So it goes: Globesports.com's Stephen Brunt waits until the Michael Vick dogfighting furore is dying down to write his all-things-considered column that concludes, "one of these days, we'll be wondering why he, unlike so many of his fallen peers, paid such an enormous price for his sins," and the general reaction is that it's a sensible take. Even the right-leaning Bloomberg News is kind of paying Vick a left-handed compliment, although it was in a comparison to the Bush White House, so that's really no kind of standard.
It's good to see Canada's National Newspaper people coming around on this some six weeks after trying to raise that question here six weeks ago and drawing mostly disagreement and scorn. People are coming around, that's good, but talk about ending up feeling like a bit of a lifelong loser. C'est la vie.
Report: Bills putting 25 percent of team up for sale
59 minutes ago
Posts
2 comments:
Six weeks ago, though, Vick was still proclaiming his innocence. You'll note that the MSM is only willing to cut him some slack now that he has pleaded guilty, and issued a reasonable facsimile of an apology. Vick had to put on the hair shirt publicly before people were going to give him any benefit of perspective, as one of your intrepid readers suggested earlier. ;-)
True, but the feeling then was that Vick was in the process of committing to how to own up to guilt. It's human nature to dig in at first before admitting you were wrong, and I figured he would.
And yes, Dennis, you were right all along.
Post a Comment