zach61

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) Well I believe yours is a very fair statement. Of course there really shouldn't be a bias one way or the other, but we are talking about the media here. Editors are human beings and they try to publish what they think their audience wants. Someone will always be unhappy, that's the nature of media coverage. Way back when, and this is from what my dad has told me, George Halas used to manipulate the football beat writers, in the 50's particularly. Halas wanted Chicago for his own and wanted the Cardinals out. He tracked the media meticulously. Writers who said good things about the Cardinals would find their names omitted from the press pass list at Wrigley for a Bears game. Bill Gleason always hated Halas for pulling stuff like this, but it's part of ownership and media. Now these days, the media is more sophisticated and there is a lot less of the good 'ole boy network. Decisions are made more on a business basis, because it's a necessity. Here is a good example ... I have been a Blackhawk follower all my life and of course now they are totally brutal. They deserve everything they've gotten, in terms of the media trashing them or ignoring them. I happened to hear the thoughts of one of the Score producers, who was being bombarded by a small core of Hawks fans asking why there wasn't more Blackhawk talk on the Score. He used to post on a message board telling people when they'd be talking hockey and asking people to call in. People didn't call in, and/or the ones who did were total dunderheads whining about the same stuff ("we need Cheli, we need Eddie, we need JR"). So they moved away from hockey talk. Simple concept. Let me be very clear and say I hate the Cubs. I am from Bridgeport and sometimes I wish I could be more like my suburban friends and root for both teams because "it's Chicago". Sorry, no way. I hope the Cubs lose. Although I hope they beat Detroit this weekend, but only because the Cubs are so bad this year they are done for. I inherited it from my dad, can't change it, that's the way it is for me. Anyway I digress. I mention the Cubs because people are attracted to them for a variety of reasons, we all know what they are and it's some of the same reason people are attracted to the Red Sox. So for the last 20 + years there has been more of a buzz about the Cubs, due to the whole, ummm, experience. The experience sucks as far as I'm concerned but for other people, it's great. Lots of other people. So that's the way it is, people are interested in them, and the media will cover them. They will cover them a lot. I see the tide turning, and it's not just about the White Sox winning. Bridegport is experiencing a renaissance. There have been a smattering of articles about all the great places in Bridgeport to eat and drink. Some people on this site have kidded me saying Jim H. you should write up an article about all the good joints. (And by the way I found another one ... Gem Bar at 2700 S. Loomis, great burgers, $4.50 pitchers of PBR on Thursdays and $1 hot dog days on Thursdays, a true Sox bar, try it). The point being, I am not smarter than anyone here, not by a long shot, but I do know how things work and its like this ... people need to experience something positive. If you tell them all the great things about the White Sox game experience and all the cool things about Bridgeport they will say "you know what ... I really enjoyed that, and plus the White Sox have a really good team". We are talking about the casual fan here, the kind of fan the White Sox want so the team can afford a $100M payroll. So in a way, I feel like I'm doing my part. The flip side is, to me, what hangar does. He takes a negative spin, a chip on the shoulder approach and you know what, that tends to make people defensive and piss people off. I truly believe if he invested as much time taking a positive approach vs. counting stories ... well, you get the drift. To each their own I guess, but my objection to this whole thing is the outright subjectivity of the data. Maybe someday soon I will sit down and write the article about Bridgeport and try to entice even more people to get excited about going there. More interested people = more attendance = good things for the White Sox. I haven't heard the name Gem Bar in yrs. I used to live near 29th and Loomis and we used to get our Friday and Saturday nite beverages from there. If you like the neighborhood hotdog carts, head over to 29th and Loomis and just east of the corner tavern is Maryann's hot dog cart. And I really miss the La Milanese steak sammiches too that used to be on 32nd and May. Too bad they let the place close. And you summed things up perfectly. Thanks. I'm still voting for the media watch to start from zero and show us which stories are actually making the Sox look bad as hangar claims. If he just wants to count stories, then fine, count them. Just don't sell me the crap that you are proving that the trib and times are out to make the Sox look bad and chase fans away and then leave out the stories or why the stories are doing that. I gave up on the Hawks quite a while ago. The Hawks are only a family tragedy away from having a winning team. And by family tragedy, I mean the whole Wirtz family.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) Whatever man. You keep a tally with me, and we'll let the people decide tomorrow. Im not going to sit here and nitpick with zachs inane questions, which he is missing the point greatly. Post your own watch, I promise I'll check it out. Otherwise, the 2 of you should quit clogging this thread with stupid and repetitive questions/assumptions in a blatant effort to get this thread closed. I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. You keep claiming that you have proven that the trib and times are out to make the Sox look bad and make the cubs looks good. All you do is count how many stories are in the paper for each team. That tells me absolutely nothing about why the story made the Sox look bad. If you are only doing a popularity contest, you aren't going to change the trib. They own the cubs and it wouldn't be in their best interest to promote the other product. What are you trying to prove now? That the cubs are more popular in the trib? So what? They own the cubs, so they will always be more popular in that paper. Don't buy it and if their subscriptions go down, they will have to write about things that will make them go back up. The more you promote and read the trib, the less likely you will change anything. You are doing exactly what you make fun of the cub fans about. As long as that park is full, the trib could care less what happens on the field. I wouldn't be surprised if payroll gets cut again next yr on the north side. And as long as the trib owns the cubs, they will continue to promote them in their paper. Maybe you should buy the times so you could promote the Sox.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) Zach61, On page 26 of the locked thread, zach23 made the following point that in my opinion makes this entire media watch debacle totally a waste. He posted to Hangar18: "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." In addition, you or the other zach (can't recall which) correctly pointed out that Hangar's motivation isn't simply to count stories. That's just his cover up for his true purpose, and that is trying to sway a popularity contest. To summarize: 1. This media watch thing is misnamed. Hangar claims he will fix it. It isn't a media watch it's a Trib/Times story count. 2. There is continued debate whether the Sun Times should be included since most people suggest the Sun Times is balanced in its coverage. Therefore it should really be the Chicago Tribune Story Count. 3. Hangar also admits to stating that the White Sox are "media ignored" is completely false, and says he will eliminate it from his summary lines. 4. Hangar admits he isn't seeking equal coverage, he's seeking White Sox domination of the media. Apparantly only bad Cub stories, only good Sox stories. Ludicrous. This whole train wreck is a bad page out of a fantasyland story. There are so many inaccuracies, half truths, underlying personal biases, bad math, and misstatements that any shred of credibility has long departed. I wish him luck then. It was presented as a watch to end the negative bias towards the Sox, and that's what I expected to see. The watch is a waste and is just his obsession to try to make a whole city only pay attention to what he wants or expects them to pay attention to. He should go back to being a cub fan and all will be right again in his world.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) SF76, hangar18 has stated he believes the Sox should dominate media coverage. So nothing is actually being proven. Unless the Sox are the only team covered by the trib, then they are wrong? Why wouldn't the trib cover more of the cubs than the Sox? Isn't it in their best interest to promote their own product over another product? Don't they still own the cubs and need for people to pay to see the cubs if they want to make a profit? I thought this whole media watch was to show how many stories the trib and times wrote that made the Sox look bad and the cubs look good? Guess it changed again.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) Doesn't this belong in another forum? Maybe he saw him at the Diamond Club downtown and thought this was the forum just for that bar?

