Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?  (Read 7952 times)

Kirk Lazarus

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2042
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #50 on: July 29, 2007, 09:54:12 AM »
This entire thread is silly. People are confusing the federal government's time spent on the case, which is their job, with the media coverage spent on the job. People are ignoring PETA is a special interest group when that same group lobbies for less killing of animals for food. People are ignoring that Darfur, African Issues, etc have their own special interest groups providing money, resources and manpower to those causes.

What we really have in this thread is a bunch of people detailing their own subjective views about what they believe is important and what the media should focus on when it reality at different times the media has focused extensively on every issue brought up in this thread. Michael Vick is a major sports star who is charged with, in my opinion, a very serious crime. It deserves attention. Incidentally, this thread is also engaging in a bit of hyperbole because Michael Vick was only the top story for 2 days and since then people talk about it, but there aren't special reports and minute to minute coverage of the case like you would expect the way people are talking in this thread.
YLS c/o 2009

Pulchritudinous Male

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #51 on: July 29, 2007, 10:17:48 AM »
I've seen far more trivial threads made in BLSD that have went on to 20 or so pages in the last two years that I've visited this site. Just thought I'd add that.

Kirk Lazarus

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2042
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2007, 10:19:39 AM »
I've seen far more trivial threads made in BLSD that have went on to 20 or so pages in the last two years that I've visited this site. Just thought I'd add that.

I don't think the thread is trivial. I just don't think Vick is taking time away from other more important causes or that he's a black man being targeted or because I eat hamburgers I can't be disgusted at a guy who electrocutes and drowns dogs.
YLS c/o 2009

Pulchritudinous Male

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2007, 10:42:56 AM »
I've seen far more trivial threads made in BLSD that have went on to 20 or so pages in the last two years that I've visited this site. Just thought I'd add that.

I don't think the thread is trivial. I just don't think Vick is taking time away from other more important causes or that he's a black man being targeted or because I eat hamburgers I can't be disgusted at a guy who electrocutes and drowns dogs.

Ahh, I understand where you are coming from now. 

Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 753
  • Exhibiting the discipline necessary for Law School
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2007, 01:23:35 PM »
I've seen far more trivial threads made in BLSD that have went on to 20 or so pages in the last two years that I've visited this site. Just thought I'd add that.

I don't think the thread is trivial. I just don't think Vick is taking time away from other more important causes or that he's a black man being targeted or because I eat hamburgers I can't be disgusted at a guy who electrocutes and drowns dogs.

Ahh, I understand where you are coming from now. 

but before vick it was lohan, then brittney then paris then Anna Nicole and they are all just jumbled into one blob of fluff that does take time away from real issues.  clearly.  if you have an hour news show and 15-20 minutes of each of them are illustrating the latest celebrity screw up time is being taken from more important issues.  Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

I would say the medias coverage of lohan and them serve a role.  It does make people aware and are sort of a time capsule of bad things people in our generation go through, but the latter point is not redeeming in and of itself, and with the former point, every chance the media gets to educate and make people aware they fail miserably and turn it into a crash scene sideshow.  Plus they could educate without the use of celebs if our culture wasnt so far gone from that crap to begin with.

Also, I think Vick being black has influenced coverage of this.  I wouldnt say hes being targeted, but I think there is alot of vitriol in the other side that would not be there if Vick were not black.  What Vick is accused of is bad, but people have done alot worse things without being called heinous in the accusation stage.     



 
The Tragicomic: Itís embodied in the blues, jazz, (HIP HOP, CORNELL <<one slight deserves another!!!!<< REALLY MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT ONE!!!) and the African experience in the New World -- the ability to withstand terrorism, embrace oneís worst enemies lovingly and bear the unbearable in song.

Rule of Reason

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #55 on: July 29, 2007, 02:23:51 PM »
Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

There's a reason they're giving Vick attention and I think it serves an important purpose: I think it is gettting us to engage in a discussion of policy (among other things).  The feds indicted him. The media's making an example of it. Regardless of what happens from here, he's a "fall-guy" of sorts. The news articles aren't breaking down the facts and matching them to the law piece-by-piece... instead, they're showing us this "example" of dog-fighting charges placed against a nat'l icon, and getting us to provide/consider the more metaphysical components of this story. I would think that in at least some way, our reaction (as expressed through the media) is going to impact the law as it is applied in the future. (similar situation with political corruption scandals, etc...) This might sound like too strong of a statement, but I think it makes sense--- if you disagree, I'd like to see why...

