jbl was on the howard stern show this morning, talking about cnbc.
and, y'know what? after hearing his side, i kinda agree with him.
like many of you, i don't like bradshaw -- not the guy, but the wrestler. i think its very lame. he's like a poor man's vince (or a poor wrasslin promotion's vince). he's not very intimidating looking, can't really seem to wrestle all that well... and i think it really removes eddie's credability.
so, in that regard, i think he's a tool.
but in this case, i think cnbc was wrong.
they essentially dropped him because he is an actor playing a role. a cruel role in a public manner, but a role none the less. his on-screen persona is not indicative of his off-screen life, just as his on-wwe-screen persona is not indicative of his on-cnbc-screen persona.
the example he gave, which i feel makes sense, is an advertising company dropping anthony hopkins because he portrayed hannibal lector. or any of the actors for portraying nazis in "the pianist" (etc)
thats a big, and legitamate gripe.
but not the only one.
the other aspects about cnbc dropping jbl over this incident is the fact that they didn't drop him for any other reason. his regular ass hole tactics were, apparently, fine. his sneak attacks on already injured wrestlers were fine. his constant racism towards eddie and belittling mexicans or latinos in general were fine.
after hearing the interview, it really seems like all cnbc had to do was issue a press release, clarifying that the wwe bradshaw and cnbc bradshaw were two different people
