Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[Felix]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/14/06

 

The SOX win a nice game last nite, with the big story being the performance of the bullpen last nite.

The SOX unfortuneately lose ground to the 4th Place Cubs and are now behind by 100 stories.

 

Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, the White Sox find themselves INEXPLICABLY getting less attention from our 2 major Chicago newspapers, who somehow believe that the 5th Place cubs are worthy of more news coverage than a team that just won the World Series in 2005 AND are currently in 2nd place with one of the top records in baseball.

 

Chicago Tribune:

4 cub stories

3 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

7 cub stories

3 sox stories

Standings as of Wednesday June 14th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 578

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 2005 Sox 478

[Steff]

Where? I'll fix it ............

 

Where...? In the post YOU posted. Good grief...

 

 

 

Felix.. it's not even worth it. The level at which he is speaking and comprehending in relation to the rest of us is light years apart.

[zach23]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/14/06

 

The SOX win a nice game last nite, with the big story being the performance of the bullpen last nite.

The SOX unfortuneately lose ground to the 4th Place Cubs and are now behind by 100 stories.

 

Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, the White Sox find themselves INEXPLICABLY getting less attention from our 2 major Chicago newspapers, who somehow believe that the 5th Place cubs are worthy of more news coverage than a team that just won the World Series in 2005 AND are currently in 2nd place with one of the top records in baseball.

 

Chicago Tribune:

4 cub stories

3 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

7 cub stories

3 sox stories

Standings as of Wednesday June 14th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 578

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 2005 Sox 478

 

Shouldn't the Chris Deluca story in the Sun-Times count as a Cubs and Sox story? It is all about the suspensions from the brawl and has quotes from Ozzie in it and things about A.J. and Brian Anderson as well as Barrett.

If not, then why are you counting the Quick Hits as a Cubs story. There is only about a paragraph or so about the Cubs using wireless phones in the bullpen and then there is a bunch of other stuff about other things in baseball and other sports.

 

Also, the tone of the story by Greg Couch is almost ridiculing the Cubs. How would that fit your theory that the papers are writing only positive things about the Cubs and negative about the Sox in order to sway popularity. I can almost see Couch laughing at the state of the Cubs as he writes that.

[RibbieRubarb]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/14/06

 

Chicago Tribune:

4 cub stories

3 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

7 cub stories

3 sox stories

Standings as of Wednesday June 14th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 578

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 2005 Sox 478

 

Since I do not get the tribune, I decided to look at my Sun-times and give a more accurate depiction of the stories.

 

Boy are your 7 to 3 stories a MISLEADING stat.

 

Let me shed some light for those who still think you are doing a service:

 

White Sox:

Backpage - Bottom of page Sox Headline A Real No-Doubter with brief two line summary

Special "Encore" standings watch graphic - 3 inches 1/4 column

1 full page game recap with half-page photo praising the performance of Jon Garland and bullpen

1/5 page full column White Sox notebook WITH picture

2/5 page half-column on Brian Anderson

2 inch 3 column width graphic in Quick hits on White Sox 3-4-5 hitters

 

Cubs:

Backpage - Brief two line summary under Sox summary NO headline

2/3 page game recap highlight pitching and offense failure with 1/3 page photo

1/3 Wade miller story insert on recap page cutting into recap story size

1/5 page full column Cub notebook - NO picture

2/3 page Prior rehab story with graphic

3/4 page Greg Couch commentary on Cus failures this season and that the season is over

3 inch 1 column width mention on Cubs in Quick hits

 

Both:

1/5 page article on Suspensions and appeals

 

 

So it seems to me there is ONE more thing the Cubs got and that was a commentary by Greg Couch how how bad they are.

Infact, the majority of Cubs stories were negative, the Sox were positive

The Sox stories were larger with more pictures.

 

Boy that paints a different picture...doesn't it.

[Yossarian]

Also, the tone of the story by Greg Couch is almost ridiculing the Cubs. How would that fit your theory that the papers are writing only positive things about the Cubs and negative about the Sox in order to sway popularity. I can almost see Couch laughing at the state of the Cubs as he writes that.

The Cubs aren't as far away as they look, and can rebuild on the fly. They can be ready for next year as long as they don't become sellers. Best I can figure, if they would save $8.5 million by dumping always-hurt Wood, $9 million by dumping old Greg Maddux and $5.7 million by dumping ineffective Juan Pierre. And that would free up $23.2 million. On top of that, the other guys in shoes similar to the Cubs' in the rich-boys club -- the two L.A. teams, Boston, the White Sox and the Mets -- are spending about $10 million more than the Cubs.

