Let me be clear before I begin. Dogfighting is awful. It’s barbaric, stupid, and wrong, and I don’t condone it.
Okay. That’s part of the problem with the Michael Vick saga – anyone willing to spout off (and believe me, uninformed sportswriters masquerading as magistrates are legion) needs to offer a disclaimer on dogfighting, lest you irk any masses. Yes, Michael Vick is probably a bad guy, a moron, a jerk, and possibly even a criminal. We got it.
But here’s what gets me about the whole thing – isn’t the outrage (and, yes, dog lovers, it’s justified) a little misplaced when Vick’s circumstances are (a) discussed within the confines of his NFL career, or (b) juxtaposed with other sordid athlete crimes?
For example, let’s take (a). For weeks now we’ve watched talking heads parade on TV, wondering aloud whether or not the NFL would suspend Vick. Even more ridiculous are the assertions that “Vick needs to take time off” to “defend his case.”
Oh, really. A multimillionaire athlete dumb enough to associate with a dogfighting ring is going to – what, exactly, during his self-imposed legal hiatus? Write amicus briefs? Research case law? Seriously. Michael Vick supposedly wants to play – and well he should. He’s not occupied with his own case in any form other than as a warm body. And secondly, it may be his last chance.
But no, we get sportswriters chomping at the bit (sorry), hopeful of a suspension or a conviction or at least some form of story other than wild speculation. And more specifically, the standard finger-wagging at the very prospect of dogfighting. I’m not going to link to anything. You’ve no doubt become saturated with it all, from the WWL-imposed talking points on Mike-and-Mike to the numerous blogs on AOL Sports to the actual indictment on Smoking Gun, and to its penetration of mainstream media like Newsweek. You can find it yourself, if you’re not already burnt out.
But the finger-wagging, disclaimers, outrage, and war cries hint at my second point, or, more appropriately, my question. What is up with the overstuffed outrage at a dogfighting indictment (Remember, I think it’s wrong, too), but when an NBA star is accused of rape, barely an eyelash is battered. Remember Kobe Bryant? He was barely put through the wringer even early on (except by Nike and Sprite), and considered a hero during the season simply for flying back and forth between court hearings and game nights. I cannot stress how misplaced that was. Ridiculous.
And with just a cursory glance up and down sports Web sites, it seems though Vick is a villain unlike any other athlete. Worse than two-time DUI offender and vehicular homicide offender Leonard Little. Worse than habitual wife beater Lawrence Phillips. A slight tier below accused murderer O.J. Simpson and well below convicted murderer Rae Carruth. And certainly worse than accused rapist Kobe Bryant.
I pose the question – why, exactly, is that? Why is it that we scoff at person-felonies, particularly against women, denoting them as superfluous mistakes made by athletes – but the meatheaded Vick is now excoriated as the villain of the century for bankrolling (maybe) a crude, pet-fighting ring?
And don’t assume that it’s because Bryant was acquitted (he wasn’t) or pleaded; or that Little was exonerated (he wasn’t). At this stage of the story, Vick and Bryant were in similar predicaments – both accused, both stripped of endorsements, both facing myriad speculation of prison time or worse yet – League-imposed suspension!
But now, it’s four years later for Bryant, and he’s Nike’s guy again. More popular than ever. And, like Little - he’s still playing. Will the same be said for Vick? And if not, does it really speak to the public’s balance or perception between (crimes like) dogfighting and (crimes like) rape? Seriously, which is worse?
I know what I think is worse. But I don’t have the answer or insight into the media frenzy. And wearily, I hope the mere question doesn’t paint me as callous, indifferent, a moron, or a dog-hater. I’m none. I’m just pleading for some perspective, personally.
I know, I know, in a world without any. You got me.
Maybe the difference in the media’s treatment of Kobe and Vick has less to do with the respective crimes alleged and more to do with the differences between the men’s images going into their respective scandals. Kobe cultivated an image that, let’s say, played well in Peoria. Vick, not so much. I’m definitely not saying different treatment based solely on reputation is justified, but when you are analyzing the sports side of the world of infotainment, the goal is selling ads. At the totally hypothetical watercooler, saying, “I don’t know what to think about this Kobe guy,” is less satisfying than, “I told you that Vick is no good.” And isn’t it all about that fabled watercooler? Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with you that rape, alleged or otherwise, is much worse, but don’t forget that dog is man’s best friend.
That makes sense. I don’t even have a response here. But yeah, that’s a stereotypical sports fan, I suppose, full of false bravado: “What kind of low-class jerk kills a puppy?” alongside “That flirty chick had it coming!”