Hangar18

Went to the ballgame Friday nite, and a buddy of mine asked my why some of the seats were Green and some Blue. I told them the SOX are dragging their feet on the seat replacement project. He said he went to the earlier in the week and was sitting down the lines, and wondered why they dont ANGLE the seats towards homeplate instead of towards Centerfield as they currently are. I told him Ive long complained about those seats, and make sure I dont have tickets for those sections to avoid the problem. But it got me thinking, I wonder if the newewst seats this offseason will indeed be ANGLED towards the infield. What do you guys think?

Grade school and high school. I always loved the SS position, but as a kid I was smaller than everyone, and I had no arm so I was made to play 2B.

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/12/06 The SOX are able to gain ONE WHOLE STORY today, and put a major dent in the Cubs lead and get the deficit back to under 100. Jay Idiotti had nothing much to write about, so he kind of mashed a few articles together on the SOX, which ends up being the difference today. Unfortuneately, The SOX have yet to ever lead the Cubs since we've kept track of this. Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, its first title in 88 years, and going 11-1 throughout the playoffs, the White Sox INEXPLICABLY find themselves lagging far far behind in Media Coverage to a team that, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win Seasons, and has won nothing of significance since the Roosevelt administration Chicago Tribune: 3 cub stories 3 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 3 cub stories 4 sox stories Standings as of Monday June 12, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 560 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 05 SOX 465

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) Oh. So you exclude certain types of media, it's just the select two newspapers you pick. But when you discuss this supposed bias, you use the word media. So you're saying you're wrong when you say there's a media bias against the White Sox? And that it's just the Trib and Sun Times? But then again, you say you've proven there is a media bias? I agree with zach, I think you should start totally over, because all of your numbers seem either skewed, rife with your personal interpretation, or placed in the wrong numeric column. In summary, you're proven nothing, other than there's a gigantic chip on your shoulder about the White Sox supposedly being slighted ... in the media, no wait, it's just the Sun Times, oops no it's the Tribune, but only if the Cubs are playing ... etc. etc. etc. They share resources with the Sun Times, including sharing many stories. But they are fair and balanced but somehow the Sun Times isn't? I dont have to "start over", my stats go back a few years. Theyre not just begun from this past April. Look away and Pretend theres no bias if you like, be my guest. There are certain websites that promote just that. That doesnt fix the "problem" or bring attention to it. Head over to the nazi website and check my records against what was published. hell, do it randomly. The numbers wont be off, at least not enough for you to turn the nearly 100 story lead the Cubs have into a 100 story lead for the SOX. Check 03 early spring. Check late summer of 04. Check 02 summer. Check 02 spring. You'll see a pattern. If you dont, your just not looking. I cant make you look, heck you dont have to click on this thread, but dont shoot down my numbers if you dont have any to back your assumptions. The Southtown will often have a different take on a story than from what the Times will have. You know this, so stop acting like this is the first time youve ever heard the word newspaper. If I never documented anything, your "gigantic chip on shoulder" comment might hold water. However, there are numbers to back up my assertion.........so your pants have ended up getting wet. The SOX have been slighted in the "media" news stories, namely the Tribune & SunTimes for years. In case you forgot, the Tribune also owns WGN TV and WGN Radio. They also own the WB network, which has tv stations in every major market, to carry/promote the northside message. The Trib is also affiliated with numerous other newspapers in major cities, which would make the southtown blush. QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) Oh. So you exclude certain types of media, it's just the select two newspapers you pick. Jim, cmon. You act like my cross section im studying is unheard of. The 2 "select" newspapers I picked happen to be the newspapers of Chicago. if you live in Chicago, how do you get your news? Newspaper would be my guess. TV would be next but how in the world can I measure TV News coverage? Im sure you or Zach are gonna next say "I get my news from word of mouth" or "community newspaper". I picked NEWSPAPERS of Chicago because, well the Trib & Times have been in existence for quite some time and the City has historically relied on them for their news. I dont see anything wrong with measuring them, apparently you do. Maybe you guys can help and do suburban newspapers coverage

QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) I get the Southtown and in today's paper there were 3 Sox Stories and only 1 on the Cubs. I jog around my subdivision in the morning and today out of the houses that had papers in the driveway, 25 had the Southtown, 14 had the Tribune and 10 had the Sun-Times. Then there were 4 that had other papers like the WSJ. So by my numbers, more people read the Southtown and the Southtown is heavily pro-Sox, so therefore the media favors the Sox greatly. My random sampling should count to you since I remember when you did a poll of fans in the Metrodome asking them if the Sox were a big market team or small market. You then used those numbers as "proof" of your point that the Sox were cheap. the Southtown is considered a suburban newspaper. Their coverage is indeed FAIR and BALANCED. What subdivision would this be? the South Suburbs? Im comparing the Chicago Newspapers. On a side note, Would you agree the Tribune has far more CLOUT than the Southtown? Is the Southtown heavily "pro-Sox" simply because the LOVE the SOX or because the SOX are a better team/just won the World Series? My Metrodome sampling came from the White Sox referring to themselves a while back as a "small-market" team. I begged to differ and asked Twin fans, who can definitely call themselves a "small-market" team, if they considered Chicago a "small market" or a "big market". 100% said Big. And they would be right. Chicago is much bigger than Minneapolis.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 04:09 PM) Good lord shut up. They're 36-23, the second best in the league while people on this board seem to think they're playing like "s***". It'd take a tragedy for this White Sox team NOT to make the playoffs. Tragedy? This isnt the National League. There are a handful of teams capable of going all the way, and the SOX will have to maneuver all of them. Going 3-6 against the Indians isnt going to get it done. I have respect for the other very good ballclubs in the league/division, and if the SOX keep this up, wont be anywhere near the playoffs come October.