QUOTE(SoxFan76 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) It has always been just counting stories. I believe this is year number 3 of the media watch? Maybe it's just 2. Many media members know who Hangar is (from what I remember), and he isn't exactly their favorite person. So how does just counting stories prove that the media is out to make the Sox look bad and the cubs look good? I thought he posted somewhere that he started this to prove the media bias against the Sox and that the trib would only print stories about the cubs in a positive way and the Sox in a negative way. Didn't he claim that the trib didn't push the story about the guy being shot outside their park cause they didn't want wrigley to seem dangerous, but then posted stories about Bridgeport that made it look dangerous? So what is being accomplished here by counting stories? I would expect the trib to promote the cubs a little bit more than the Sox since they own them and as a business, why promote the other product more? And if this is a Chicago media watch, why only count the times and trib? What about the other papers? Shouldn't this be the trib and times story count?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) Chicago Tribune: 3 cub stories 3 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 3 cub stories 4 sox stories Standings as of Thursday June 15th, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 2005 Cubs 584 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS CHamps in 05 Sox 485 And all of these stories promote the cubs in a positive way and the Sox in a negative way? Isn't that what your media watch is supposed to prove? Or did that change now and you're just counting stories?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) I will also be at hofbrau and Mt adams bar and grill. I dont get your underaged post, but bring em on. More media watch stuff. Another hangar fact proven wrong by someone.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) I put Ketchup, Mustard, and peppers and onions. I also put peanut butter on waffles...shoot me, it tastes delicious and thats all that matters Peanut butter on waffles is great. I even make peanut butter sandwiches using pancakes. Do you put whipped cream on your waffles too?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Is this really breakthrough technology? Im kind of curious, because it seems lots of people have this now Yes. Read the whole article about how the security is different and also that MLB is pushing this cause it's gonna create revenue from Motorola. The article also states that wrigley was the last stadium to put in lights, but will be the first to go wireless, so it's just a marketing thing. Motorola is based in Schaumburg, so it would make sense to do it in the Chicago area and since the Sox are US Cellular, maybe Motorola didn't want to seem like they were promoting US Cellular over some of the other companies. And whether you like it or not, wrigley is more famous than US Cellular is. You are fighting your battle the wrong way. You should be trying to fill up US Cellular and then the media will pay attention to the Sox. The media won't change overnight, so the Sox will need to win for a few yrs, build their fan base back up, and then they will get more coverage than the cubs. Ray, fill the park and the media will come.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) Just curious, I know the SOX offer a very special rate ............. would anyone be interested? Maybe you could post an ad in the trib to see who else would be interested. Or would the trib deny your ad because it's for the Sox and not the cubs?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 07:13 AM) Forget you then, I'll just ask Zach, he has all of the answers Make sure you ask the right zach......