 

The above comes from the Couch article. Sounds pretty supportive if you ask me. I don't want to get into a crossfire, or be subject to personal insults. That being said, if the Cubs ever put together a true championship team then you'd see how badly most of the so called sports journalists in this town want to cheer on the Cubs. It is a Cubs town journalistically. I'm old enough to remember when it was the other way around, all though not to the degree it is now. We all have short memories. Remember the Cubs near miss in 03? If the Cubs hadn't bonked and taken advantage of their best opportunity in 95 years it would have been the biggest sports story ever in Chicago, maybe nationally.

 

No need to tear anything down. Just build. So says Mr. Couch. Doesn't sound like a rip job to me.

[Hangar18]

Shouldn't the Chris Deluca story in the Sun-Times count as a Cubs and Sox story? It is all about the suspensions from the brawl and has quotes from Ozzie in it and things about A.J. and Brian Anderson as well as Barrett.

If not, then why are you counting the Quick Hits as a Cubs story. There is only about a paragraph or so about the Cubs using wireless phones in the bullpen and then there is a bunch of other stuff about other things in baseball and other sports.

 

Also, the tone of the story by Greg Couch is almost ridiculing the Cubs. How would that fit your theory that the papers are writing only positive things about the Cubs and negative about the Sox in order to sway popularity. I can almost see Couch laughing at the state of the Cubs as he writes that.

 

good questions. Kind of.

DeLuca story is about BARRET, not the SOX. SOX only mentioned because they are part of that suspension,and DeLuca LAZILY uses ozzies quotes from day before YESTERDAY. The SunTimes felt compelled however to put this in the "cub" section.

 

QuickHits uses its lead headline to determine what is the real "story" in its section. Had they used something else like "Woods likes Golf", I wouldnt have counted it.

 

Greg Couch is ridiculing the Cubs. He sounds like a pissed off cub fan who is tired of losing and is trying to play GM and get them to do something. Of course, he submitted this from the Wrigley press box,

and the Cubs are in town, so he is compelled to write a Cub story (unlike last week, where he did a piece on the Tigers ). I too see Couch laughing at the cubs ........... This article doesnt rub off as "negatively slanted" as much as its a "were tired of losing-heres what we need to do" piece. Couch could easily have written a piece on who is available for the SOX Pen, or we could have another update on Dustin Hermanson.

[zach23]

YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers

 

 

You still haven't backed up your claim that the Cubs have "dominated" the Sox in coverage in both newspapers since the 1980's. You had said previously that you didn't start your little crusade until 2002, so how do you have proof that the number of stories have differed greatly since the 80's?

 

 

 

The Cubs aren't as far away as they look, and can rebuild on the fly. They can be ready for next year as long as they don't become sellers. Best I can figure, if they would save $8.5 million by dumping always-hurt Wood, $9 million by dumping old Greg Maddux and $5.7 million by dumping ineffective Juan Pierre. And that would free up $23.2 million. On top of that, the other guys in shoes similar to the Cubs' in the rich-boys club -- the two L.A. teams, Boston, the White Sox and the Mets -- are spending about $10 million more than the Cubs.

 

The above comes from the Couch article. Sounds pretty supportive if you ask me. I don't want to get into a crossfire, or be subject to personal insults. That being said, if the Cubs ever put together a true championship team then you'd see how badly most of the so called sports journalists in this town want to cheer on the Cubs. It is a Cubs town journalistically. I'm old enough to remember when it was the other way around, all though not to the degree it is now. We all have short memories. Remember the Cubs near miss in 03? If the Cubs hadn't bonked and taken advantage of their best opportunity in 95 years it would have been the biggest sports story ever in Chicago, maybe nationally.

 

No need to tear anything down. Just build. So says Mr. Couch. Doesn't sound like a rip job to me.

 

But he mentions that the Sox are outspending the Cubs by $10 million. If he aim is to make the Cubs look good and the Sox look bad as Hangar claims, why would he do that? Wouldn't Hangar's random fan in San Diego read this and think, "Wow, the Sox are right there with the rich-boys. That team must be good."

[Pods22]

good questions. Kind of.

