Luis Robert signing official

[Lip Man 1]

Was there a reason he should have cared? Outside of 2005 they have been historically bad, and their minor league system historically has been even worse.

 

He should care because he is getting paid by ESPN to be an unbiased observer in my opinion. It doesn't mean what he is saying is necessarily wrong but admitting for the world you are a big Royals fan colors his judgment...again in my opinion.

 

That's as bad as ESPN having Chris Berman do the play by play for the Red Sox / White Sox series in 2005 after telling everyone he's been a Red Sox fan for years. (Oh no! He gets him to go...LOL).

 

That simply should not happen.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Lip Man 1

[southsider2k5]

He should care because he is getting paid by ESPN to be an unbiased observer in my opinion. It doesn't mean what he is saying is necessarily wrong but admitting for the world you are a big Royals fan colors his judgment...again in my opinion.

 

That's as bad as ESPN having Chris Berman do the play by play for the Red Sox / White Sox series in 2005 after telling everyone he's been a Red Sox fan for years. (Oh no! He gets him to go...LOL).

 

That simply should not happen.

 

Welcome to the 21st century. Everyone is biased.

[Lip Man 1]

Welcome to the 21st century. Everyone is biased.

 

I understand it's the 21st century and being in the media means you are supposed to be unbiased or if you are you recuse yourself for commenting / reporting on things that you can't objectively talk / discuss.

 

Obviously I'm out of step with the times but personally I don't care. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things in the media. I've tried very hard in my career to do things correctly.

 

Not trying to preach, simply saying if you are ethical, you do the proper thing.

 

If I had to cover / report on the Cubs for example I simply could not do so because I know I couldn't talk about them objectively.

[southsider2k5]

I understand it's the 21st century and being in the media means you are supposed to be unbiased or if you are you recuse yourself for commenting / reporting on things that you can't objectively talk / discuss.

 

Obviously I'm out of step with the times but personally I don't care. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things in the media. I've tried very hard in my career to do things correctly.

 

Not trying to preach, simply saying if you are ethical, you do the proper thing.

 

If I had to cover / report on the Cubs for example I simply could not do so because I know I couldn't talk about them objectively.

 

You write as a White Sox fan on the White Sox all of the time.

[Lip Man 1]

You write as a White Sox fan on the White Sox all of the time.

 

That's right...and I'm not getting paid for it by a mainstream media outlet (or anyone for that matter) who is supposed to be unbiased nor am I trying to mislead anyone about my fan loyalties. In my opinion that's a big difference.

 

As far as what I am being paid to do professionally, broadcast Idaho State sports and report on them, I understand the conflict of interest but have always tried to be honest about what I'm seeing / reporting... and tell the truth that has gotten me in some trouble from time to time.

 

With all due respect to Sox Talk, White Sox Interactive, Southside Sox and the other internet sites they'll never be considered "mainsteam" and probably won't ever actually start paying people to work for them. Not saying they don't do good work, often it's better than mainstream outlets but you are talking about a different animal. Those sites are biased about the Sox, make no bones about it and when I write or post something on them, everyone knows the point of view that I'm coming from. I don't have to be unbiased on them because of the nature of the sites themselves is the way I see it. I can criticize the team as you know (hello Dylan Covey!!! LOL) but my loyalty or fandome isn't a question.

 

I've actually been thinking about the premise, what if I was being asked to cover the Cubs and get paid for it...what would I do?

 

Since that situation has never come up I can't give you a 100% honest answer as far as what I'd decide.

 

What I can tell you...with 100% accuracy is that I'd have to think long and hard about it regardless of how much they were willing to pay...and I'd make damn sure the prospective employer knew my background. Having grown up on the South Side a White Sox fan, disliking anything to do with the Cubs, having written (unpaid) for 11 years for a White Sox web site, am collaborating on a book about Jerry Reinsdorf, that I'm a White Sox historian and know a lot of people in the organization.

 

Then IF they still wanted to hire me and IF I actually took the job, they can't say they weren't warned because despite my best efforts, at some point, that bias is going to come though. I'm human, it can't be helped.

 

You want me to cover the Diamondbacks? A's? Rays? Phillies? I'd love to do it, no problem and I'd do an honest job of it because I wouldn't have any emotional or historical attachments to that franchise. But covering the Cubs? It wouldn't really be fair to the organization that hired me, the Cubs, their fans or myself when all is said and done.

