Don't we always jump to the "being worked" idea and are more often than not wrong? We are so close to Wrestlemania. Why would they remove their 2nd biggest draw (arguably) from storyline, live TV, and live events?
That makes no sense at all.
Disclaimer: Everything I'm saying here applies to me. When I say "we," I'm including myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It would be ballsy for the WWE to keep Punk off television for the 4-5 weeks leading into the final countdown to WrestleMania. It wouldn't make sense. But it could be huge...
I'm going to refer to Punk as Phil Brooks for a bit because I'm not talking about the character; I'm talking about the person. We know Phil Brooks has an issue with the WWE pushing big guys at the expense of smaller guys. We know that he has an issue with part-timers coming back and immediately being inserted into the WrestleMania main event. Furthermore, we like to believe that Phil Brooks wants to make his segments, his angles, more believable than the rest.
Given that the two issues we know he's had in the past are currently at work - Bryan being held down, Batista returning for the WrestleMania main event - it's not terribly far-fetched that he'd have issues with the company right now. Now, could CM Punk have come out Monday night, stated his peace, quit the company, and walked off stage? Sure. But the character has pretty much already done that in the past. Doing it again would seem repetitive, right?
It's possible that they've chosen to do it differently this time and to add a different level of realness to it. Keep Punk off TV for a few weeks, leak a story that he's quit the company as opposed to showing it on TV, and when he comes back (Raw in Chicago March 3?), it'll be unexpected and huge.
So why do we choose to believe that? Well, it comes down to our biases. We like CM Punk because he has a history of saying what most of are thinking. So when a story like this comes out, a story that actually shows him in a very negative light, we flip that story to fit our bias. "CM Punk didn't walk out on the company," we tell ourselves. "He's just working us. He's such a genius!"
It's not the first time we've used our bias to support or reject a report. It's not even the first time we've done that this week. Keep in mind that you're talking to a group of people that choose to believe Daniel Bryan was kept from the Royal Rumble match because the guys in charge don't want to admit that a smaller wrestler who doesn't fit their mold is currently their biggest star. So when news came out yesterday that this wasn't the case, that Bryan was kept from the Rumble match to further the story, we referenced our biases that said "The WWE really doesn't have a clue," and it led us to the conclusion that the report was bullshit.
If we eliminated those biases, then it might actually be believable that the WWE is simply making us want Bryan more - that they caught on to the fact that the YES chants get louder each time the fans perceive their guy has been slighted by the real-life powers that be. And so they're growing that phenomena by appealing to the real-life biases the fans have of the WWE's booking decisions. They know we don't think they know what they're doing. And by giving us stories that don't mesh with what we want, they could be playing off the perception we have of them. If that's the case, then well done, WWE - I fell for it.
...but then again, Fuck Triple H and his inability to do the right thing. Our bias says he's stupid, and by God, we're gonna filter these reports through those biases!