DeLuca story is about BARRET, not the SOX. SOX only mentioned because they are part of that suspension,and DeLuca LAZILY uses ozzies quotes from day before YESTERDAY. The SunTimes felt compelled however to put this in the "cub" section.

 

QuickHits uses its lead headline to determine what is the real "story" in its section. Had they used something else like "Woods likes Golf", I wouldnt have counted it.

 

Greg Couch is ridiculing the Cubs. He sounds like a pissed off cub fan who is tired of losing and is trying to play GM and get them to do something. Of course, he submitted this from the Wrigley press box,

and the Cubs are in town, so he is compelled to write a Cub story (unlike last week, where he did a piece on the Tigers ). I too see Couch laughing at the cubs ........... This article doesnt rub off as "negatively slanted" as much as its a "were tired of losing-heres what we need to do" piece. Couch could easily have written a piece on who is available for the SOX Pen, or we could have another update on Dustin Hermanson.

 

 

You see what you want to see BECAUSE YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH THE CUBS! Might as well give in and get a Barrett Jersey! At least your obsession will be healthy!

[RibbieRubarb]

good questions. Kind of.

DeLuca story is about BARRET, not the SOX. SOX only mentioned because they are part of that suspension,and DeLuca LAZILY uses ozzies quotes from day before YESTERDAY. The SunTimes felt compelled however to put this in the "cub" section.

 

QuickHits uses its lead headline to determine what is the real "story" in its section. Had they used something else like "Woods likes Golf", I wouldnt have counted it.

 

Greg Couch is ridiculing the Cubs. He sounds like a pissed off cub fan who is tired of losing and is trying to play GM and get them to do something. Of course, he submitted this from the Wrigley press box,

and the Cubs are in town, so he is compelled to write a Cub story (unlike last week, where he did a piece on the Tigers ). I too see Couch laughing at the cubs ........... This article doesnt rub off as "negatively slanted" as much as its a "were tired of losing-heres what we need to do" piece. Couch could easily have written a piece on who is available for the SOX Pen, or we could have another update on Dustin Hermanson.

 

Care to comment on my response or will you ignore that like ss2k5's questions

Edited June 14, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[Yossarian]

But he mentions that the Sox are outspending the Cubs by $10 million. If he aim is to make the Cubs look good and the Sox look bad as Hangar claims, why would he do that? Wouldn't Hangar's random fan in San Diego read this and think, "Wow, the Sox are right there with the rich-boys. That team must be good."

I can only speak for myself. I see a definite bias, but if oftens takes on more subtle than overt tones. I've been reading the Chicago sports pages since, well let's just say since a long time ago. Many print and broadcast journalists in the Chicago market are wannabe Cub cheerleaders. Like I said before things are changing a little. If the Sox continue to field winning teams the situation will continue to moderate. It's going to take time.

[zach23]

good questions. Kind of.

DeLuca story is about BARRET, not the SOX. SOX only mentioned because they are part of that suspension,and DeLuca LAZILY uses ozzies quotes from day before YESTERDAY. The SunTimes felt compelled however to put this in the "cub" section.

 

QuickHits uses its lead headline to determine what is the real "story" in its section. Had they used something else like "Woods likes Golf", I wouldnt have counted it.

 

Greg Couch is ridiculing the Cubs. He sounds like a pissed off cub fan who is tired of losing and is trying to play GM and get them to do something. Of course, he submitted this from the Wrigley press box,

and the Cubs are in town, so he is compelled to write a Cub story (unlike last week, where he did a piece on the Tigers ). I too see Couch laughing at the cubs ........... This article doesnt rub off as "negatively slanted" as much as its a "were tired of losing-heres what we need to do" piece. Couch could easily have written a piece on who is available for the SOX Pen, or we could have another update on Dustin Hermanson.

 

Lazily uses quotes from the day before yesterday? What the hell does that prove? So if the quote happended yesterday instead it is better? Was he supposed to get Ozzie to repeat his reaction again a day after he already commented on it? Did you even bother to read what you wrote to see how insane it sounds?

 

QuickHits is evil because it used a Cub headline? LOL. So if the Sun-Times starts plopping Sox headlines onto stream-of-consciousness articles then you are happy. Or would you then cry foul because they are only being lazy by adding Sox headlines to stories that don't really cover them in-depth?

