Another example...

I wrote yesterday regarding many's reversal of "Innocent until proven guilty". Even though the criminal court ruled in favor of O.J. Simpson being "not guilty", many in this country perceive and treat him as if he had been ruled guilty in the criminal court. The situation is even more peculiar with Michael Vick. I read an article yesterday regarding new Atlanta Falcons' head coach Bobby Petrino and his loyalty to Vick during these difficult times. I then read readers' comments on the article. Most of them have already ruled Vick as guilty, suspended by the commissioner, and locked in jail. No charges have even been brought forth unto Vick yet. If the guy is charged and convicted, he should be punished, without a doubt. But, until that/those charge/(s) are brought forth and until he's convicted of anything, why should he be treated like a felon?

Perhaps the "guilty until proven innocent" line is commonplace amongst celebrities. The common people may be jealous of the wealth, fame, and spotlight these individuals possess and if/when one of their names comes up in relation to a crime, we almost habitually, out of envy, believe (want to) they're guilty. The media can't be helping matters either. With the obsession over 24-hour "news" being what it is, the repetition of such negativity revolving around celebrities and their ordeals likely won't give the general public a "fair and balanced" assessment of what may have occurred and all possible outcomes for the future. After the media harped on the drunken Mel Gibson incident so much, it would've been difficult for the ordinary mainstream "news" watcher to have walked away from the television believing Gibson was pro-Judaism and a loving, caring, and decent man. For how much the media has obsessed over Michael Vick recently, it'd be difficult, even for some Falcons' fans, to walk away believing that Vick is anything but a troubled individual who will be in prison before too long. I don't like what Gibson said, but don't believe him to be an awful human being for saying something stupid while intoxicated. He had been driving drunk and therefore, should have been punished and was. Vick, meanwhile, has not been charged with a crime yet, so why is he already guilty in many's eyes? With the new "reality" television craze and the 24-hour "news" cycle, I can't understand how anyone would want to be famous. It's hard to feel sorry for people making so much money, but I do, in a sense. I would NEVER want to live their life. For every word or action of mine to be watched and any mistake I make, to be recorded and printed, and for most of the world to know and judge me based on what they know little to nothing about, would drive me crazy.

Let's look at another example. The Duke Lacrosse team. Remember that situation? These guys would lambasted and treated like felonous rapists for how long before it was concluded they were innocent? Just imagine what they had to go through. These kids will never be the same again and why? In many's minds, they were guilty until proven innocent.

Sources don't even matter anymore. So long as a person has a story, something that will catch the viewer's/reader's eye, that's all that really matters. I read an article today that two anonymous "friends" of the before-mentioned Vick stated that they were rather certain that Vick knew of the dog situation. Who are these people? Am I supposed to believe that two "friends" would come out with such information? I highly doubt it. An article was posted last week about a website of Vick's which dealt with his dog breeding. The website appeared to be constructed by a 5th grader just learning how to create a free webpage on yahoo. There was hardly any usable information on the entire site. It looked like a sick April Fool's joke (only in May).

Should we just assume all to be innocent of crime? No, of course not, but we should not assume their guilt either. Regardless of our prejudices or theories, one is supposedly innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. If they are not convicted of any crimes, no, that doesn't necessarily mean they're "innocent", but that does mean they were found "not guilty" in a court of law. I seriously wish the obsessive media would take a more "fair and balanced" approach to such cases, because the negative consequences to these individuals can be quite detrimental.