Reporters Insensitive Remarks?

[Praxeas]

PITTSBURGH — A newspaper reporter who said Atlanta Falcons (javascript:siteSearch('Atlanta Falcons');) quarterback Michael Vick (javascript:siteSearch('Michael Vick');) would have been "better off raping a woman" than being charged with dogfighting (javascript:siteSearch('dogfighting');) has apologized and will no longer appear on the local sports panel TV show where he made the remark.


Pittsburgh (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291796,00.html#) Post-Gazette reporter Paul Zeise made the comments Sunday night on the "Sports Showdown" show on KDKA-TV, a CBS affiliate. He was disagreeing with another panelist who said NFL (javascript:siteSearch('NFL');) commissioner Roger Goodell (javascript:siteSearch('Roger Goodell');) should suspend Vick for the rest of the season because he was indicted on federal dogfighting charges July 17.


"It's really a sad day in this country when somehow ... Michael Vick (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291796,00.html#) would have been better off raping a woman if you look at the outcry of what happened," Zeise said. "Had he done that, he probably would have been suspended for four games and he'd be back on the field. But because this has become a political issue, all of a sudden the commissioner has lost his stomach for it."


Zeise apologized Monday.


"I regret the poor choice of analogies I used to characterize a professional athlete's legal situation," Zeise said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291796,00.html



Am I the only one in America that got it? This reporter was not being insensitive to women or rape victims...his point was had he raped a women he would have gotten off easier. What he did here was bad but I think it's getting blow way out of proportion. Even some dumb senator suggested he get the death penalty over this....yet if he had raped a woman where would they be? They act as though dogs have more value than human life...this is nuts

[OP_Carl]

Oh, I "get it."

The premise is that athletes have an aura of scarcely-contained primitive male drives, and the near passing of attractive females can at any moment tear the thin veneer of civilization and loose them, to the sometimes not-quite-so-unwanted-peril of the.said female.

They are just so much man, that these things happen and they can't help themselves. Instinct. Drive. Alpha male gets his selection of the females.

But with dogfighting, our "noble savage" now looks like a conniving con man, a gangster. He has been scheming, he has used his brain (his WHAT????) for profit, instead of his brawn. He has stepped outside of his stereotype, and non-conformists make others uncomfortable. Crucify him.

That's my take of why this is being treated as it it.

[freeatlast]

Oh, I "get it."

The premise is that athletes have an aura of scarcely-contained primitive male drives, and the near passing of attractive females can at any moment tear the thin veneer of civilization and loose them, to the sometimes not-quite-so-unwanted-peril of the.said female.

They are just so much man, that these things happen and they can't help themselves. Instinct. Drive. Alpha male gets his selection of the females.

But with dogfighting, our "noble savage" now looks like a conniving con man, a gangster. He has been scheming, he has used his brain (his WHAT????) for profit, instead of his brawn. He has stepped outside of his stereotype, and non-conformists make others uncomfortable. Crucify him.

That's my take of why this is being treated as it it.

I don't think that's it at all OP

[CC1]

Prax,

I also get it. The political correctness police once again totally missed the point. While it is clear to any thinking person that he was pointing out how crazy it is that in our world today there is more of an outcry against cruelty to animals than rape I think he could have done a better job of making his point clear.

He left himself open to misinterpretation by those always looking to take offense and to take things out of context. He should have prefaced his remarks by noting the horror of rape and making clear his point. As it was his words can be twisted to infer he has a cavalier attitude toward rape.

[DividedThigh]

Prax,

I also get it. The political correctness police once again totally missed the point. While it is clear to any thinking person that he was pointing out how crazy it is that in our world today there is more of an outcry against cruelty to animals than rape I think he could have done a better job of making his point clear.

He left himself open to misinterpretation by those always looking to take offense and to take things out of context. He should have prefaced his remarks by noting the horror of rape and making clear his point. As it was his words can be twisted to infer he has a cavalier attitude toward rape.

that makes sense, the political correctness police, make our countrie people look stupid again, good take, good post, dt

[Pressing-On]

That reporter sounds a little like Clayton Williams. He would have beat Ann Richards if he wasn't an idiot.

[tbpew]

Am I the only one in America that got it? This reporter was not being insensitive to women or rape victims...his point was had he raped a women he would have gotten off easier. What he did here was bad but I think it's getting blow way out of proportion. Even some dumb senator suggested he get the death penalty over this....yet if he had raped a woman where would they be? They act as though dogs have more value than human life...this is nuts

wow. I find myself in a less familiar place...so this is what Praxeas' AMEN corner looks like!

The conventional wisdom of the 'hive mind' (shaped by voices being broadcasted to their receivers) does seem to be turning from "humans are precious" to "animals are precious and humans are bad".

btw...some folks really need to watch the bird kingdom hijack a nest, kick out the faithful mama-builder's eggs, and claim the new place as their own. :roseglasses

In my understanding, cruelty executed upon any animal by a human is in opposition to God's character, but killing animals is not. So apparently there must be some way to get a conclusion that unbundles cruelty and killing (which to most is pretty cruel).

