Hangar18

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) Please show me your source on this statement. I never read or heard that comment in any paper, radio or TV broadcast. It's a very condeming statement against you if you cannot prove it to be true. Thank you Rick Morrissey, Chicago Tribune. It was a pretty big thread back when it happened, pissed off alot of SOX fans. And you know what? I was in Anaheim few weeks ago, chatting with some Angel fans. Someone casually mentioned that they "heard not a lot of SOX fans were at their own parade". Trib prints more stories about certain team. Perception is that certain team must be more important. QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) So why do you bring up the radio show then? Is the trib forcing them to talk about the cubs and not talk about the Sox? Brought up the radio show to lay to rest some here who think other SOX fans dont notice this disparity. The guy that called in and lambasted the hosts was a "lawyer" from burbs somewhere, Marty was his name? He gave the hosts a reaming, saying Who Cares about the Cubs anymore, they stink, lets talk about a winning team instead, a team that won the World Series. He was mocked by the hosts and dismissed, I then was angry he was treated like that and tried to call, and they said NO, were talking cub right now. Point is, the media has simply gotten LAZY. Why try and do some work, when we can just talk about goats and curses and ivy. "Well dont listen anymore". I could do that ........... but then that doesnt solve the problem does it? Fact is, Id love to listen to the radio and hear interesting SOX topics. Were winning and we should dominate the airwaves. What were getting is far from it. The Trib shoving that other team down everyones throats has made sports talk/media in this town a JOKE. Jason brings up a good point, being in LA, everything was about the LAKERS and DODGERS, but they were WINNING! They should get the coverage and the love. A better comparison would be the Clippers getting TONS of coverage, even though the Lakers just won a NBA Title or something of that nature

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) You feel ONE Cub article more than a Sox one is an insult. 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. It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling. The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime. A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls. It is an insult. My pointing out how that other team gets more stories, no matter the fortunes of the SOX is repulsive. The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE. Zach will say Who Cares, let them say what they want, or Jim saying Hey its a story about the SOX parade, why cant you be happy is everyone missing the point. QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) You need to start over because it has already been proven that your numbers are wrong. Change your rant to trib and times watch and tell us what stories you are counting and how you are interprting them to be biased against the Sox and promoting the cubs. Just counting a title isn't proving anything. What is the story about and how does that story make someone dislike the Sox and like the cubs and want to stay away from US Cellular and want to go to wrigley. That's what you keep claiming that you proved, but can't show it. I will change this to newspaper watch. More stories = More Coverage. How is it that a team with a miserable record for a Century, can have More Coverage than a Winning Team? More Fans? Incorrect. They didnt have as many "fans" as they do now. Winning tradition? Laughable. They dont win. How do they continue to have more coverage, and have had more than the SOX since Ive been keeping track? Because they are owned by a Media conglomerate. My pointing it out everyday just paints a picture of how absurd the whole thing is

