Consumers release hounds on Michael Vick There’s a reason why presumption of innocence is not a principle highly valued by companies that use celebrity endorsers: The general public seems to have a presumption of guilt. In a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in the aftermath of Michael Vick’s dogfighting indictment, just 12 percent of respondents said they have a favorable impression of the Atlanta quarterback. Fifty-seven percent expressed an unfavorable opinion (including 33 percent “very” unfavorable). While 41 percent think Vick should have his day in court before the NFL decides whether to sideline him, they’re outnumbered by the 49 percent who think the league should suspend him immediately. (Meanwhile, if you’d drafted one of Vick’s dogs for your dogfighting fantasy league, I guess you’re out of luck.) —Posted by Mark Dolliver

July 24, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00e0099965168833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Consumers release hounds on Michael Vick :

Comments

---

Due process has nothing to do with his job or his status with the NFL. For anyone who has managed others you will know that when screwups by one individual (intentional or not) continue to affect the bottom line and performance of a business ... that individual will be sent packing.

I'm a die hard football fan but just like I've given up on the NBA, I'll be giving up on the NFL till they clean up.

Posted by: Bill | Jul 25, 2007 12:37:50 AM

I disagree with the notion that the general public has a presumption of guilt. That's insulting. The general public has a presumption that we're all equal and should be treated as such. If the average American worker was discovered to have such an operation in his backyard, his employer has every right to adhere to its own ethical conduct guidelines and would probably not wait until the outcome of a trial to take action. This notion that nothing should be done until things are proven out in the court of law is ridiculous. Are all of the values that inform your decisions based on law? I hope not.

Posted by: Mark Jacobs | Jul 25, 2007 11:54:05 AM

This is not like the Michael Jackson cases whereby the public mostly thought he was guilty but there really wasn't a video or anything of Michael molesting little boys. I can see how the public could possibly say, wait and give him his day in court; and, he's innocent until proven guilty. However, even if you don't believe the witness statements that Michael Vick electrocuted one female dog when she didn't perform up to his standards, or that he murdered at least 7 other dogs (not including those who died from wounds inflicted during fighting); the public simply can not ignore the FACT that 52 dogs with fighting wounds were seized from his house, that a dog fighting ring with blood was found at his house, that dog fighting training materials were found at his house, or that a rape device (holds female dogs down to force breeding) was found at HIS HOUSE. It would be rediculous to not see that even if the most heinous of acts are questionable as to guilt or innocence, the fact that he had SOMETHING to do with dogs killing each other is not questionable. That would be like the public seeing a video of Michael fondling a young boy and then being asked to keep in mind that Michael is innocent until proven guilty!!

Posted by: Leilanni | Aug 1, 2007 1:54:05 PM

Yeah, I know he is technically "innocent until proven guilty", but only a imbecile would believe that he was in the dark about the animal slaughter at his residence considering the evidence. I have no doubts whatsoever about his guilt and I hope he gets the worst the courts and public can give him. Michael Vick (and others like him) is an evil punk ass bitch that deserves as much pain and misery as he gave those poor dogs, and I really really hope he suffers greatly for his heinous deeds.

Posted by: Ginger | Aug 5, 2007 3:07:47 AM

Post a comment

Name:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments:

The opinions expressed in comments are those of the individual poster. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Adweek or Nielsen Business Media. Comments of a promotional nature or comments that are otherwise inappropriate may be removed.