Hangar18

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) Exactly what do 1982 attendance records have to do with today? What do 1982 attendance records have to do with a media bias? You mention frequently that there have always been "more cub fans" than SOX fans, and that factor is the business model for which the Trib has decided to slant their coverage towards the Cubs. I told that isnt the case, its the Tribs trumpeting how great the Cubs are and the park, and how cold the beer is in Wrigley, that has caused them to fill the park. I showed you the attendance for 1981, and 1982, which isnt that long ago ......... to prove that park wasnt filled to capacity with sheep as it is today.

I thought for sure I was going to see DJ "is an idiot" or "who cares about seat angles" "we just won series, do you complain about everything?" or "Dj never said that" responses, heh heh

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) Hangar, can you please explain the ongoing disrepancy of how you count and how SS2K5 counts and how I count? Re: the Tribune. Also I think it's very fair to ask you to provide some proof for that statement, and no I'm not talking about your wishy washy accounting methods or you saying in 1982 you didn't see a lot of people wearing Cubs hats around the city. So my 1982 attendance records for the SOX and Cubs are wishy-washy? as of 8am this morning, those were the stories that were entered in Tribune online. Same with SunTimes. Looks like the Trib has just added a "SOX" story. Your Zeal and Zestful manner in which you try to uncover sinister plots on my end to "cook" up the numbers are nothing more than the Trib now adding a story. I also note that the Trib has changed the Title of the Dusty contract article. Or are we going to call me out on that too Jim?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Seems as if you're focused on the sports sections because I think you missed the full-page story about that cubs newspaper-parody thing and 2 of the 3 father's day pictures being from wrigley field in yesterday's sun-times... If I missed that, you definitely should mention gratuitious pictures like this

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) Common sense? Bias-one sided, Misguided idiotic? My statement regarding the cub picks signing bonus was all of that? How so? Hangar says: Guy getting 5 million for being a 1st round pick, and another guy getting 7.25 Million for being a 5th round pick, is biased? Misguided? Idiotic? Its a legitimate question.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) For the love of God Yas... you know this is no place for common sense!! Bias - one sided misguided idiotic bias - is all that's allowed here. Common sense? Bias-one sided, Misguided idiotic? My statement regarding the cub picks signing bonus was all of that? How so?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) Ding. Winner. If this were TRUELY an effort to bury the White Sox, the effort by the TribCo would be INCREASING now, as the Cubs have fallen into the toilet, while the Sox are world champs. This is a crucial junction at which we could be witnessing the transformation of Chicago from a Cubs town to a Sox town, and yet the Tribune is theoretically helping out the Sox by publishing more of their stories in relation to recent history than they ever have done before? No way. There would be more of an effort to slander the Sox, as the Cubs marketshare is being challenged for the first time since the early 90's. Now why would the Tribune all of the sudden be MORE interested in the Sox, at the expense of their own team? Profit motivation. They see more dollars on the table, and they want them. This is correct, The SOX of course need to keep Winning. Continueing to Win has put them at a very important Fork-In-The-Road regarding the Chicago Media I truly believe ("how can you believe that? based on what hangar? dude your a lunatic") The fact that the SOX will get close to 3 Million People this year, a franchise record, broke the number of sellouts in franchise history, have gotten to 1Million in attendance fastest in franchise history, sold out all of their season tickets for the first time in franchise history, and have stellar TV Ratings right now, has made the SOX very very hard to Ignore. Dont get me wrong, since spring training began, the Media ran wild with "its cubs' turn now" and gave them a disproportionate amount of coverage ("can you prove this hangar? why would they do that? thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard? you sir are a lunatic, making sox fans look bad, arent you ever happy?") considering the SOX just won the World Series and shouldve dominated the media coverage. All were seeing right now is a very very BAD Cub team being able to stay ahead in newspaper coverage to SOX team with the 2nd best record in baseball, and fighting for 1st place. Which way the media goes now is very interesting, SOX fans are showing they too have financial muscle (always had it) and will have to play out over the coming months. Whoever thought we'd get to this position, where the Media (Where the Tribune goes, everyone else will follow) has to make an ideological decision like this. I tend to think money will win out in the end, and even the Tribune cant be that dumb to continue to alienate such a big fanbase like this. A Winning Fanbase. We will certainly see. But does that mean theres no need for the MediaWatches? Of course not.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) Again, prove it. Counting stories doesn't do it. You've claimed you've proven something, you haven't. Please tell me EXACTLY how the Tribune has buried the White Sox. My counting the number of stories over the past few years has proven nothing? If you think my system proves nothing, then my thread is probably of no interest to you ....... What do you propose Jim, I sneak into the ivory tower and wear a wire?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice. You estimate there are smart business people at the Trib to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. Well they may have "realized" that, but it sure didnt translate into Trib policy the last couple of decades did it? I cant begin to tell you how many times columnists, writers, fans, tourists and others, have simply ASSUMED that since that other team gets 39,000 daily, while the South Side team gets 20,000 it must mean that there are more cub "fans" than Sox fans and license to give that team more coverage than the SOX, Won-Loss records be damned. How many articles have we read about how "theres more cub fans"? How many times was this mentioned on tv? Seems if you keep repeating it, people believe it as gospel, never questioning how did become to be in the first place, if its so? Were finding out just how WRONG it was to assume that theory as law this very season. Both teams have a chance to hit 3 million ....EACH! "Yeah Hangar, thats only because those are cub fans that want to see the SOX too now, so you again are full of stuff man, these media watches dont prove anything! ahahahahaha") This town could ALWAYS support two teams ..........