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 11:32 AM) Well, the first question has yet to be answered, it is the opinion of several here that your method of counting stories is questionable, and now the thread has become personal, in a bad way. I also don't see it getting any better, mainly because you IMO are failing to take the hint that many people are poking holes in your methodology (if not overall purpose), and will continue to do so. Moderators ... I think it's more than time to put this out of its misery. Not my call of course, but this is going nowhere good. 1st question was answered previously, you just keep asking the same question. So was the 2nd question. Just because you dont think theres a media bias against the SOX, (but dont have your own proof, only shooting down my measurements) isnt cause to discontinue this thread. I asked a moderator if it was OK to post this here. The thread became personal because a certain person chose to start doing that. Im not following her down that path. Shes done that to me before numerous times, but I wont take her bait. Again, Jim, if you question my methods, why even look at this thread? or why dont you ADD something to the thread? Your quick to say there isnt a bias, but then you offer no proof. At least I have a method, counting the number of stories in both Chicago Newspapers. QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) Actually, no, it isn't. Take a look at page 20, SS2K5 addresses your double standard. What about my questions, which are why do you call it Chicago MediaWatch when in fact you're just looking at two aspects of Chicago media ... and ... since your methodology of counting stories has rightfully IMO being quetioned, why don't you measure column inches? Oh and my other question, which is, isn't deciding how a story is "slanted" subjective on your part, and how can you use a subjective (opinion based) measure as "proof" of a bias? SS2k's question why I didnt count Toni Ginettis "Tigers are Glorious" article was simple. She does an entire piece about them, how they got there, star players, etc. The story isnt about the SOX. It was a feature piece on the Tigers. Why they put it in the "SOX" section has no consequence, it shouldve been just a Feature. The Greenburg piece was added in the Cub section and I believed it to be about a former Cub who was just released after a freak accident. Im not going to measure column inches ........ thats ridiculous. If you would like to measure that and add it to this thread to counter anything Im saying, thats great too. Deciding how a story is "slanted"? Thats the fun part, because we can discuss it HERE afterwards (which is why we should probably NOT have ONE GIANT thread, it would be too hard to discuss separate articles) I wouldve loved your guys opionion on that Morrissey article, which he stated that there were tons of cub fans at the SOX WS Parade, and thats why there were a lot of people there, not because the SOX are popular. I wouldve loved to hear the opinion here of another great Morrissey article, in which he stated the reason Frank Thomas didnt get any respect here in Chicago was because SOX fans didnt like him. Thats false, he didnt get any respect because most of the time, the media would rather twist something he said, or they were too busy writing Sammy is Great stories instead. JimH, are you saying the Chicago Sky getting the Front Page a couple weeks ago for like an entire Week Straight is Misleading? How so? They were on the Front/Lead story for a week. I have the pictures and the articles to prove so. Okay Jim, if you'd like this to be called the Chicago Newspaper Watch, I am willing to call it that

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) NO. but all you simply have to do is look at tv ratings for both teams for those decades. Also, look at attendance records for both teams thru the decades. You can also ask some of the old-timers (if there are any here) whether this was a "soxtown" before now. They will all say gosh-darn yes. This was a SOXTown from the 1950's on. That other team has stunk since 1950 (only 3 90-win seasons since then. that is Pathetic) but incredibly, their attendance/tv ratings (read: popularity) rose coincidentally with the Trib Entertainment Corporation owning them. How in the world can attendance go UP for a team that has gotten WORSE? Does this mean the Rockies and DevilRays will see similar spikes in popularity/attendance? Probably not. Unless a major media magnate buys one of them. So to go back to the original statement, that the other team "sells" and thats why they get more media-coverage is false. They get more media coverage because the major news outlet in this city is More Interested in Cross Promoting one of its products AHEAD of simply giving us and reporting Sports News. A huge Conflict of Interest, by journalist standards Here is my ANSWER to SSk's 1st question.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) Im sure your counting the Detroit Tiger story as a SOX story. There are no interviews with SOX players, managers, staff regarding the Tigers. The story Isnt about what the SOX think of the Tigers. Its entirely on its own all about the Tigers, and thus isnt a SOX story. However, since were all nitpicking, im going to add this to the Tiger count. AGAIN, there are only 4 SOX stories in todays Tribune. A story about the Tigers, entirely about the Tigers and how the Tigers are a force to be reckoned with, does them no service if its counted as a SOX story. Greenbergs story was tough to call, but the Trib included it in the Cub notes section. The story im sure didnt have to be included, but were told how he was a cub, was drafted, made his first appearance, got beaned, was injured, Cubs didnt know what to do with him, Greenburg asked Cubs to Release him making the Dodgers' interest a story in itself did qualify this as a Cub story. And by the way, the Trib adds the William Ligue tales as "SOX" related, but I dont include those either. Are you guys gonna sweat me for not including the Ligue stuff too? This was my response to SSKs 2nd question, To which I ALREADY ANSWERED. QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) The disgusting s*** you did to poor "T" alone would keep you in your hole for years. Paying off that debt...? Yes, I care about the harmony. It's a nice balance we have here. Open, honest, and respectful. See what Im talking about? open honest and respectful, but Steff feels the need to try and air what might be construed as dirty laundry about myself, in order to feel better? or make me look bad? what does that have to do with my media watch?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) Not always. Just when the harmony of THIS site is threatened. YOU are the one that came over here after YOU were booted from there for a variety of reasons. YOU made a point of talking s*** about WSI and their mods and members. YOU invited this on yourself. YOU made a decision to bring attention to yourself with this behavior. Yes, I will call it out when bulls*** is brought here. They don't allow it there and vice versa as a courtesy. They are both sites with a common purpose. Others here have been banned there and yet they realize this is not the place to air dirty laundry. If your goal is to talk s***, take it somewhere else. Oh, so you care about "harmony" huh? Arent you the person that defined getting "personal" on message boards? Yeah, I was booted, I didnt hide that fact. It wasnt a "variety" of reasons Mrs. Kiley for your information. Do me a favor, if you dont have anyting interesting to add to the thread, please dont post. Im sure others will agree.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) Hey Hangar ... are you going to answer those questions? Or ignore them and hope they go away? Man up or shut up. Im trying to find them. This one entire thread doesnt really work well for this kind of thing .... what day did he ask this "question?"

