This is why I have no real issues with it, but there will always be folks who still think it is politically incorrect. Just because something taken from real life is mocked in a story line that doesn't mean that that's how anyone in the show truly feels about it. The issue of the heart attack has now become a part of a fictitious story that is turning it into something else entirely. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's messed up to mock someone who had a heart attack generally, but at this rate it's just actors playing their parts now. To those who do take this personally, you had might as well think that Jerry, himself, is messed up for allowing a storyline to be based off of something tragic like this and then that leaves you with no one to feel sorry for really. Maybe Lawler IS messed up individual. Maybe he just cares about the business and KNOWS that it's all acting at this point, now. Either way, it was good drama.
Even if it is actors playing a part, the issue is that they decided to go down that road in the first place. It just gives the company this slimy look when they take the near death experience of one of their most famous, loyal and long time workers and try to make money off of it. That goes for everything-the t-shirts they made, the footage of Lawler they kept replaying showing him passing out and making it into an angle. Regardless if Lawler WAS cool with it, they're trying to push a story where he WASN'T cool with it. They don't see Jerry on screen saying "yeah, its cool, I don't mind." On top of that, even if he was ok with it, that doesn't mean there are people in the audience who are. What about the people watching at home who have had friends or family who have died of a heart attack, then they see WWE making fun of it for the purpose of making money. I just get kind of turned off by all of it, not because I'm offended, but its more due to the fact that its a sign that they can't use legitimate, tactful means of getting heat. It comes across as a sign of desperation that they're willing to go to very questionable extremes in order to advance the product. Time and time again they've proven they can keep things tasteful and succeed, and then every so often they bust something like this out, and I have to wonder why. It could have been achieved another way, and instead the way they chose comes across as very low class-hence why people here are referring to it as cheap heat. Its a shortcut guaranteed to work, but they're treading touchy waters. Does the end justify the means? I don't think so. They had the ability to work around this and find another equally, if not more, effective way that they could have used to display their creativity. It wasn't like this was the ONLY way to go. The fact that they did makes it seem like they're grasping for anything that will work, and if its easier, all the better, regardless if that method is pretty apparently offensive to a lot of people.