Disbelief and outrage has marked many of the commentaries I've read or heard regarding Vick's journey into the dark world of dogfighting. Paul Duggan of The Washington Post labeled it a "disturbing narrative." Ann Killion of the San Jose Mercury News described his choices as a "shocking downfall ... the result of Vick's horrible judgment and deep, disgusting involvement in the revolting world of dogfighting." Matt Lauer on the Today Show called Vick's case "horrifying." And in a culture that rarely makes moral statements about anyone's character anymore, JT the Brick of MSNBC said simply, "Vick turned out to be a bad guy."

Voyeurs of Violence
As someone immersed in the entertainment world, my response has been different. I'm not stunned by the details of this grisly case. We live in a society steeped in blood. That Michael Vick should be party to killing animals this way is deeply saddening—even maddening—but hardly surprising when we step back and study the culture. How can we revile Michael Vick as a bad person even as we voyeuristically consume violence in so many other ways?

Some observers, thankfully, have taken the time to identify an important link between Vick's choices and the hip-hop world, a place where life is cheap and the glorification of graphic violence is often the name of the game. In fact, dogfighting specifically appears in songs and videos by such rappers as DMX, Jay-Z and Bow Wow. The Kansas City Star's Jason Whitlock said of this connection, "I believe Vick got involved with breeding vicious pit bulls because [the] rap-music culture made it the cool thing to do. ... [Vick] is the product of a culture that makes the 'profession' acceptable and honorable. It's the same culture that has turned the dope dealer into mayor of the neighborhood."

Whitlock also wonders—rightly—why at least one prominent hip-hop mogul has condemned dogfighting even as he argues for rappers' rights to sing about murdering one another. "We know that Russell Simmons is adamantly opposed to the killing and brutalization of dogs," he wrote, "but he is in favor of the glorification of killing black men in music."

Meanwhile, millions of viewers tune in to watch bare-knuckle Ultimate Fighting Championship bouts each week. Obviously these men do not battle to the death, but one of the goals seems to be to inflict pain en route to victory. The more blood, the better. How is this really so different from dogfighting? In both cases, the driving desire of the audience—to see one combatant pummel the other into submission—is virtually the same.

So where's the outrage? Why aren't we equally appalled by bloodletting in hip-hop music or the UFC?

And what about depictions of graphic torture on the big screen? Are the millions of fans who are going to throw down good money in October to watch Saw IV's gruesome, perverse imagery in the same league as Vick? Can we label them as "bad guys," too? Or what about people munching popcorn at movies fueled by vicious vengeance such as Death Sentence (in theaters now) and The Brave One (due later this month)? Both revenge flicks invite us to enjoy a cathartic rush watching brutal payback. Why is there no chorus of voices or 24-hour news coverage condemning this kind of entertainment as shocking, horrifying, revolting, disturbing or disgusting?

A Fine Line
Defenders of Hollywood's First Amendment right to depict such fictional cruelty might argue, "But that violence isn't real." I wonder, though, if one's appetite for barbarism doesn't fall somewhere along a continuum. Michael Vick didn't wake up one morning out of the blue and say, "I think I want to watch dogs tear each other apart today." It's not a stretch, then, to conclude that other violent media may have preceded that fateful decision.

A culture of violence promotes further violence. And a dangerous few can only get their fix through increasingly extreme means, eventually crossing over from "acceptable" fiction into deadly, bloody reality.

Dogfighting in America. Astonishing? Unbelievable? Frankly, no. We do ourselves a disservice when we attempt to so severely segregate "fake" violence from real violence, and "fake" blood from real blood. I'm not convinced the gap between them is nearly as wide as some people want us to believe.