 

Aren't there mentions of Dustin Hermanson in other places in the paper? Is there really anything to mention about him that we don't know? My god, the guy's back is shot and his career is probably over. How much of an article can you get out of that? Are you saying Couch has never written a Sox article? Look at the link to his recent articles, since May 10th he has written 6 Sox articles to 4 for the Cubs. And since you only count the number of stories and not the tone or content, don't even say that is disputable because what he wrote about the Sox wasn't positive enough for you.

[Hangar18]

You still haven't backed up your claim that the Cubs have "dominated" the Sox in coverage in both newspapers since the 1980's. You had said previously that you didn't start your little crusade until 2002, so how do you have proof that the number of stories have differed greatly since the 80's?

 

 

But he mentions that the Sox are outspending the Cubs by $10 million. If he aim is to make the Cubs look good and the Sox look bad as Hangar claims, why would he do that? Wouldn't Hangar's random fan in San Diego read this and think, "Wow, the Sox are right there with the rich-boys. That team must be good."

 

Wait, your taking ONE LINE, where he mentions that the SOX are outspending the Cubs by $10 million ...

where are you going with this? His article is RAHRAH, did you read the end of it? His throwing that $10 Million out there is certainly a way (in his mind) to remind the Cubs to start outspending the SOX. Its foolish on his part, because we know that simply spending $$$$$$$$$ doesnt guarantee winning. ("hey hangar, but werent you the one who called the SOX cheap because they wouldnt spend money? Your contradicting yourself again)

 

I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now.

 

Your right, the random fan in SanDiego will hopefully read that and say to himself, WOW, the SOX are a big-market team

 

After the SOX won the WS last year, I remarked often how things in the Media will change. Or how the Media will be FORCED to acknowledge the SOX and there was really only 2 ways for them to go. There was a reporter from the Tribune and SunTimes at the bar I was at (puffers) and they asked what all of this meant to me. I basically said the White Sox winning it all changes EVERYTHING, they will NOT be the dirty step-child of the city, and the Media will HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the White Sox and Give them their DUE finally, they EARNED IT.

 

Well, they never used my quote obviously. But the 2 ways the Media couldve gone (which is why alot of people were interested, myself included, to see how the Media would take the SOX winning) were either

A: Give the SOX their due, and give them the EXTRA COVERAGE they didnt get previously

OR

B: Continue with Status Quo but b**** even more about the Cubs and What they need to do to win.

 

So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning

[zach23]

Wait, your taking ONE LINE, where he mentions that the SOX are outspending the Cubs by $10 million ...

where are you going with this? His article is RAHRAH, did you read the end of it? His throwing that $10 Million out there is certainly a way (in his mind) to remind the Cubs to start outspending the SOX. Its foolish on his part, because we know that simply spending $$$$$$$$$ doesnt guarantee winning. ("hey hangar, but werent you the one who called the SOX cheap because they wouldnt spend money? Your contradicting yourself again)

 

I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now.

 

Your right, the random fan in SanDiego will hopefully read that and say to himself, WOW, the SOX are a big-market team

 

After the SOX won the WS last year, I remarked often how things in the Media will change. Or how the Media will be FORCED to acknowledge the SOX and there was really only 2 ways for them to go. There was a reporter from the Tribune and SunTimes at the bar I was at (puffers) and they asked what all of this meant to me. I basically said the White Sox winning it all changes EVERYTHING, they will NOT be the dirty step-child of the city, and the Media will HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the White Sox and Give them their DUE finally, they EARNED IT.

 

Well, they never used my quote obviously. But the 2 ways the Media couldve gone (which is why alot of people were interested, myself included, to see how the Media would take the SOX winning) were either

A: Give the SOX their due, and give them the EXTRA COVERAGE they didnt get previously

OR

B: Continue with Status Quo but b**** even more about the Cubs and What they need to do to win.

 

So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning

 

But just because the internet wasn't available then doesn't mean you can't gather the data now. So you are just using your own perception from the 80's as "proof" with no hard data or facts. Pretty typical for you.

 

You are also now admitting that the moment the Sox won the World Series, your first thoughts were about who is more popular. Obviously your real issue in all of this is being the most popular and nothing else.

 

You are also admitting that just equal coverage isn't good enough for you. You want the coverage biased toward the Sox. This makes you a hypocrite. (No shock there since I have seen you being hypocritical on other issues as well.) You make the accusation of bias when you in turn want bias in favor of your view.