Now, as to the seriousness of the issue I guess I half-way concede.  There is certainly more newsworthy content with less coverage, and our need to SELL the news by emotional appeal, etc. can backfire in this respect. On the flip-side, I think the media is taking an interest in this particular sub-culture that has not previously received much attention (and they are now using Vick to sell it), and while they're stirring things up btw various interest groups, law enforcement agencies, scholars, etc... they ARE bringing about some discourse. Also, probably another theme they're onto in addition to dogfighting is "professional sports + gambling..."


Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 753
  • Exhibiting the discipline necessary for Law School
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2007, 03:29:13 PM »
Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

There's a reason they're giving Vick attention and I think it serves an important purpose: I think it is gettting us to engage in a discussion of policy (among other things).  The feds indicted him. The media's making an example of it. Regardless of what happens from here, he's a "fall-guy" of sorts. The news articles aren't breaking down the facts and matching them to the law piece-by-piece... instead, they're showing us this "example" of dog-fighting charges placed against a nat'l icon, and getting us to provide/consider the more metaphysical components of this story. I would think that in at least some way, our reaction (as expressed through the media) is going to impact the law as it is applied in the future. (similar situation with political corruption scandals, etc...) This might sound like too strong of a statement, but I think it makes sense--- if you disagree, I'd like to see why...

Now, as to the seriousness of the issue I guess I half-way concede.  There is certainly more newsworthy content with less coverage, and our need to SELL the news by emotional appeal, etc. can backfire in this respect. On the flip-side, I think the media is taking an interest in this particular sub-culture that has not previously received much attention (and they are now using Vick to sell it), and while they're stirring things up btw various interest groups, law enforcement agencies, scholars, etc... they ARE bringing about some discourse. Also, probably another theme they're onto in addition to dogfighting is "professional sports + gambling..."



I don't know about any policy changes coming about from this.  thats what I was talking about earlier when I said the media drops the ball when it comes to educating.  They are playing so much on those dog fighting images and peoples emotions, that real issues, get lost in the mix.  I dont think people know about any policy concerns as regards the vick case because thats not what the media explores.  therefore, i dont think there will be much of a reaction for law makers to go by. certainly there will be no mandate for change if coverage continues as it has. 
The Tragicomic: Itís embodied in the blues, jazz, (HIP HOP, CORNELL <<one slight deserves another!!!!<< REALLY MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT ONE!!!) and the African experience in the New World -- the ability to withstand terrorism, embrace oneís worst enemies lovingly and bear the unbearable in song.

Rule of Reason

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2007, 07:05:08 PM »
Government scandals that kill people are more important than Michael Vick or the latest rehab stint.  I dont think saying that is a subjective opinion.  And if each of those stories gets the same coverage, in my eyes, something is wrong.  In reality, they do not get the same coverage.  They get alot more in depth with Vick, and I'm betting he got alot more news alerts than the Katrina trailers.  Vick is just a talking point.  so the question asked is is Vick getting too much attention, the answers yeah, but thats typical and it shouldnt be.

There's a reason they're giving Vick attention and I think it serves an important purpose: I think it is gettting us to engage in a discussion of policy (among other things).  The feds indicted him. The media's making an example of it. Regardless of what happens from here, he's a "fall-guy" of sorts. The news articles aren't breaking down the facts and matching them to the law piece-by-piece... instead, they're showing us this "example" of dog-fighting charges placed against a nat'l icon, and getting us to provide/consider the more metaphysical components of this story. I would think that in at least some way, our reaction (as expressed through the media) is going to impact the law as it is applied in the future. (similar situation with political corruption scandals, etc...) This might sound like too strong of a statement, but I think it makes sense--- if you disagree, I'd like to see why...