 

That's about the best answer I can give for this hypothetical situation.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Lip Man 1

[joejoedairy]

That's right...and I'm not getting paid for it by a mainstream media outlet (or anyone for that matter) who is supposed to be unbiased nor am I trying to mislead anyone about my fan loyalties. In my opinion that's a big difference.

 

As far as what I am being paid to do professionally, broadcast Idaho State sports and report on them, I understand the conflict of interest but have always tried to be honest about what I'm seeing / reporting... and tell the truth that has gotten me in some trouble from time to time.

 

With all due respect to Sox Talk, White Sox Interactive, Southside Sox and the other internet sites they'll never be considered "mainsteam" and probably won't ever actually start paying people to work for them. Not saying they don't do good work, often it's better than mainstream outlets but you are talking about a different animal. Those sites are biased about the Sox, make no bones about it and when I write or post something on them, everyone knows the point of view that I'm coming from. I don't have to be unbiased on them because of the nature of the sites themselves is the way I see it. I can criticize the team as you know (hello Dylan Covey!!! LOL) but my loyalty or fandome isn't a question.

 

I've actually been thinking about the premise, what if I was being asked to cover the Cubs and get paid for it...what would I do?

 

Since that situation has never come up I can't give you a 100% honest answer as far as what I'd decide.

 

What I can tell you...with 100% accuracy is that I'd have to think long and hard about it regardless of how much they were willing to pay...and I'd make damn sure the prospective employer knew my background. Having grown up on the South Side a White Sox fan, disliking anything to do with the Cubs, having written (unpaid) for 11 years for a White Sox web site, am collaborating on a book about Jerry Reinsdorf, that I'm a White Sox historian and know a lot of people in the organization.

 

Then IF they still wanted to hire me and IF I actually took the job, they can't say they weren't warned because despite my best efforts, at some point, that bias is going to come though. I'm human, it can't be helped.

 

You want me to cover the Diamondbacks? A's? Rays? Phillies? I'd love to do it, no problem and I'd do an honest job of it because I wouldn't have any emotional or historical attachments to that franchise. But covering the Cubs? It wouldn't really be fair to the organization that hired me, the Cubs, their fans or myself when all is said and done.

 

That's about the best answer I can give for this hypothetical situation.

 

I understand your point, but let's say Yahoo read your work on soxnet and wanted to hire you write about baseball in general. The thing that helped get you discovered in this situation is writing articles as a sox fan. Wouldn't make sense to continue to write from that same perspective.

 

Many media personalities start out this way (Simmons, Wilbon, almost any blogger) and as long as you can admit to your bias and still produce good work, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

If you're watching a game on a national broadcast, I can see why you wouldn't want the announcer to have an obvious bias against your team. There are certainly cases of this, but most fans think all national broadcasters hate their team.

 

 

[Lip Man 1]

I understand your point, but let's say Yahoo read your work on soxnet and wanted to hire you write about baseball in general. The thing that helped get you discovered in this situation is writing articles as a sox fan. Wouldn't make sense to continue to write from that same perspective.

 

Many media personalities start out this way (Simmons, Wilbon, almost any blogger) and as long as you can admit to your bias and still produce good work, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

If you're watching a game on a national broadcast, I can see why you wouldn't want the announcer to have an obvious bias against your team. There are certainly cases of this, but most fans think all national broadcasters hate their team.

 

The key is admitting the bias and trying to not let it influence you as you suggest but that is very hard to do at least for me because I know that eventually it is going to come into play.

 

I think I could write nationally on baseball because the Cubs are a very small part of that. But covering the Cubs exclusively? Like I said in the previous post I'd have to think very hard about that because I know myself.

 

Thanks for a good comment though I agree with your basic premise.

[caulfield12]

Otoh, the Cubs' Kool Ade these days is so powerful at least one moderating or "devil's advocate" position occasionally expressing skepticism might be appreciated.

 

I mean...even most (let's just say many) folks on the right side of the fence politically know intuitively when their stories are over the top or feeding them misinformation, which is why they are seeking other mainstream sources of news in recent weeks.

 

Reading through a lot of the Cardinals' blogs in recent weeks, you're talking the winningest franchise in baseball the past 12-15-20 years getting absolutely hammered by paid/professional writers.

