You're very upset at WWE. You say it's a terrible company. Can I assume you are done watching it?
Actually, yes. After the segment, I turned it over to football; I don't care if the game is miserable, I'd rather watch that than a company that has no clue how to present a tasteful show.
Stop giving wrestling a pass, just because it's wrestling; I get your point that this has happened in wrestling before, but just because it's wrestling, doesn't mean it still isn't at the very least, somewhat poor in taste.
Let's look at that footage we saw that showed Jerry's heart attack backstage. Did we need to see that? And what if the man passed that night? It all seems just in poor taste, again; I'd say the same thing about any programming. There was once a movie called Game of Death, which featured real life footage of Bruce Lee's funeral, and guess what? It was heavily criticized, and considered to be in bad taste.
Wrestling is a quasi-sport. It's presented as real.
Sitcoms, on the other hand, are scripted television shows. They are presented as fake.
Then, we have a great moment of Jerry Lawler; again, why can't we just leave the moment as is? No, we have to make death puns. Death puns, nine weeks after the mans life was literally hanging in the balance. Again, what do they get out of this? What's to gain from any of this?
Then, we have Paul Heyman mocking, rather uncomfortably mind you, a heart attack in the ring. Fine, let's just say that King's ok with it. What about the audience, who just witnessed nine weeks ago this man almost die? What about the (Yes, I hate pulling this out) kids, who don't quite understand the concept of death or dying, who almost saw a man die on live tv? The kids, mind you, that WWE is supposed to be
marketing its product to, no?
Again, I'm asking you the same thing that I still don't think you can answer; what does WWE gain from this?