And on a more serious, angry-making, note:
Like the subject line says, this is mostly for Americans, but if you're outside the States, and gotten wind of this story, I'd like your take on all of this, too.
So, background, in case anyone doesn't know: Michael Vick is (was) a quarterback (the most glamourous of positions), in the National Football League. And this year, it was discovered that, when he wasn't playing football, he was running an interstate dogfighting ring; some of the people involved, his family members were also tied up with illegal drug sales, and other thuggishness. Vick himself personally put money up for his friends to bet on the fights, and personally shot, drowned, or hung dogs who didn't mesuure up as good fighting material. He's plead guilty, and is awaiting sentancing. Oh, and up until now, Michael Vick had been the "local golden boy hero;" his football career started in high school not far from here, so that adds a whole quirky angle to this...
How is this being covered where you are, if it's being covered at all?
Around here, the main points of discussion have been around the sports ethics of it -- whether he violated any anti-gambling codes by betting on the fights themselves, or if he "only" gave money to his friends, so they could bet. There's also been speculation about whether he'll be able to return to football after he gets out of jail. There's also brief, sentimental reaction to the issue of cruelty to dogs, but that's like an after-thought (oh, and of course, every report about this story has got to include his supporters, who complain that the media are bringing bad attention to this quiet hometown, and Michael Vick isn't so bad, really).
I have not heard one person bring up the fact that cruelty to animals, especially systematic cruelty, is indicative of violent anti-social behavior against humans: It's grown men, drunk on testosterone, getting their jollies out of causing pain to those who can't fight back. This is just one more example, if you ask me, of the underlying culture of violence that's supported and encouraged in Anerican Football, and yet, there's been not one peep. At least, not on any media outlets around here.
Compare that to the furore that rose up after Janet Jackson's tit slipped
out of her dress during that half-time show, and how, for weeks, people were talking about culture in football that objectifies women, and how the FCC went batsh*t crazy with cracking down on any hint of "obscenity," and threatened to fine televisions out of existance, etc., etc..
Yes, I know it's not like our culture condones dogfighting, and the sponsors dropped Vick faster than a radioactive potato laced with anthrax. And yes, he will be going to jail... But, it just feels like, to me, the outrage seems just ever so slightly misplaced, and out of proportion...
And I was just wondering if this was a Southern/Virginia thing, or an Amerimcan thing, or a Twenty-first Centuray-Corporations are the new stewards of morality thing, or what...
(btw, this is the angrienst icon I've got. And it's not nearly angry enough.
Like the subject line says, this is mostly for Americans, but if you're outside the States, and gotten wind of this story, I'd like your take on all of this, too.
So, background, in case anyone doesn't know: Michael Vick is (was) a quarterback (the most glamourous of positions), in the National Football League. And this year, it was discovered that, when he wasn't playing football, he was running an interstate dogfighting ring; some of the people involved, his family members were also tied up with illegal drug sales, and other thuggishness. Vick himself personally put money up for his friends to bet on the fights, and personally shot, drowned, or hung dogs who didn't mesuure up as good fighting material. He's plead guilty, and is awaiting sentancing. Oh, and up until now, Michael Vick had been the "local golden boy hero;" his football career started in high school not far from here, so that adds a whole quirky angle to this...
How is this being covered where you are, if it's being covered at all?
Around here, the main points of discussion have been around the sports ethics of it -- whether he violated any anti-gambling codes by betting on the fights themselves, or if he "only" gave money to his friends, so they could bet. There's also been speculation about whether he'll be able to return to football after he gets out of jail. There's also brief, sentimental reaction to the issue of cruelty to dogs, but that's like an after-thought (oh, and of course, every report about this story has got to include his supporters, who complain that the media are bringing bad attention to this quiet hometown, and Michael Vick isn't so bad, really).
I have not heard one person bring up the fact that cruelty to animals, especially systematic cruelty, is indicative of violent anti-social behavior against humans: It's grown men, drunk on testosterone, getting their jollies out of causing pain to those who can't fight back. This is just one more example, if you ask me, of the underlying culture of violence that's supported and encouraged in Anerican Football, and yet, there's been not one peep. At least, not on any media outlets around here.
Compare that to the furore that rose up after Janet Jackson's tit slipped
out of her dress during that half-time show, and how, for weeks, people were talking about culture in football that objectifies women, and how the FCC went batsh*t crazy with cracking down on any hint of "obscenity," and threatened to fine televisions out of existance, etc., etc..
Yes, I know it's not like our culture condones dogfighting, and the sponsors dropped Vick faster than a radioactive potato laced with anthrax. And yes, he will be going to jail... But, it just feels like, to me, the outrage seems just ever so slightly misplaced, and out of proportion...
