Media Overreacting To Vick Dogfighting

By Greg Simms
Updated: July 28, 2007

DAYTON, Ohio — Consider this a little old-school pondering:

If someone put two large male deer in a pit and let them fight to the death, that would be incredibly cruel, right? There would be state and federal laws against deer fighting, all felonies.

But if people got themselves high-powered rifles and blew those animals’ hearts out, that’s cool, right? There are even seasons for it, not to mention blowing away doves and squirrels among others.

Maybe Michael Vick should shoot dogs. I know it’s legal in Georgia.

Of course the above is sarcasm, at least the last sentence. I believe attending, betting or having anything to do with dogs fighting, especially pitbulls, is unspeakably horrible.

But I believe the outrage over it is a bit phony. We all know about dogfighting. No one ever cared much about it until Vick’s name became associated with it.

And to be clear, I could not shoot a deer unless World War III had commenced and I was desperate for food. Dogfighting. No excuse. But in this scandal, the pundits, TV talking heads and radio screamers have been shameful.

The Framers — that’s no singing group, it’s the guys who wrote the U.S. Constitution — established the presumption of innocence in the Fifth, Sixth and 14th amendments.

Boiled down it means a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty. But pundits have gone right past that and have Vick ready for sentencing.

Whatever happened to media integrity?