I think the real question here is 'do we have right to judge others?'. And if so who do we appoint to do the judging, ourselves as individuals, society, our media, state appointed judges or (if religious) in the final analysis , a supreme being. The idea of balance is a rather ludicrous one. I also smile when I hear the phrase 'natural justice', another way of supposedly balancing the scales considering that Nature has no concept of justice (earthquakes, hurricanes etc just happen). I like to seek to attain the point were I just am and the reason for my existance is no more relevant that the reason for a bumblebee to exist. But I digress.
It is perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on the actions of others. (Though one would hope it was a considered opinion and not one based on our own inherent predjudices; always useful to ask ourselves 'why did I react that way?' ) Having an affair was a pretty shitty thing to do on his wife. But we all do shitty things. Hopefully we have regret and avow not to do them again. Judging people because of their actions and treating them less as a result is surely unfair and says more about us as a person than the person we are judging?

We all have things we are not happy we did but it doesn't mean we didn't learn from it and if it's not relevant to other things it shouldn't matter. if he is playing awesome golf and winning then he deserves to be looked up to just for his sport.on the other hand if you are an animal keeper and found to be cruel that's another thing. some things are forgivable.

I don't think we should get all excited about someone's good deeds beyond the deeds themselves and extrapolate them into heroes. It's like we shouldn't expect moral guidance from our politicians. We chose them to run a government, not lead us to the promised land. Look at people realistically. JFK was a great man but he was also philanderer AND bit of a warmonger. MLK cheated on his wife.

We've ALL got feet of clay.
Do we write off every hero because they're human? Which is essentially what the caller would have us do.
Bill Cosby made some very funny television with some good points about race at the time. He did that in spite of his wrongs.
My feeling is that we should celebrate human achievements regardless. In the right light we're not too bad for poorly shaved apes.

I guess I would go case by case. Michael Vick is someone I would not support but I am not involved in football. Infidelity is so common I have a hard time getting wound up about that. Each person has their own threshold and their own fatal flaws

When I'm deciding where to spend my dollars - be it for food, entertainment, supplies - I only put my dollars behind those people & places whose behavior (values) matches mine. Dollars are votes or a show of support. For the sake of my own integrity, I choose to be mindful in this way. I think it's important.

As a person currently living a polyamorous alt-lifestyle, with mutual love and respect, the agreement is that each can do as we please, while not hurting or endangering the other. It's very loving and open and the trust that comes with the honesty is agreeable.
In a monogomous commited relationship, there's that whole commitment issue. If one makes a commitment one should adhere to it or not enter into the commitment if one cannot adhere to it. Breaking commitments damages trust and says something not so savory regarding ones character.
For those who choose to be in the public eye...I don't believe we should easily nod in approval of or ignore socially unacceptable behaviors and continue to show support.
I don't enjoy watching train wrecks nor would I pay to watch one.
There are varying degrees & types of mistakes as well.
Stealing a food because one is staving, is wrong but small & understandable wrong.
Stealing a neighbors pet and eating it because one is starving is a whole other level of wrong.

It really depends on what it is. Sometimes, the one "bad" thing is so bad, there's nothing that can be done for redemption.

If the person's acts aren't truly vile and they haven't used their celebrity to preach how other people should live, vote, whatever then no. If however they've crossed that line and inserted themselves into other areas of life then let them cop the full weight of the outrage.
Holding celebrities up as heros, idols and role models is daft anyway.

Depends if you have a personal relationship with that person. If its someone visable in your life-family member or friend you know them well enough to make that judgement. Example would be: my brother is serving time for dealing but he diid all that volunteer work with handicapped children. Celebrities I don't get into that much.

It depends. If what the person has done is so damaging or hurtful to others, the answer is definitely "yes." If the action causes the loss of trust in the person's integrity and character, the answer is again "yes."

No. This is the old separate the art from the artist argument. People have major flaws. They make mistakes. Sometimes catastrophic ones that hurt others. If they own up to and apologize for those mistakes, or even better make attempts to compensate for them by doing good things, then those mistakes can (sometimes) be forgiven. It does not negate the work.

There are people who have done very grave things that have made huge contributions to art, society and science. Take a look at someone like Wernher Von Braun who was responsible for many of the advancements in NASA. But during the war, he presided over forced labor camps for the Nazis to build V2 rockets in which many people died of starvation and effectively torture. That is just one singular example.