Hey I agree with him. This Group will not win. It will be the Mackowiaks, Andersons, awful bullpen, inconsistency of Garland/Buehrle that will eventually do us in. Horrible lack of fundamentals is exposing the bullpen even more. Hes right.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) I converted Robert McCormick because I think he could help the Sox get more attention that you need. Thats Awesome! does Robert live on the WEST side?

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) What rules? Could you please provide the link to the rules you are talking about? The "rules". The unspoken code by which the Chicago Media determines which team to cover the most. We've been told its everything from "whos winning" to "whos more popular" to "whats the bigger story" to "well they have more fans". Youve never heard of this? send an email to anyone in the media, you'll get one of those stock answers. Morrissey a jackass about it. He said also said they had more fans, thats why they get more coverage.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) You were at the game with most of them last year. They are the ones you were talking s*** about thier mommies driving them to the game. I never said that ...........

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) They did that and you still aren't satisfied. Why do you need someone to constantly reassure you of something? Can't you think on your own instead of needing somebody to tell you through a newspaper that what you like is acceptable to them? In Short ... Yes, I can think on my own (stated that in previous post, you mustve MISSED it) and Yes, Id love it if a newspaper can just report the news to me instead of telling me what I like isnt that good. Id love it if they would constantly do it, but that probably wont happen. I'll settle for fair coverage. But then again, why are the rules changed just because we won it all?

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) You're simply pointing out your biases yet again. The Sox had more coverage last October and they've had more coverage this year than ever before. The difference is that I define "more" as an upswing in White Sox coverage vs. White Sox coverage in the past. You on the other hand insist on comparing how much coverage the White Sox get in relation to the Cubs. This is called one-upmanship mentality. You won't ever be happy until the White Sox continually get more coverage than the Cubs. Prepare yourself to never be happy. No where in your post do you infer "all Media". My watches are obviously the 2 major newspapers in Chicago. This isnt a TV watch or Radio Watch (though I do comment on that too) All you said was "The SOX had more coverage last October and they've had more coverage this year than ever before". Since were talking about my newspaper coverage, I can only assume your talking about newspaper coverage from last year.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) I haven't converted anyone, however I have convert several casual Sox fans into crazy die hards like myself. That counts too by the way ..................

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) You on the other hand insist on comparing how much coverage the White Sox get in relation to the Cubs. This is called one-upmanship mentality. You won't ever be happy until the White Sox continually get more coverage than the Cubs. Prepare yourself to never be happy. I have to make my comparisons in relation to that other team because: A: both play in the same city B: entire basis of my argument is that the Chicago Media unfairly favors one team over the other, and it has nothing to do with Won/Loss record. Hell, if thats the case, that team SHOULDNT HAVE ANY COVERAGE seeing how miserable that franchise has been for the better part of a century. That media outlet was immediately questioned back in 1981 if they could "fairly" cover both teams (seeing that they are in competition with each other) and they resoundingly said YES WE CAN, we are a newspaper dedicated to reporting the news, and gave us some mumbo-jumbo about Newspaper Integrity and a Reporters Oath. I'll be happy when the SOX and their fanbase get the respect they've unfairly been denied for so long a time. Im happy when the SOX win, trust me and anyone next to me at a game. Im very unhappy when Im chatting with people from other cities, and having to constantly argue the PERCEPTION people have of the SOX, the Park, its Fans, and the area. Im just showing everyone that the Trib has had motive for their actions; to openly promote their product at expense of the other product Forgive me for sounding a bit biased myself, but dang, I like the SOX very much, and someone needs speak out, might as well be me

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) You sure do have some nerve talking s*** after all Mike has done for you over the past few years. Were not talking about the same "mike". This is a guy my company works with .............

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) The Sox had more coverage last October ........... and they've had more coverage this year than ever before. The SOX had more coverage than the Cubs last October because the CUBS WERENT PLAYING. Thats a no-brainer and they'd better get more coverage. "....and theyve had more coverage this year than ever before" Actually, no they havnt. They are basicall about the SAME as LAST SEASON! and the Season before that. In fact, if you look at my totals from previous years, the only thing thats changed as far as Media Coverage for the SOX goes, is that the Cubs dont have as DOMINATING a lead on the SOX as previously before. So in other words, the Cubs are the ones who dont have as many stories as in previous years, yet still LEAD the White Sox. Take that for however you want to take it .............thats why Ive kept track of it.

Im sure it might be a bit easier now, but has anyone been able to honestly say "I made this person a Sox Fan Because ................."