Edited May 24, 2017 by caulfield12

[Lip Man 1]

Reading through a lot of the Cardinals' blogs in recent weeks, you're talking the winningest franchise in baseball the past 12-15-20 years getting absolutely hammered by paid/professional writers.

 

I think the reason for that (and my color analyst grew up in St. Louis and follows the Cards closely so he keeps me in the loop with them) is because they can't use attendance as an excuse and they just signed a billion dollar deal with Fox Sports Midwest, so why are they cutting corners regarding payroll, talent acquisition.

 

To me those are valid questions.

[SoxAce]

I think it won't be announced until he gets a physical in Chicago. Wasn't he supposed to arrive today or tomorrow?

 

Next week.

[balfanman]

I mean...even most (let's just say many) folks on the right side of the fence politically know intuitively when their stories are over the top or feeding them misinformation, which is why they are seeking other mainstream sources of news in recent weeks.

 

This is true of the left, not the right. I do not want to go political here, but I do not appreciate this comment in these forums. I don't post often, but I read these forums most everyday. Uninformed comments like this tick me off and have no place here. I come here for Sox discussion, not politics.

[caulfield12]

This is true of the left, not the right. I do not want to go political here, but I do not appreciate this comment in these forums. I don't post often, but I read these forums most everyday. Uninformed comments like this tick me off and have no place here. I come here for Sox discussion, not politics.

 

Fine. But it's almost impossible to avoid, no matter where you go...starting with ESPN.

 

There's no longer such a thing as a pure, objective writer who doesn't give some clue about his politics. The whole argument between Keith Law and Curt Schilling is a perfect example. And then that bleeds into other areas, like "off the field" perspectives and opinions impacting a potential HoF voter.

 

Personally, I read just as many articles from the opposite side of the fence than ones that already confirm any pre-existing bias I might have. They're more interesting, and they challenge your way of thinking about a topic. But that's just me. I used to love to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the 1990's when the Clintons were in office, for example.

Edited May 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[oldsox]

This is true of the left, not the right. I do not want to go political here, but I do not appreciate this comment in these forums. I don't post often, but I read these forums most everyday. Uninformed comments like this tick me off and have no place here. I come here for Sox discussion, not politics.

Mods are exempt

[Quin]

Mods are exempt

 

Oldsox, seriously?

[bmags]

Next week.

 

I ... may as well dive head first. But according to my instagram friend Luis Robert, he is still in DR.

 

 

[oldsox]

Oldsox, seriously?

Not you.

[Kyyle23]

Not you.

 

Last I checked, caulfield isn't a mod

[bmags]

Last I checked, caulfield isn't a mod

 

If he wants, I'm sure caulfield could give him a list of mods.

[heirdog]

If he wants, I'm sure caulfield could give him a list of mods.

 

Or potential Mods that were passed up that could be Mods. Lol

[southsider2k5]

Or potential Mods that were passed up that could be Mods. Lol

 

Or players from the 1990's that would have made great mods.

[heirdog]

I ... may as well dive head first. But according to my instagram friend Luis Robert, he is still in DR.

 

Haha. I'm a bandwagon "friend" as well and notice that he posts a bolus of pics at a time. He likes to showcase his hitting, palm trees, and 6 pack abs...at least he's not posting every meal he eats w a "yumm"

[bmags]

Haha. I'm a bandwagon "friend" as well and notice that he posts a bolus of pics at a time. He likes to showcase his hitting, palm trees, and 6 pack abs...at least he's not posting every meal he eats w a "yumm"

 

This is so true and also a hilarious description of a person.

[Quin]

If he wants, I'm sure caulfield could give him a list of mods.

 

Caulfield, I like you, but this got me.

[Dick Allen]

I haven't seen them do it this year, so it may be gone, but last year they played a game in between innings where you go up against a player and list as many vegetables or cereal, or ice cream flavors you could in 30 seconds. There is no way Caulfield would lose unless he got caught up in a tangent halfway through.

[southsider2k5]

I haven't seen them do it this year, so it may be gone, but last year they played a game in between innings where you go up against a player and list as many vegetables or cereal, or ice cream flavors you could in 30 seconds. There is no way Caulfield would lose unless he got caught up in a tangent halfway through.

 

It is not "if". It is how many.