Is swating at a mosquito a horrific act involving a partial maming of something that God has put on the earth? How do we reconcile our thinking involving species that are below 'man' in God's creation?

Once we get animals up to human status, the stage is set to make God out as being a 'bad God' because he had his people bring perfectly good animals to an alter of sacrifice.

If it is possible, can we avoid the foolishness of 'COMPARING' deeds from the body of sin that is governering these lost souls and start understanding just how much of a love for violence and death is at work in the hearts of those with whom we share this global community.

Dogs are in the mix of God's purposes for the creatures that Adam had dominion over, but please consider that they are not given any endearing witness in the scriptures.

Does that justify cruelty, NO! But we all need to be careful when a subtle thought is at work in our thinking....Coby's groupie had it coming to her and....pit bulls given the right upbringing would want to live happily with all other creatures.


3rd trimester abortions on demand
partial-birth abortions
dog-fighting
wife-beating
rapists
pediphyiles
theives

all will have their place in the righteous judgment based on what they gave occasion to remain within their hearts.

edit: post thought jumped to mind.
If 200 pit bulls had to die so that Mike Vick would come to repentance, is that acceptable? Is God glorified? How many bondservants of Jesus died during Saul's purge of the heretics?

[CC1]

That reporter sounds a little like Clayton Williams. He would have beat Ann Richards if he wasn't an idiot.

For those who don't know who Clayton Williams is;

Clayton Williams was a Republican canidate for Governor in Texas back in 1990. He was by all accounts a very sharp businessman who was a multi millionaire.

He was running against Ann Richards, the Democrat, and was miles ahead in the polls.

Then he started opening his mouth.

Turns out he may have been a great guy and a great businessman but he was an absolute idiot also when it came to common sense and knowing what to say and what not to say.

Two verbal gaffes were his undoing and opened the door to conservative Texas electing not only a woman Governor but a liberal Democrat one.

First gaffe - One day while doing some campaign function outdoors and with a bazillion reporters around him talking to him it began to rain. Good ole Clayton looked up at the sky then turned and told the assembed reporters "rain is like rape. You can't do anything about it so you might as well relax and enjoy it".

Unbelievable.

Second gaffe - One day reporters were asking canidate Williams about taxes. Income tax in particular. Suddenly with no prompting Clayton piped up and said "taxes? let me tell you about taxes. I didn't pay ANY (then went on to list a year or two)". He seemed so proud.

Just the kind of thing everyday Texans wanted to hear from a multimillionaire, that he didn't pay taxes some years!

Because of this moron we had to endure 4 years of Ann Richards but thankfully were rescued when George W. Bush beat her soundly in an election no one thought he would win.

[Pressing-On]

Thanks, CC1,

His actual quote was, "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

End of career.

The reporter used a bad analogy, although point taken. You can't use that type of analogy in news reporting. It will always be misunderstood.

My mind went straight to Clayton when I read the reporter's comments.

See how it works? lol!

[Felicity]

*open mouth - insert foot*

[Ferd]

Prax,

I also get it. The political correctness police once again totally missed the point. While it is clear to any thinking person that he was pointing out how crazy it is that in our world today there is more of an outcry against cruelty to animals than rape I think he could have done a better job of making his point clear.

He left himself open to misinterpretation by those always looking to take offense and to take things out of context. He should have prefaced his remarks by noting the horror of rape and making clear his point. As it was his words can be twisted to infer he has a cavalier attitude toward rape.

I agree with you except, I think if I were him, I would have stood by the comment. clearly his view and ours is that rape is far worse, but the sad fact is, our society is more outraged by killing a dog.

Killing dogs in this way is cruel and should be dealt with harshly. however, society needs to rethink our priorities.

[Praxeas]

Prax,

I also get it. The political correctness police once again totally missed the point. While it is clear to any thinking person that he was pointing out how crazy it is that in our world today there is more of an outcry against cruelty to animals than rape I think he could have done a better job of making his point clear.

He left himself open to misinterpretation by those always looking to take offense and to take things out of context. He should have prefaced his remarks by noting the horror of rape and making clear his point. As it was his words can be twisted to infer he has a cavalier attitude toward rape.
Right, but that is the sad thing though....those that are always looking are intelligent enough to see what the guy was saying...but they choose not to see it and instead call for his head.

[Praxeas]

I agree with you except, I think if I were him, I would have stood by the comment. clearly his view and ours is that rape is far worse, but the sad fact is, our society is more outraged by killing a dog.

Killing dogs in this way is cruel and should be dealt with harshly. however, society needs to rethink our priorities.
Exactly....uh is 98% of America just that stupid or are they dishonest? It was clear when I read it....when I saw the title I thought "Oh goodness, I can't believe he said that", then I read what was said and why IN context and it made sense.

[Pressing-On]

Exactly....uh is 98% of America just that stupid or are they dishonest? It was clear when I read it....when I saw the title I thought "Oh goodness, I can't believe he said that", then I read what was said and why IN context and it made sense.
The way the media and laws are set up, he should have come from a different direction. You have to lay out everything you are saying in Elementary fashion or people are going to read the first line and run with that, which is the case.

The media would have run with that anyway.

I wonder if he will be given space to go further with his statements? I doubt it.