Exposing The AEW Bias Myth
Bias is distinct from opinion because bias by definition is an unfair prejudice. The thing is, it is impossible to analyse AEW and WWE from the some good-faith perspective. That prejudice preexists because WWE has conditioned it for years, if not decades.
Say, as an example, both AEW and WWE initiate the push of a new performer on the same week of television. AEW’s new act will receive far less cynicism than WWE’s new act. WWE’s new act will be met with caution—when will WWE abort the push, and how can we even look forward to it in the first place?—and AEW’s act will be talked about as a prospect.
On a fundamental level, this is unfair. Biased. We don’t know for certain where these arcs are headed. But years and years of aborted storyline developments have led us to this slanted vantage point. Humberto Carillo, the latest example, already feels like an also-ran. Contrast him with Darby Allin, because there is no comparison.
The ‘But if WWE did it…!’ line of inquiry is insufferable. There is no double standard here, and if there is, it’s because AEW has earned this grace period. It hasn’t yet created a roster of men and women who are barely over through various symptoms of institutional rot. AEW and WWE are not treated equally because they are not equal. Thats the TL;DR of all of this.
Say those aforementioned examples are biased, and they may well be. They were selected for the express purpose of making a specific point, and so the narrative was in some way controlled to validate it.
It would be impossible for a robot programmed to analyse only the strictest, most objective, computable data in good faith.
CONT'D...(3 of 5)