[Pods22]

Wait, your taking ONE LINE, where he mentions that the SOX are outspending the Cubs by $10 million ...

where are you going with this? His article is RAHRAH, did you read the end of it? His throwing that $10 Million out there is certainly a way (in his mind) to remind the Cubs to start outspending the SOX. Its foolish on his part, because we know that simply spending $$$$$$$$$ doesnt guarantee winning. ("hey hangar, but werent you the one who called the SOX cheap because they wouldnt spend money? Your contradicting yourself again)

 

I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now.

 

Your right, the random fan in SanDiego will hopefully read that and say to himself, WOW, the SOX are a big-market team

 

After the SOX won the WS last year, I remarked often how things in the Media will change. Or how the Media will be FORCED to acknowledge the SOX and there was really only 2 ways for them to go. There was a reporter from the Tribune and SunTimes at the bar I was at (puffers) and they asked what all of this meant to me. I basically said the White Sox winning it all changes EVERYTHING, they will NOT be the dirty step-child of the city, and the Media will HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the White Sox and Give them their DUE finally, they EARNED IT.

 

Well, they never used my quote obviously. But the 2 ways the Media couldve gone (which is why alot of people were interested, myself included, to see how the Media would take the SOX winning) were either

A: Give the SOX their due, and give them the EXTRA COVERAGE they didnt get previously

OR

B: Continue with Status Quo but b**** even more about the Cubs and What they need to do to win.

 

So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning

 

"So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning" Funny because I believe we have the better record. 1.5 games out of first place and they are what? 11 games? Get over yourself.

[Hangar18]

You see what you want to see BECAUSE YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH THE CUBS! Might as well give in and get a Barrett Jersey! At least your obsession will be healthy!

 

 

:banghead

[RibbieRubarb]

And my results are still being ignored by him... :headshake

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

[Hangar18]

And my results are still being ignored by him... :headshake

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

 

Ask an intelligent question ...........

[Pods22]

:banghead

 

 

bang away...you are like the preacher guy in front of old navy on state street. talk and talk and talk and only a few people stop to listen!

[Hangar18]

bang away...you are like the preacher guy in front of old navy on state street. talk and talk and talk and only a few people stop to listen!

 

 

I love intelligence

[RibbieRubarb]

Ask an intelligent question ...........

 

Well, I see facts and true figures mean nothing to you. You'd rather insult me than discuss my findings.

 

IMHO, you never read my post. But others should.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

Edited June 14, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[Pods22]

Well, I see facts and true figures mean nothing to you but insults do...

 

IMHO, you never read my post. But others should.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

 

 

I did it was good stuff. Now I dont post here hardly but I have been lurking for a while. I find it a bit ridiculous that this Hangar 18 guy has been on here for a long time now in fact member # 2 but only has a lilttle over a 100 posts. Up until he got banned from WSI he had like 20 at the most. And he come here and has the audacity to be rude to people by saying ask an intellegent question along with other rude comment that have been posting here day after day. who does he think he is?

[zach61]

Well, I see facts and true figures mean nothing to you. You'd rather insult me than discuss my findings.

 

IMHO, you never read my post. But others should.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

 

Your figures prove he is wrong with his counts, so he will continue to ignore them and hope they will go away. I don't understand why this guy wants to talk about the cubs and the trib's stories about the cubs on a Sox message board. Don't they have message boards for them somewhere else?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

bang away...you are like the preacher guy in front of old navy on state street. talk and talk and talk and only a few people stop to listen!

 

That guy has been out there for years...

[RibbieRubarb]

Your figures prove he is wrong with his counts, so he will continue to ignore them and hope they will go away. I don't understand why this guy wants to talk about the cubs and the trib's stories about the cubs on a Sox message board. Don't they have message boards for them somewhere else?

 

He has every right to discuss the Cubs and his Media Stories here in this Forum.That is the great thing about Soxtalk.

But my problem is that they are OPINIONS, but he passes them off as FACT. Thats lying. He refuses to acknowledge any other methods or results. His methods are skewed and and, in some cases, altered to provide the result he wants.

He calls for equality, but he wants a Sox-bias in the media. He ignores or insults anyone who challenges his "facts". Etc..etc...

 

And for anyone just joining us here is my post again until he answers them:

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1173334

Edited June 14, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[Steff]

I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now.

 

 

So... you began to notice and keep track of the media bias against the Sox.. even though you were a Cub fan till 2003...?

 

:rolly