett's AWW, Update on the TNA BFG Series
WWE: 10 Stars Smackdown Could Use to Balance out the Rosters
6/15 Wednesday One Shots: The Dot Net staff give their quick thoughts from the ...
TNA celebrates anniversary with "Slammiversary IX": Part 1
WWE News: Was Hulk Hogan the Victim of Hacking or a Facebook Bully?
WWE: The Miz and 10 Potential Story Lines for the Former Champ After 'Quitting
To me, people like Katz are professional male bashers who ignore the double standards males face in society, such as in child custody, military conscription, criminal sentencing disparities, underfunding of men's health issues, and much more, who misframe issues like domestic and partner violence to be only male-on-female while ignoring women's significant involvement, and who mislead the public about rape in a one-sided way without talking about the very frequent problem of false accusations of rape or of very frequent female-on-male statutory rape in juvenile detention facilities and elementary schools, or the way the female rapists get much lower criminal sentences than the male rapists, as is the case for almost all criminal charges. I think its a shame that people like Katz mislead the public about gender issues even if part of their message has validity.
Both Microsoft and the ABA were very well intended - and fully meet the guidelines you set out above. They also had involved other organizations that should have demonstrated expertise. And yet the result was really bad - and simply should be trashed. A waste of well-intentioned time and resources.
So, additionally it is necessary to have a process in place that will ensure that joint ventures or corporate-funded approaches are effective. I believe this requires:
The development of a plan that identifies the research and effective risk prevention practices the project is build on - and a plan for how the project will pilot test the materials and evaluate effectiveness, plus a longer term evaluation plan.
Blind review of this plan by professionals in the field.
So a "positive norms" approach indicating that WWF-folks do not bully people based on sexual orientation could actually be welcome. And if GLAAD wants to encourage its members to embrace WWF - well, I guess I am not all that concerned.
It is NEA's involvement that concerns me - because it would seem that this would lead to WWF-based materials coming into schools with an NEA endorsement. This would be more akin to market promotion of WWF to school age kids. The infinitesimal possible value of an anti-bullying message in the context of promotion of WWF-staged bullying-is-entertaining is where the incongruity appears to lie.
However, those that the WWE are influencing often do see it as something to admire, based on their own realistic approach and more importantly, due to spending hours watching their fights, as well as playing their games, influencing their own actions and reactions, which may not be the intentions of the WWE, but is the outcome of what their establishment promotes to our youth.
The fact that everyone must be responsible for the consequences of their actions does pertain to everyone including Hollywood and the WWE. That is correct. But at this time, it is the WWE that has partnered with the National Education Association in an anti-bullying effort. That is why they are being “called out” in this particular circumstance.
To make the drastic changes that need to happen for our youth in the necessary amount of time to to really save lives would take not only a partnership but also a commitment for all involved to show not only our words and pockets are important but our actions must truly change as well.
Our children are our future and each of them should have our commitment we are looking out for them equally and individually.
one thing though If WWE was so Homophobic why would Pat Patterson who is a Openly Gay wrestling legend work for them for the past 30 years plus????
1. This article generated the most insulting and patronizing comments I have received for anything I have written. I am not complaining about it, it's a possibility whenever you put your opinions out there--but it's interesting to note.
2. In the comments, I am consistently referred to as a journalist. This needs clarification. Many of the people who write for the Huffington Post are not journalists. Instead, we are advocates with a specialized expertise in a given subject. In this case, mine is education and media literacy because I teach children and teens about bullying prevention. Huffington makes this clear by identifying our professions under our name.
3. The most intense comments accuse me of two things: not understanding what entertainment is and the age of the videos. In my next article I'll respond to both issues but suffice to say it is easy to find videos from 2008-2010 that fit the concerns I raised in the article. It is frustrating to get these complaints because I do define the nature of these scripts in the beginning of the article and I hyperlinked current videos.
So I will try again and look forward to seeing if people are more clear about why I am raising the issue of an educational organization working with WWE.
Also who cares what their motive is? As Nick Nolte's character says to Ralph Macchio's character in the movie "Teachers" (cult classic) when Ralph's character asks him why he is trying to help him and what he (Nolte's character) is getting out of this", the teacher responds "does it matter?". The point being is if something positive is being done by somebody for the good, then why is motive an issue?? If a person donates 1 million dollars to give aid to disadvantaged youth because he/she wants to feel like a big shot, is it still not a great positive?? Do you think the people benefitting from this care, that his/her motives might not be absolutely pure?
Also besides physical bullying, there is extreme mental bullying, which in a lot of ways is worse. One could say "intellectual bullying". Calling somebody stupid, making fun of a stutter, etc, etc. IMO you are guilty of this in your article. You make claims about what WWE does, (which of course you figure out because of your intellectual superiority), but people that watch the WWE lose the ability to understand the consequences of violence. Your words marginalize the viewers (bullying).
That's they key.
In any movie that features a message, there is a character who contradicts it. That's the point. In the movie in question "That's What I Am," there are characters who DO bully. hey are the antagonist. They are there so the audience can see what the issue is. In wrestling, the villian is known ans the "heel" and the good-guy is the "face." So when a heel does the bad things that they do, it is so we dislike them. We have a character that we activly dislike, so when they do something bad, we boo them. WWE is not promoting bullying, violence to women, homophobia, ect. They are fighting it, as its the bad guy who does these things. Then, typically in a match, the good-guy defeated the heel. Thus, whoever the heel hurt was avenged, and the heel got his comeuppance.
Think of ANY movie with a message. There was a character that believed the opposite. The same is true in wrestling.
Ho-hum.
The price one pays for thinking in our society: you must deal with the ridiculous outrage of those who do not.
This is Huffington Post, which is mainstream America, which is anti-intellectual. Give them videos of Beyonce falling on stage, do not give them thinking!
While I am not a fan of WWE nor have I studied closely its the historical shifts over the past few years, it seems that a lot of people knowledgeable about such things are pretty certain that they've changed their image in the past 3 or 4 years. Which is something that you point out in your article, but still use old videos. I, for one, do not see the big deal about using videos a few years old, as long as they are contextualized and you also include newer videos to supplement them. The videos you posted create an important context of whatever the 'new' WWE has grown out of. Maybe it has tamed, but can anyone really say that it does not still reproduce the (socially constructed) link between violence and 'masculinity'? Between 'masculinity', heteronormativity, and violence against women?
I value honesty and integrity over intelligence every day and twice on Sunday. It is not that I don't value intelligence. I just don't measure a person's self worth like you do, based on that trait alone. Honesty and integrity are more important IMO.
And you're pretty presumptuous to think that I only value intelligence. If you sharpened your reading skills, my post would reveal to you that I also value integrity and social justice (not the only two things I value, just the two obvious things that jump out in my post).
Thank you, though, for making assumptions about my insecurities or likeability factor. It rather demonstrates that you think rather highly of yourself and your snap judgments about people.
1) Is there any irony is going after a company that is promoting anti-bullying messages, when that seems to be something you promote?
2) Are you really trying to dissect the significance of men that beat each other with chairs and do moves like the inverted atomic drop, the choke slam, and top rope elbow drop? I mean seriously? Really?
3) The first video you used needs to be removed, as it has been doctored. Why are you using doctored videos that I can expose as fake with literally 1 minute of research?
4) Villains usually do terrible stuff. Because they are villains. I mean.......
[sigh]