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:23 AM) But the bottom line is, I do not see and can't fathom the Chicago Tribune purposely and willfully turning its back ..... it is bad for their business to try and bury the White Sox. In my estimation they have enough smart business people at the Tribune to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice. You estimate there are smart business people at the Trib to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. Well they may have "realized" that, but it sure didnt translate into Trib policy the last couple of decades did it? I cant begin to tell you how many times columnists, writers, fans, tourists and others, have simply ASSUMED that since that other team gets 39,000 daily, while the South Side team gets 20,000 it must mean that there are more cub "fans" than Sox fans and license to give that team more coverage than the SOX, Won-Loss records be damned. Were finding out just how WRONG it was to assume that theory as law this very season. Both teams have a chance to hit 3 million ....EACH! "Yeah Hangar, thats only because those are cub fans that want to see the SOX too now, so you again are full of stuff man, these media watches dont prove anything! ahahahahaha") This town could ALWAYS support two teams ..........

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) Please explain which stories you used to get your totals, because I am not getting the same totals again. 1 Cub backup bat 16hit explosion 1 Cub catcher starts suspension 1 Cubs draft pick deal upsets commish 1 Piven: no disrespect intended at Wrigley +1 Cub losses hurting manager chances to return ________ = 5 cub stories

I think whats being lost here, is the fact this guy just made a WHOPPING $7 Million Bucks! and he was drafted in the 5th ROUND! I see why now that Selig is upset about this. This "signing" is a much bigger deal than it initially seems. This has the chance to change the way the draft is run now ....

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) Where do you get the impression the Sun Times tries to mimic everything the Tribune does? Why are you telling us the Sun Times goes out of their way to help promote the Cubs? As SS2K5 says, it doesn't add up, nor do I see a Chicago major daily wanting to commit business suicide in that fashion. Lastly, you never answered my repeated question about "media ignored" White Sox. Last week you admitted it was an ill turned phrase, yet yesterday you included it again. What gives? Well, have you noticed those Red Newsboxes all around the city? both newspapers have the same version of a paper, even including the word RED in the papers name. ("Hey Hangar, I have proof that the SunTimes was first with their paper, so again, your full of stuff man") Whichever paper came first doesnt really matter, what matters is that both papers are in close tandem fighting for readership in the city. Your repeated "question" about the Media Ignored isnt really a question, ive always felt the Media has ignored the SOX in relation to that other team. "Well hangar, there was a story about the Sox today, so they arent really ignored are they? hahahah, your so full of it man hahahahaah" But in order to save some bandwith, I will use a different term. Thanks much.

I dont think anyone in the Media mentioned this today. Was this just announced this very moment?

Apparently, the Cubs have flexed their mighty financial muscle, throwing $7 million bucks at a player they drafted .... in the 5th round. Paul Sullivan reports that pseudo-commissioner Bud Selig was angered over the events (and likely to get Sullivan another verbal beat-down by Hendry & McPhail). The SunTimes & Mike "Yellow" Kiley make no reference to the commissioners anger. Today was interesting in that the SOX were off and played no game, while the other team did. Usually means the team that plays ends up by default getting more stories. That hasnt usually played out this way in the recent past however. Some of the ground the SOX gained recently has all been lost again. Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, and having the 2nd best record thru the 1990's, the SOX find themselves lagging far behind in media newspaper coverage to a team that, since 1990 has ZERO 90-win seasons (98 doesnt count), and since 1950 has only THREE 90-win season Chicago Tribune: 5 cub stories 2 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 4 cub stories 3 sox stories Standings as of Tuesday June 20th, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Historically Favored, 5th place currently Cubs 607 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Historically Ignored, WS Champs in 05 SOX 511