And I was just wondering if this was a Southern/Virginia thing, or an Amerimcan thing, or a Twenty-first Centuray-Corporations are the new stewards of morality thing, or what...
(btw, this is the angrienst icon I've got. And it's not nearly angry enough.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 12:21 am (UTC)I have to admit, I've become a media hermit. I used to be a CNN junkie; now I turn it on only as I'm flipping through channels on the remote, and even that doesn't happen any too often anymore. I first heard about the whole thing when I got an email from the Humane Society. I was horrified. My mom is a football fan and commented to me that nobody else runs like Vick does, but frankly, I don't think that's germane to the argument and I told her so. She, fortunately, agreed, but she said it's a shame that someone as talented as he apparently is would do something so stupid and so cruel.
The treatment of animals is utterly appalling and I still wish I hadn't read about some of the things he did. :( And I agree with you about the Janet Jackson fiasco comparison. We have our priorities seriously out of whack in this country.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 12:48 am (UTC)That's just it, though. It's not just one person being stupid and cruel -- Vick was at the center of a multi-state dogfighting ring. It's a whole subculture. And the thing about subcultures? They only exist because of the dominant culture. And it's the fact that that is going completely unquestioned that bothers me. The "public outcry" about this seems to be limited to: "tsk. tsk. Don't you know people won't like you very much, if you hurt the cute little puppies?" But there's no examination of how a person can grow up in a supposedly civilized society, and come out the other end thinking of this kind of thing as "fun."
Vick's personal fate in all of this concerns me far less than the fate of our collective mores.
ugh. I just don't have the words for what I'm concerened about...
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 01:26 am (UTC)Exactly. And then, coverage of the issue is relegated to the sports or celebrity segments.
I saw a recent interview segment on the news where they brought in an expert to dissect and evaluate Vick's public image in all of this, and whether he wore a pinstripe suit to the courtroom, or not, and whether his shoulders sagged when he made his public apology.
Where are the psychologists being interviewed, talking about the culture of violence behind this? And how to talk to kids about violence as entertainment (I can't help but think about after-school playground fights, and how bystanders often get a thrill out of them, even in grade school)?
Who knows how many other such rings are out there, under the radar?
I know. :::Shudder::: And it's the dogs who get the blame.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 03:21 am (UTC)Vick's personal fate in all of this concerns me far less than the fate of our collective mores.
ugh. I just don't have the words for what I'm concerened about...
I think those are very good words. I understand, and I feel exactly the same way.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 04:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 01:30 am (UTC)Not just that. Violent tendancies are actually tacitly praised and rewarded, under the guise of "competitive spirit."
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 03:00 am (UTC)But, as wrong as that is, I can understand why some pampered golden-boy stars don't get it. They've got their world deliberately skewed.
Won't I don't understand is why, at least in this case, no one is calling them on it. No one is speaking out about the hypocracy and sheer callousness toward life.
You know, right next to this text window is a link to that Irish Proverbs page. One of the proverbs I remember is: "You hit my dog, you hit me."
(Oh, and vengeful forest god is appropriate, here).
GGGGRRRRRRR!
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 03:19 am (UTC)I haven't heard any angry feminists in the mainstream media making the connection between sports and the culture of male violence.
You might enjoy this. Please ignore the comments, YouTube is the worst cesspool of unmoderated ignorance there is, and not worth wasting heartbeats over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVVc-KHoa68
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 04:01 am (UTC)Okay. Than answers my initial question over how this story is being covered in other areas. Because, in the media here, he's barely even being criticized over being a bad role model.
And this morning, while flipping the channel, I happened to catch Whoopi Goldberg's debut on The View. She basically said: "What do you expect? He's from the Deep South, and that's just how those people think, down there..." Later, I caught the opening teaser for the 5:00 news on the same channel. And of course, Whoopi's comment was the first thing mentioned.
The Anchor's words: "Whoopi Goldberg comes to Michael Vick's defense, today..." (While I was expecting something more along the lines of: "Whoopi Goldberg leveled an insult against our local community..." [especially since she made a direct comparison between here and New York City]).
So maybe Ms. Goldberg has a point...
...oh, and I haven't heard any angry feminists in the mainstream media, period. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 07:56 am (UTC)No celebrities involved, and some quite disturbing filmed images.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 02:17 pm (UTC)Interesting that they chose to emphesise that -- going back to old feelings of "Those Other People are so Barbaric -- not like us!" (a bit like Goldberg's comment re: the "Deep South."
no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-05 02:30 pm (UTC)I'm thinking Nemesis hurling a lightning bolt, or something...