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) 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?

QUOTE(rudylaw @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) Do we really have a 4 page 55 post thread about angled seats? WOW!!! Actually, this is about the seats not on an angle. Somebody has their head up their ass and can't see home plate from the current seats in the park because they aren't angled properly. And sitting in a blue seat makes you go blind or something when you watch the game on tv and the blue seats are empty.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) 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. 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 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? And please show us the stories that backup what you are claiming. What stories are in the paper today that are promoting the cubs in a positive way and the Sox in a negative way. That is what you claimed you proved.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) 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. 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 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.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:08 AM) For the sake of credibility, you might want to get your stories straight... Thanks for the laugh Steff. It's good to see he can't even be accurate about his personal life and gets proven wrong.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) Source? Little green men and Reynolds Wrap don't count. There was an article in the trib about the cubs and it was mentioned in there. Guess you missed it cause you don't care if the trib bashes the Sox?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) The Club level sucks at seating The Sox should replace their club level section with a club level section that knows how to sell to fans that never show up.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) Getting hits against good pitching. Isn't that what good pitching is supposed to prevent? No team does that consitently, so you're never going to get what you want and changing hitting coaches means nothing then. If you want to change the hitting coach, what area of the Sox team hitting do you expect the new coach to improve? They have already hit some good pitching, so that was accomplished by Walker already.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) Game planning against specific pitchers. There are a lot of teams that come out against a pitcher, know exactly what that pitcher is going to try to do, and focus the whole game on stopping that. That's how good teams beat good pitchers...if that pitcher makes any mistakes, the hitters are ready for it. Right now, our team strikes me as a bit of a crapshoot, it doesn't seem like our guys come in with good game plans against a lot of pitchers, which is how you wind up with guys like Westbrook being able to shut us down. A good game plan against him would be to try to foul off some of the inside pitches, and drive his sinking stuff outside the other way over hte infield. Instead, we have this habit of trying to pull the outside stuff when we face sinkerballers, and it usually turns into those ground balls the pitcher wants. And I'll ask you then too. What area do you want the Sox hitters to improve at? Is their average too low? Not enough hits? Not enough runs? I noticed that when Westbrook didn't locate his sinker in a good spot, the Sox hit it hard somewhere.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) I vote we do that here starting right now... Think we could also start one of those miller lite man laws about whining? Discussing things is great, but whining about every single thing......damn. First it's payroll, then blue seats, then the team folding in September last yr, then the media.....oops, just the times and trib, and now the seats not being angled. Isn't the stadium actually on an angle so the seats point towards the infield? Why point the seat at home plate when you should be watching the infield, then home plate when the ball is pitched, and then if it's hit, you don't have to stand up to turn to look in the outfield?

QUOTE(shoota @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 06:31 PM) I appreciate Greg Walker's history with the Sox organization, but I'm interested in finding a hitting coach better than him. I want a hitting coach as good at his craft as Don Cooper is as pitching coach. Coop has the ability to find and fix fringe pitchers like Loaiza, Contreras and Thornton, and I'd like a hitting coach who could do the same with hitters. And like Cooper did for Marte? As far as the Sox hitting, what would you like to see the team as a whole improve upon? Not just one or two players, but the whole team.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 04:12 PM) Thats Awesome! does Robert live on the WEST side? And what are you implying when you say "WEST" side?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) 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. 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 You need to start over and tell us what you are counting and which "media" you want to prove is biased against the Sox. If you say media, then you need to include all media. If you just want to use the suntimes and trib, then you have to state that you are excluding the media and just using 2 of many papers for the Chicago area. I don't believe or trust anything you've done in the past because you have already been proven wrong in your numbers here. You are the one that said you proved something, not me. If you proved something, then show me the stories you used and what research you have to backup your claim. When someone proves a theory, they show the proof, I don't try to prove the same theory. I use the proof they show to either say yes you proved it, or here's where you're wrong and you didn't prove anything. Now either put your proof out there accurately or shut up about this already. You haven't proven anything and can't even answer ss2k5's questions.