WWF Magazine: the bastion of journalistic integrity
By Scott Keith on 2 January 2022
Of course, the only thing real about the articles in WWF Magazine were that they used real English words, and were printed on real paper in real magazine format. What I'm wondering about were the bylines of those articles: was the attributed staff legitimate
in the sense that they were specifically tasked with putting together the magazine (without the burden of actual journalistic credentials, of course)? Were those bylines fictitious writers, a la Matt Brock? Were they the names of actual people who worked
for the company in a backstage/front office role that they used to provide the “identities” of the “reporters” and “writers” of the articles?
in the sense that they were specifically tasked with putting together the magazine (without the burden of actual journalistic credentials, of course)? Were those bylines fictitious writers, a la Matt Brock? Were they the names of actual people who worked
for the company in a backstage/front office role that they used to provide the “identities” of the “reporters” and “writers” of the articles?
Related question: one of the recurring columns was “Brainstorms” where Heenan took a series of potshots at the various babyface wrestlers (and Mike McGuirk, can't forget). Was that also a case of the magazine people attempting to Rich Little the Brain, or
did they somehow get Bobby to pen those one-liners himself? My inclination is that Heenan had better things to do, but I do recall getting a chuckle out of few of those, so maybe (probably not)?
I believe that the WWF Magazine stuff was mostly written by whoever was the “editor” at the time under pseudonyms, like the period where Russo was in charge of the magazine, but I have no solid proof of that. I've certainly never heard of anyone claiming to be a former writer for the magazine, I'll tell you what.