Now, as to the seriousness of the issue I guess I half-way concede.  There is certainly more newsworthy content with less coverage, and our need to SELL the news by emotional appeal, etc. can backfire in this respect. On the flip-side, I think the media is taking an interest in this particular sub-culture that has not previously received much attention (and they are now using Vick to sell it), and while they're stirring things up btw various interest groups, law enforcement agencies, scholars, etc... they ARE bringing about some discourse. Also, probably another theme they're onto in addition to dogfighting is "professional sports + gambling..."



I don't know about any policy changes coming about from this.  thats what I was talking about earlier when I said the media drops the ball when it comes to educating.  They are playing so much on those dog fighting images and peoples emotions, that real issues, get lost in the mix.  I dont think people know about any policy concerns as regards the vick case because thats not what the media explores.  therefore, i dont think there will be much of a reaction for law makers to go by. certainly there will be no mandate for change if coverage continues as it has. 

it is DISPROPORTIONATE coverage --- I think you could prove this by doing a Lexis search for all news articles / broadcasts, and issue-coding the content.  I'm sure you'd find an overwhelming majority of coverage focusing on "what happens to the dogs" etc... but they do have the capacity to take other angles in coverage (and they have - and must -in order to keep a news beat going. It's inevitable).

I was somewhat pleased to see a soc. professor from my alma-mater quoted in the paper today, (exploring racial/ demographic-based implications, etc, also saying that you're asking an awful lot for an icon like Vick just to drop his previous connections...) though I don't know if even that's all that provocative. But I for one wouldn't have even thought that those types of implications could be addressed when I first heard the story. I had to scan through the coverage for a while just to get to that point.

As far as the policy thing goes, I don't know, I read some Delaney stuff earlier today and got carried away.  ??? I guess I'm posing the question: Does the media impact policy re: the respective legal issues in any way by covering these types of stories?

LBJFan

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2007, 07:49:26 PM »
I dont think anyone is trying to impact policy. They're trying to be sensational. If there's some incidental impact on policy then its just that...incidental and unintended.

Has anyone ever watched Animal Cops or Animal Precinct on the Animal Planet channel? People get busted for this sort of thing a lot. And its on video, so its not like its hidden. I guess there was no inclination to focus on this before Micheal Vick was caught?

In that sense, I think Vick IS a martyr...not a black martyr necessarily but a celebrity martyr. If he was Joe Schmo in Arkansas no one would give a damn...even though the effect on the the dogs would be exactly the same. The investigation wouldn't be as wide spread, the charges would be more apt to be plead out...the entire process wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. Even if he was a crap NFL player on a crap NFL team it wouldn't be this much of an issue.

People eat it up when these celebrities living these "perfect" lives get themselves into "normal people" type of trouble.

What tends to be unfair, though, is that we (and I use the term "we" very loosely) demanded that Paris be treated like a normal criminal and have to serve her time but...is Vick being treated like a normal criminal? Although this is a felony, it may often go unprosecuted and if it is prosecuted, its not to this extent.

So which is it? Should celebrities be treated specially or not?

Rhetorical question...because I truly couldn't care less. It just seems like "popular opinion" is a little fickle. If a normal person charged with this same crime wouldn't be prosecuted and pursued so heartily then how can we demand so often that celebrities be treated as normal people?

blah.

I'm going to watch animal planet.  ;D

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2007, 09:01:52 PM »
Yes, it is that bad and there are several reasons why:

1)tested his dogs for cruelty and killed those who failed by beating them and drowning them. 
2)he trained innocent and peaceful creatures to brutally main and kill other creatures

so not only did he encourage dogs to kill other dogs for sport, he also trained them to be vicious and killed the dogs that didn't meet his expectations.

But no, just like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, it doesn't need to be on every channel.  Blame 24hr news channels for that one.

Okay, this I agree with. My issue is, there are people who call dog fighting (the breeding and killing of dogs) inhumane and go to Mcdonald's and enjoy the hell out of a Big Mac. Those animals are bread to die also and some claim they die a deplorable death. In my opinion, by eating that meat one is supporting a similar process.



Slaughtering animals for meat is very different from torturing animals for sport, IMO.

Cows are usually stunned using a special gun and then have their throats cut.  The process is meant to cause as little pain to the animals as possible. 

On the other hand, the fighting dogs are purposely tortured and made to severely injure other dogs.