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) I can explain both disparities. The Cubs sell. Why don't you see the WNBA on the front page, while you see the Bulls on the front page for everything? You mustve missed the Front Page Headlines for a week straight on the Chicago Sky in the Trib a couple weeks ago. Ooops, Im just making that up right?

QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) Isn't the media supposed to write stories that appeal to the majority of the public? Doesn't Chicago still have more Cubs fans than White Sox fans? So wouldn't it make sense that the Chicago papers write about the Cubs more? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to see the point of this 'research'. You are wrong. The newspaper isnt ENTERTAINMENT, they'd probably like you to believe that. This whole "theres more cub fans" (if thats a fact) is not reason to slant your stories towards them, and negatively slant stories to the SOX. Does anyone understand that? The Tribune ISNT VINELINE, which DOES have to appeal to the majority of its readership, which are cub fans. QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) Not much of a shock that your account of the facts are very different than those documented. not much of a shock that steff is always trying to dig up stuff and cause havoc. Yeah ......... well people can dig up that thread and see for themselves what happened.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) Now THAT's funny. Hangar first you say you were banned due to your media watches, and then you say no one over there had a problem with your methods. Two totally conflicting statements, and yet we are to believe your numbers have credibility? Please answer SS2K5's questions. Exactly, nice post NorthSide. Yes I was banned for my media watches, (which they asked that they be placed in a forum that allows discussion of that other team) I was then banned for defending my point the exact reason was "your the ringleader" regarding talking about the Cubs. They dont allow talking about the Cubs, despite having a Forum specifically created for talking about that other team (theres your conflict) No one over there (moderators and posters) had a problem with my system of counting stories. If they did, this wouldve been brought up years ago. so no ..............those arent .......conflicting Statements at all QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:08 AM) No, you didn't answer SS2K5's questions, you have been asked multiple times now Stop dodging SS2K5's questions. Where is his question? Its kind of hard to read this kind of thread ....................the dates all blend into each other .........

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/13/06 With the Cubs being off on Monday and the SOX having a national telecast on ESPN, it seemed like a good chance for the SOX to make a serious dent into the 95 story lead the Cubs currently hold over the World Series Champion White Sox. Unfortuneately, the teams remained dead-even again and the SOX unable to gain any ground. Mike Kiley, who has become the king of ridiculously propogandistic articles, continues his reign with a pure speculation piece, which among other things says that other team will be in the playoffs because Marmol will be the 06 NL Rookie of the Year (only 1 MLB start) , Nevin can still hit the ball on the "button", Wood/Prior-you just cant count them out, Pierre will show why he'll be here for "years to come" and ..........well the bible says "the last shall be first", inferring that since that other team is last in everything, they will end the season first in everything? The SOX stories today were basic in nature, one being the Game Story and mentioning Contreras being a shoo-in now for the starting slot in the All Star Game. I really hope this fact gets the ball rolling and he in fact does start the game. Despite Winning The World Series in 2005, the White Sox INEXPLICABLY find themselves lagging far far behind in media stories, to a team that finished in 4th place the previous year. Chicago Tribune: 4 cub stories 4 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 3 cub stories 3 sox stories Standings as of Tuesday, June 13th 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 2005 Cubs 567 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 05 Sox 472 QUOTE(NYSox35 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) And that is a Knockout!!!! Hardly .........