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) That's it? That's the answer? OK. #1 If their is a big conspiracy to screw the Sox, why is the Tribune giving the Sox more coverage? #2 If their is a big conspiracy to screw the Sox, why would the Tribune Company's biggest media rival be either complicit or even participating in something that would AID their biggest competitor in the Chicago market? As I said before, I can accept the Trib trying to bury the Sox because it makes sense to their bottom line. What I don't understand is how you can claim the Sun Times is part of this when ever fiber of business and common sense saids otherwise. What has not been proved is that the Sun Times is involved in anything except maximizing profits. #2 Hey, I ask the same thing, Im not sure what the heck the SunTimes is thinking ............ other than they ARENT thinking. The SunTimes looks at the Trib as the belle of the ball, and tries to mimic everything they do. Someone at the SunTimes will have to step up and tell us why theyve gone out of their way to help promote the product of their rival. The only thing I can think of, is they are simply taking the SAFE way out. Cowards #1 If the Trib is giving the SOX more coverage now, they havnt been doing it consistently. The big question is, will they keep giving them more coverage? or will that fall by the wayside the first 3 game Cub winning streak? QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 09:21 PM) To borrow your words ... Please understand, CleanSox. I tend to lay in the background about most things that aren't directly related to between the white lines. I don't care if Mike Caruso smoked dope, if Albert Belle snarled at women, if Willie Harris smokes Camels, if Paul Konerko is reputed to love the camera, or which players have extra marital affairs. I do, however, take issue with people who try to impose their theory on a group of posters who are mostly young people. The median age here is fairly low, and just by not living as many years, they will not have the depth and breadth of experience with Chicago media. Hangar's "rally around the Sox flag, we're being maligned by the media" rant is based on sand castle data and assumptions. There are several people here who have problems with it, why not address them too Clean Sox, or has Hangar told you to address only me? Matters not to me, but I like this site, I have been here a long time ... and I think people here should see the counterpoint to all of Hangar's supposed "proof". Now I'm just curious ... do you have anything to contribute to this site other than asking me why I'm taking issue with Hangar's rants? You do know we have other forums besides this one ... right? Maybe add something to the site before questioning why people are doing things in your first three posts? Close ... but is it ok if they are Led Zeppelin and Crosby, Stills, and Nash? Jim, they are good questions ................ QUOTE(marsh @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 09:58 PM) In reply to Jim H: I do agree that it generally describes how any newspaper determines coverage of anything. It's pretty simple, but I don't think it answers the question. Saying that there is a direct correlation between the cubs popularity and tribune ownership implies to me, perhaps wrongly is that there are forces at work within the tribune to advance the cubs popularity. That's the motive, right? JimH wrote: They try to find out what their customers like/want. They realize a lot of their subscribers like to read about the Cubs. Big newspaper + very popular newspaper + editorial philosophy of writing about what lots of people want to read about = lots of Cub stories. I think the whole discussion revolves around the belief that they favor the cubs because they own them, not because they want to sell more papers. Is is a chicken and egg arguement? Maybe it just worked out wonderfully for them that way. I guess I'm a little more skeptical. CHEERS well thought out, someone that can read between the lines and formulate an opinion of what might be happening, and not worrying about semantics