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) I don't get why this bothers some people that Hangar does this. If his doing this is a "black eye" on fans, or an example of Sox fans being whiners There are a number of folks over at the Trib & SunTimes who arent happy that Ive busted them out every day like this. Numbers dont lie, and have been pretty consistent (save for a Tiger story here and there) The only people Ive ever seen get this upset with my media watches have been: Cub fans (they say they deserve the extra attention, because theyre the most loyal), Media types over at the Trib & SunTimes (they say im skewing the numbers to make them look bad, but when I point the numbers to them, they go silent) this guy I know Mike who says SOX fans pointing this out means SOX fans arent paying attention to their team (I was the game last nite, even went to Anaheim to see them), even this guy West, who thinks it makes Sox fans "embarrassing". These people are mad, but guess what, the media is exposed every day, and dont think they dont come to sites like this one to check out whats going on. Anyone catch Boers & Bernstein talking about the lack of respect the SOX get in their own town a while back?

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) No, because unlike you, I have come to accept the fact that the Cubs have a bigger fan-base, and therefore are going to get more news coverage. That's life. Unlike you, I have decided not to waste my time starting a jealous rage campaign with apparently made-up numbers. Classic Chicken Vs. Egg. If they do have a bigger fanbase, how did they get that? Was it perhaps more media coverage that led to this? My numbers arent made up. For any given day, from 2002 til now, you can freely look up my numbers and see that they arent made up. To make that assumption is erroneous. The media previously told us finally in 98 that the reason the Cubs got more "coverage/stories" was because they were "winning". Well in 99 those rules went out the window, same for 2000, 01, 02 03, 04, 05. We were told if the SOX started "winning", we'd see the Extra Coverage. We arent seeing that. Do you think the SOX are getting the Same extra coverage as the 03 adn 04 Cubs got? hell no theyre arent. Im simply pointing that out. If you dont like the numbers, keep your own count and disprove me then. Id be happy to be disproven. You might be right. Maybe the Media is heavily slanted towards the SOX and the SOX are the ones dominating in stories in both papers. I dont see any proof of your assertions though. So Im going to respectfully disagree with you. My not counting a story about how great the Tigers are doesnt make all of my numbers wrong. Again, prove me wrong, and show me different numbers. I wont be mad. Unlike other sites, I'll simply look at your numbers and we'll discuss them

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) We established this already. So your saying based on that, there never was a bias towards the White Sox, it was all made up, and the SOX have in fact, dominated the Cubs in newsprint media coverage for the last decade or so? QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) We established this already. Since you say youve established that the SOX have dominated the Cubs in Media Coverage, you wouldnt happen to have any documentation/statistics/proof to validate this claim would you? Im curious because it sure seems quite the opposite. Especially in the last 10 years.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) You say you don't need the newsmedia's attention................. to translate, I DONT NEED the media telling me what to do. I just need them to report on the World Series Champion White Sox with the dignity and respect they deserve. Thats not too much to ask is it?

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 11:20 AM) Great idea. Now the board won't be cluttered with bad counts of stories not about the Sox and this hangar guy can feel like he is sticking it to the Chicago media by posting on a Sox board about how they are biased against the Sox. And to show my support for hangar, I refused to let Trader Joe's put my groceries in a bag cause their shopping bags are biased towards the cubs. Until they put the Sox logo on their bags, I won't let them bag my groceries. I still go there just like hangar still reads the papers, but if I complain enough to Jewel Food Stores about it, then Trader Joe's will have to put the Sox logo on their bags. [/color] OK, Im busted. Ive doctored these totals for the last 4 years in an attempt to get more attention for the White Sox. When I gave the RedEye credit on 3/31 for having Paul Konerko on the cover, I lied, Konerko wasnt on the cover, it was Juan Pierre. I only said that to subliminally get them to cover the SOX more. All the totals are wrong, the SOX have been Absolutely Dominating in Media Coverage for the last 5 years, and the Media definitely admits there are 10times as many SOX fans and this is a SOX TOWN. I lied about them always referring to the cub town aspect

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) In other words, he pitched bad? He pitched well enough to win the game, but the "Defense" let him down, which led to his folding like a card-table afterwards. I Know, he should pitch well regardless, but thats been his M.O. his career here. He let the blunders/nonsense affect him .........

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) You say you don't need the newsmedia's attention, but all you do is b**** about not having the newsmedia's attention. Are you capable of posting something without mentioning either the media or the cubs? YES, Your correct. I dont need the NewsMedia to tell me when to CHEER (suntimes article telling SOX fans to cheer for Frank Thomas-Ridiculous because noone even considered Booing him) Im independent and capable of formulating my own thoughts and Can/Will Cheer for the SOX without them prompting me to do so. Most SOX fans are similar in nature to myself (will boo/cheer when they feel like-dont need media prompting)

QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) I thought that it was overrated when I was at the CoC this year. PS - We use green 'round these parts fella. You park that teal at the door when you come in. Aha, I wondered what color is supposed to be used for that. Green is duly noted, thanks. Well, only weekdays are available, I'll pick a date and throw it out there. Would be cool to meet some of you