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) The person from the Tribune was right. On the Daily Herald and Southtown, both papers are readily available in the city, particularly downtown. The Tribune and Sun Times receive highly significant circulation from the suburbs, so it's highly inaccurate to describe your crusade as Chicago media bias. You still fail to answer SS2K5's questions (go back a few pages to see them). I presume the potshots at another White Sox fan site will cease now that a mod told you to knock it off. Lest you or someone ask me why I'm clicking on this thread and responding, it's because we share something in common hanger18. I don't like it when misinformation, half truths, and inaccuracies are spread to Sox fans, especially when someone trumpets they've "proven" something. Again, you have proven nothing. What about measuring column inches vs. your dubious story counting methods? Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) I thought the whole reason why they didn't complete the color change for the seats was because they were going to reangle them. Well, that seems to be the understanding now ....................the SOX are very likely going to have ANGLED SEATS down the lines in those sections. For those of you who Love looking towards CenterField, this will probably be a slap in the face to you guys. For those who "complained/suggested" the angled seats, it might be happening now

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 07:35 PM) I did listen. Ozzie did not say he was pro drug use, but what he did say was basically a rat and a bad guy for "ratting people out". Well how about I send two dozen feds to Ozzie's house, while he has HGH in it, have the feds offer to take it easy on him if he talks, and see how he reacts. IT'S THE FEDS PEOPLE, you don't just "clam up" and "not snitch" when it's the f***ing feds. Your point is good ............. but thats based on Ozzie saying nobody should be talking. Your Right, once the Feds start asking questions, you have no choice but to answer. The Radio Mediots dedicated the entire show to blasting Ozzie because somehow, his comments mustve meant he was Pro Drug Use. It was ridiculous that the show was about Ozzie when it shouldve been about Was Grimsley in the right or wrong?

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) Dude, you got issues easy there, its refreshing to be able to talk about something, without worrying about the topic. Attendance, blue seats, the trib, September losing streaks, its all good now

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) Listening is a skill, and I guess you don't have it based on some of the things I've read. What you READ, as opposed to what he SAID, are 2 different things. Why dont you listen to the soundbite ........... might be able to get a better read on this. As I was saying, Ozz is getting lambasted over this when, Grimsley should be the one raked over the coals. Ozzie didnt say He was PRO DRUG USE. Media felt he shouldve taken an different step, and because he didnt, he must therefore be condoning the use.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) He deserves every bit of s*** he gets. If you defend the users, you should be lambasted, and I don't give a damn who you are. I normally love Ozzie, but to defend the cheaters is inexcuseable and represents the entire organization in a bad way. Ozzie WASNT DEFENDING THE USERS. The Radio people acted as if he did. All Ozzie said was Grimsley should shut his mouth, if he was using and just because hes caught now wants to tell on everyone else is his problem.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) BTW, did anyone see the write up about the new stadium for the Fire. They have blue seats, and the reason for the blue was supposedly withblue seats, if its not full, it won't look as empty on television. I love blue seats. I READ THAT ARTICLE!!!! The article indeed states that the Chicago Fire wanted BLUE seats because BLUE doesnt appear as empty on TV. This topic on the other site would get dozens banned for talking about blue seats/attendance.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) There is no way they can change the angle of the seats without completely overhauling the concrete aisle set ups (like someone else said). YES they can. The way the seats are constructed now ..........its a simple bracket with the Hinge for the seats on either side of the bracket being of EQUAL measurements. The Brackets at Petco are not like this. Instead, for example, the measurements on the right side of the bracket are measured at say 4 inches, and on the left side of the bracket, are at like 8 inches. This allows for the seat to be facing towards the infield, while the bracket is still in a "straight line" (facing towards centerfield)

QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) Plus, if newspapers affect people so much, wouldn't the pro-Sox bias of the Southtown be causing tons of surburbanites to become Sox fans thus offsetting all the damage that the Tribune does in the city? Again, the Tribune has WAY MORE CLOUT than a little neighborhood newspaper, like the Southtown. They arent worried about them. When the Southtown begins buying up other newspapers, radio stations and becomes part of FOX network, than you'll probably see playing field leveled. QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) When I lived in Chicago I got the Southtown there. Plus, if newspapers affect people so much, wouldn't the pro-Sox bias of the Southtown be causing tons of surburbanites to become Sox fans thus offsetting all the damage that the Tribune does in the city? What about national sports media such as the major sports magazines? Don't people in Chicago read those? Wouldn't they offset anything that the Tribune does? Wouldn't people outside of Chicago see those national periodicles more than local papers like the Trib and Times? If the Tribune can control what the Times is doing as far as bias, why can't they strong arm small papers like the Southtown and Herald? Shouldn't they be able to also strong arm Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine and make them show a bias to the Cubs? I think you should include every possible newspaper in the area including the Star, the Bridgeport News, the Joliet Herald, and the sports section in StreetWise. You should also include every story in each sports magazine sold in the city and suburbs and there should be an accurate account for the total time in minutes and seconds that each team is talked about on each and every radio station and tv station in the tri-state area. This includes the FM stations, spanish stations, etc. and not just AM1000 and WSCR. If all that was done accurately and verified by a non-biased 3rd party (maybe a board made up of people that have no interest in sports) then the media bias could be taken seriously and you could be given a nomination for a pulitzer prize for your work in exposing this. Nobody in Chicago reads those magazines? I remember someone from the Tribune, whom I wont name, saying the very same things. Said my Media Watches were biased themselves, the numbers prove nothing, the numbers could be wrong (despite my challenging them to check out my numbers-Got No Reply), im just jealous of the Tribune, Trib doesnt strong-arm anyone, Trib doesnt support the Cubs (despite reports of Andy McPhail and Jim Hendry Cussing Out and Verbally Abusing Trib Reporter Paul Sullivan) Trib is a legitimate news source, Why is everyone else enamored with the Cubs then, Southtown is Pro-Sox why arent you mentioning them, Why arent you including small newspapers like the Bridgeport News or the Jonesville Gazette those papers have as much "influence". I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.

Thats WHY its called the Chicago NewsMedia Watch. Not the Suburban NewsMedia Watch. Those papers cater to the suburbs of Chicago. the Tribune Entertainment Corporation has much more CLOUT than the 3 papers combined. QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) Yes, because the media in general would also include magazines such as SI, ESPN, and Sporting News. I don't know about Sporting News, but I get SI and the ESPN Magazine and both give the Sox some decent coverage. This is the CHICAGO newsmedia watch. Not the NATIONAL NEWSMEDIA WATCH.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) What's so hard about turning your kneck again? My god, lets complain about everything. So your Voting for Seats Facing Scoreboard in other words? OK. Anyone else wanting seats facing CenterField or Facing HomePlate?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) I think that they're missing Ozzie's point. He doesn't necessarily condone steroid use. The issue that he had was with teammates ratting each other out. Rifts like that can destroy a team's chemistry and affect their play adversely. Ozzie's job is to win baseball games, not to clean up the sport. Agreed. I never took Ozzies anger with Jason Grimsley as Ozzie Defends Steroit Use, but the nimrods over the weekend tried to run with that the entire day. I KNOW ozzie doesnt condone that use, why they chose to go that route, I have no idea .........

At Petco Park, the seats at 3b and 1b going towards the Foul Poles are ALL ANGLED even though the section is facing the field. Its very unique, and im hoping thats what the SOX are going to do also. I dont like facing the scoreboard and turning my head 90 degrees to watch the game. YES, they shouldve taken that fact into consideration

Radio shows over the weekend were buzzing with "hosts" labeling Ozzie as EVIL for his stance that Grimsley should just shut up and quit outing people. The morning hosts over at The Score (Sox flagship) spent the entire morning saying the Ozz should be condemning people for this behavior, and not defending them. I didnt think Ozz was defending them, but he was made a Villain over the weekend, including Rick Morrisseys bogus column. Anyone agree with these people?