As for your question regarding Rick Morrissey (hes the guy who once wrote that the SOX ws parade wasnt all SOX fans, but lots of Cub fans out to witness a parade) "at times sunday, it sounded as if there were more Tiger fans than Cub fans at Wrigley (at times? Im told Sunday there WERE more Tiger fans than cub fans, at least thats the way it Sounded, and the way it was painted by witnesses), and it made some sense. Detroits not too far from Chicago. But are instant converts out of the realm of possibility? Not on this day, not in this season" Planting the seed of doubt if Cub fans maybe decided they were going to turn into Tiger fans midgame and cheer for them. Why imply this later then? "and bless the 39,938 fans who showed up on Sunday and decided they were having none of it" As if the entire stadium were Cub fans who booed lustily? Hardly. Tiger fans could be audibly heard running wild in that park, cheering and making a case for this being Comerica West.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 04:24 PM) You said it was the "only possible explanation" but you conveniently ignore multiple other factors. I was a young adult during that era, very in tune with baseball and the media, perhaps moreso than I am now. - Resurgence of Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville - Subsequent resurgence of other north side neighborhoods, continuing to this day - Negative fallout toward the White Sox for the loss of a very popular broadcaster, subsequently adopted by the young adult north side crowd as a partying Uncle Harry. - The exploding growth of WGN, particularly into other states - The increased rate of job transferees in the 80's. Many many many more "transplants". - Lots of old ballparks were still around. Wrigley was well maintained, stood the test of time, and screamed "party" to a blossoming number of affluent young adults. The more Wrigley lasted, the more "historic" it became, including being listed as a tourist attraction in travel books. - Negative fallout later in the 80's toward Reinsdorf and Einhorn, including the threatened move to Florida, the perception they staged a hold up to get the new ballpark, people bemoaning the loss of old Comiskey, the difference in vibrancy between Bridgeport and Wrigleyville. All word of mouth factors. There's at least a half dozen that had nothing to do with the Tribune. Direct correlation between Cub popularity and Tribune ownership? Perhaps but certainly not the only factor as you paint it. Far from it. BTW, are you going to answer the questions I raised? This is only about the 7th time I've asked and you conveniently seem to ignore them. All of those points were brought up by you and others, and helped slide the sox to the bottom tier of course. Your Wrigley was well-maintained theory doesnt hold if the Trib hadnt been the ones Screaming "Party here" first. Yes, these were also factors, but I believe the Tribs ownership of the Cubs, and their Unique ability to directly and indirectly Influence first-hand some of these "fans" to come and spend their money and days, partying their butts off, never mind the teams record. Explains why the Trib is so sensitive to the marketing of its team, despite the fact they continue to this day to tell us that the Cub product has nothing to do with the Tribune, its a separate entity. Sure it is Thats why a Paul Sullivan gets a Verbal Beat-Down by Jim Hendry and Andy McPhail.

I think this series means even less to SOX fans (and Tiger fans for that matter). That team has collapsed under the weight of its 2006 World Series expectations

Jim, your question to me, regarding whether I said "the attendance numbers have changed" is my acknowledgement that SOX attendance has risen, but not exponentially with their record. The Trib told us whoever is winning, usually gets the most coverage. That team didnt have as many fans as they do now, were it not for the shrewd marketing scheme of theirs. YES, sox attendance has gone up, but to say thats why the coverage is dead-even doesnt explain the "winning" team gets the coverage philosophy the media has held steadfastly to. The only thing that can explain that is the Trib has a double-standard, because, well, shoot they own one of the teams. The team they own Stinks on a regular basis, they cant have coverage be applied to it using the "winning team gets coverage" rule, they change the rules. Again, maybe June 06 is the highwater mark for that other team and the pendulum begins swinging the other way. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) .................The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is. This does seem to be the case ...........if things continue just like this

