Vick's loudest critic in print was the AJC's Jeff Schultz. In a January 18 column titled "It's time to let Vick go," Schultz wrote:
"Vick has a $130 million contract. He has lucrative endorsement deals (pending) that alone could feed and clothe small countries. Yet, he tried to sneak a fake water bottle that appeared to have been used to conceal marijuana past airport security.Fast forward to this morning. According to today's paper, police lab tests on the bottle showed that it did NOT contain any illegal substances.
Let’s put the debate on pot usage aside for a minute. What, Michael Vick couldn’t afford another secret spy bottle and dime bag when he got back home? (Quoting Spicoli as he smacked his head with a shoe: “That was my skull! I’m so wasted!”)"
I wonder if Mr. Schultz, or any of the people who beat up on Vick in print or on the air will have the decency to apologize. Actually, no, I don't wonder at all. I'm almost certain they will not.
Michael Vick's private and professional life are of no importance to me. I'm not a football fan. I'm simply annoyed because I'm sick to death of the writers and broadcasters who base conclusions on initial reports by police or any government spokesperson. Anyone who has ever been to an airport or read a police report should have known better. Ron Mexico been wronged.
3 comments:
Bo-log-na. This whole things stinks, just like the hidden compartment of his "water bottle."
I agree. Bologna does stink.
Crick -- my point is not that Michael Vick isn't a pot user. I don't know or care if he is.
My point is simply the public should not base any conclusions on an initial police or TSA report.
The "marijuana residue" that was widely reported last week turned out to be nothing of the sort.
Who's to say there was really a hidden compartment in his bottle?
Who's to say that if a bottle was found that it was his. Presumably, he disposed of it in a public wastebasket, a wastebasket by which hundreds if not thousands of people pass every day).
Again -- I'm not saying anything about Michael Vick. I'm criticizing the press and the blogging public for a very specific reason. I'm criticizing them for reaching conclusions using an unreliable and incomplete source of information -- initial police reports.
In unrelated news -- your site and the one you did for Snowden look fantastic.
Thanks for the compliments, and your criticism of media agents jumping to conclusions is duly noted. Are these the same media agents who convicted OJ in public before he was acquitted? Shame shame. I enjoy your column in CL.
Post a Comment