Jerry Lawler is a man recovering from a heart attack that almost killed him, one that happened on live television, even. Of all the people who should be hawking greasy fast food, you'd think Lawler wouldn't be one of them, but on Monday Night RAW, there he was, with a tray of victuals from Sonic right in front of him. The serving size was meant for both him and Michael Cole, but no one was going to take food away from Lawler. No one. Predictably, it got a rise out of Wrestling Twitter when it happened, with the average tweet reading "He just had a heart attack, he shouldn't be eating that."
From a nutritional standpoint, it's probably inadvisable for Lawler to be eating such wares laden in the kinds of fats that may have given him his heart attack in the first place. It would be one thing if he had the food shoved in front of his face by a callous, profit-driven Vince McMahon, but hey, look, here's a photo snapped by former manager and longtime Lawler friend Scott Bowdenjust days after the King was released from the hospital two months before being admitted (kinda muddles the point I'm about to make... huge apologies here):
From a nutritional standpoint, it's probably inadvisable for Lawler to be eating such wares laden in the kinds of fats that may have given him his heart attack in the first place. It would be one thing if he had the food shoved in front of his face by a callous, profit-driven Vince McMahon, but hey, look, here's a photo snapped by former manager and longtime Lawler friend Scott Bowden
 |
| Photo Credit: Scott Bowden |
The amount of fucks seemed to be given by Lawler in this picture are an integer between 1 and negative 1. Obviously, it is Lawler's body. He can do whatever he so pleases to do with it, no matter how destructive it is to himself. If the man is comfortable risking repeat infarctions to his myocardia, then hey, he should be able to eat all the cheeseburgers, popcorn chicken, and sweet potato tots he likes, right? Well yeah, that's true, but at the same time, there's one big thing at play here, and that's responsibility towards the audience at large.
It would be one thing if Lawler's assumed gluttonous consumption was part of a story or if it was even something along the lines of the above Twitter picture, a man, in a personal setting, living his life. I can think whatever I want to think about his personal choices, but he's free to do what he wants. The display skit on RAW was pure advertising, though, using a heart attack victim's inability to share a meal for two with his broadcast colleague to hawk food that decidedly isn't healthy in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure what kind of message that sends, but I doubt it's responsible.
Now, here's the tricky part of the whole debate. Is it up to the advertiser to practice forbearance, or is it the personal responsibility of the people the advertisement is aimed at? In a better world than the one we live in, it'd be one-hundred percent on the latter. I do think that parents should have a better handle on what they watch on TV so that they can explain to their children why advertising ploys like that are cheap. But those ploys work because adults don't really see the danger in using a recent heart attack victim shill glomming up fried foods like they were going out of style.
It'd be too easy and also incorrect to blame Lawler for this, because the man is dead set in his habits, regardless of things that might befall his health as a consequence. If you put food he likes in front of him, of course he's going to play along willingly. It's whosever idea it was to use that scenario in the first place that should be questioned for their tactics, whether it be someone in WWE or at Sonic.
Lawler is a grown-ass man who is going to do what he wants regardless of how responsible or irresponsible it is. As a lesson, we should be allowed to explore and embrace our personal freedoms, which would make it seem like this whole thing is much ado about nothing. However, exploration of those freedoms can only come without coercion, and the whole display on RAW to me felt manipulative. If Lawler wants to eat unhealthily and risk ending his life prematurely, that's well within his right. I just don't feel comfortable using that attitude as an advertising pitch.
ETA: According to Bowden on Twitter, Lawler is trying to change his diet, although the direct quote is "Fried chicken is like crack to some." So, Lawler IS trying to eat healthier, which only really intensifies the scrutiny on those who came up with this idea in the first place.
It would be one thing if Lawler's assumed gluttonous consumption was part of a story or if it was even something along the lines of the above Twitter picture, a man, in a personal setting, living his life. I can think whatever I want to think about his personal choices, but he's free to do what he wants. The display skit on RAW was pure advertising, though, using a heart attack victim's inability to share a meal for two with his broadcast colleague to hawk food that decidedly isn't healthy in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure what kind of message that sends, but I doubt it's responsible.
Now, here's the tricky part of the whole debate. Is it up to the advertiser to practice forbearance, or is it the personal responsibility of the people the advertisement is aimed at? In a better world than the one we live in, it'd be one-hundred percent on the latter. I do think that parents should have a better handle on what they watch on TV so that they can explain to their children why advertising ploys like that are cheap. But those ploys work because adults don't really see the danger in using a recent heart attack victim shill glomming up fried foods like they were going out of style.
It'd be too easy and also incorrect to blame Lawler for this, because the man is dead set in his habits, regardless of things that might befall his health as a consequence. If you put food he likes in front of him, of course he's going to play along willingly. It's whosever idea it was to use that scenario in the first place that should be questioned for their tactics, whether it be someone in WWE or at Sonic.
Lawler is a grown-ass man who is going to do what he wants regardless of how responsible or irresponsible it is. As a lesson, we should be allowed to explore and embrace our personal freedoms, which would make it seem like this whole thing is much ado about nothing. However, exploration of those freedoms can only come without coercion, and the whole display on RAW to me felt manipulative. If Lawler wants to eat unhealthily and risk ending his life prematurely, that's well within his right. I just don't feel comfortable using that attitude as an advertising pitch.
ETA: According to Bowden on Twitter, Lawler is trying to change his diet, although the direct quote is "Fried chicken is like crack to some." So, Lawler IS trying to eat healthier, which only really intensifies the scrutiny on those who came up with this idea in the first place.