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) I think there tends to be some bias - but the #'s appear to be shifting since the Sox have won and continue to win. Eventually, a crap product will start to decline attendance, and it will shift if the Sox keep winning. The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is. this is what the numbers showed, once it was broken down by paper. I did say that hey, since June began, the Cubs have only had a slight lead this month, with the numbers basically saying both teams are being covered dead even. The Cubs slide into oblivion this month seems to have put BOTH teams on even ground as far as storie counts go. The only thing left to do is base these numbers on their record now the next few months. Will the numbers Grow larger for the SOX the more the other team keeps losing? Or will it stay the same? QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) WHAT? How about answering the questions? Please address the questions that have been asked of you, specifically the ones asked by me and SS2K5. 1981 was a strike year wasn't it? And yes I do remember walking around then, in fact I spent a lot of time in Lincoln Park around those years. Know what? Saw a lot of Cub apparel even back then. What on earth does 1981 and 1982 have to do with today? Before you post, I would suggest you start yourself. I am talking about today, not 25 years ago. There are literally millions of Cub fans. I don't like it but it's true. And no, they weren't all created by the Tribune, despite your half baked theory. 1981 and 1982 are the first years the Trib bought that other team ............ and the "shift" in coverage began immediately. Where did these fans come from? I was around in 1980, I NEVER remember hearing "historic" wrigley field as much as I did that year and every year after. I also remember that team stunk miserably. I remember nobody going there, so where are all these fans coming from? What im trying to say, is their "popularity" if we want to call it something, is in direct correlation, with the Trib buying them and marketing the heck out of them. That includes giving them all the extra coverage in the world they could possibly give them.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) OMG. This is so far off the deep end I don't even know where to start. Demographics have been around since the beginning of media. LOTS of media people talk about how to market to Cub fans, because there are so many Cub fans. Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage". No they dont. 1981 Cub attendance 565,637 1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278 And the Chicago White Sox? 1981 Sox attendance 946,651 1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787 Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) My observation all along as been that attendance is much more of a deteriming factor vs record, and it seems to be holding true. As the Sox attendance has gotten to the point where it is very near the Cubs, their media coverage has jumped up almost identially in terms of number of stories. The Sox big attendance jump didn't occur until late 2005, and into 2006 it has continued, and right their with it, seemingly the media coverage has followed. Like I said, it isn't conspiracy, its good business. Think about it, the Chicago Rush won a national title, does that mean they should have completely owned the sports pages? How about all of the years that the lowly Chicago Wolves were winning Turner Cup titles, while the Blackhawks were in their death spiral down, should the Hawks have been relegated to the back page, while the Wolves knocked the Bulls and Hawks off of the front pages during the winters? Not a chance. If the Trib owned the Rush, we might not be making that case. Same with the Wolves.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) Ok let me try and read between the lines here. - In your view, story counts definitively prove bias, regardless of the type of story. - Demographics mean nothing, the newspapers shouldn't try to reach out to their readers, the large number of Cub fans in Chicagoland should basically be ignored. Further, coverage should be totally based on winning %, coverage defined as gross number of stories. 1st part of your question, is basically a YES (dont start the "how can there be a bias if some of the stories are negative") 2nd part. You continue to go down this "demographic" path. When the Trib bought the Cubs, they didnt have as "many" fans (sheep) as they do today, and that is even arguable. The Trib said their ownership would not "interfere" with their coverage of the White Sox (there was no mention of "demographics" or anything remotely close to saying "but since there are more cub fans, that still allows us to devote more stories to them). Noone, nowhere, no now ever said anything about their being more cub "fans" and that they had a loophole just in case the SOX are Winning in any of those years. No, in fact, both papers said they determined the number of stories devoted to both teams simply by who was "Winning". The Cubs have done plenty of the opposite in the couple of decades theyve been owned by that Entertainment Empire. In fact, the number of stories (negative and positive) has greatly outpaced that of the SOX, despite some very good years by the south-siders. "so what hangar, big deal that they get more stories the last few years". Guess whats happened in that same time-span? Cub attendance has SKYROCKETED. Im not going bore us with attendance for that team, but how is it that a team can GET WORSE over the course of a few years, and actually GET BETTER IN ATTENDANCE? Theres only one real way to explain this. The number of stories in a paper continuously talking about that team can only have helped them. QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Wait a minute hangar, didn't you just say the White Sox have gotten a lot more coverage since mid 2005? Didn't I just see you post that comment? When you say "as one would think", you are correct. That "one" being you. I am confused hangar. Please explain how more White Sox attendance = more coverage but in the Cubs case consistent sell outs should equal less coverage? We keep going down this path. Winning. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:14 PM) What are the TV ratings like between the teams for similar times? This was Quietly mentioned very recently. The SOX were blowing away the flubbies in Tv Ratings, the article mentioned cub viewership down like 54% IIRC

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) What is interesting is that the numbers really outpace attendance at the ballparks, so Sox fans are actually getting relatively more coverage vs the number of people who go to the ballpark. In terms of raw attendance, the Sox are drawing about 20% less fans per game than the Cubs are, yet they are almost dead even in terms of their stories in June. Interesting. Even just isolating June, the Sox are averaging 36,017 per game, and the Cubs are getting 40,486 good for about 10% more fans per game, which to me if the Cubs are getting about 10% more coverage with 10% more fans attending their games, that seems about right to me. Looking at things from a strictly business standpoint, you expect more coverage of things that draw more paying customers. I can't really argue with that. Its the reason the Sox and Cubs get coverage, while the Sky have fallen all of the way back to the back pages of the newspapers. To me, theres not much difference in 40,500 and being a sellout (that team), vs us having 38,000 (and selling out). Theyre both sellouts for all intents and purposes, and the fact that one team in the last 2 years, has seen a dramatic SHIFT in attendance figures, but hasnt really translated into newsstories (when other team had well past 200+ stories beating us) as one would think. Maybe though, this is just the "upward" trend the SOX will start seeing? Next year at this time, the SOX will, if numbers "continue", be that much in front of that other team, and start to see a slide upwards?