Tribune Bias?

[balfanman]

I'm not sure if this is in the right forum or not but it is about the Sox. Mods please move this if it needs to go elsewhere.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has noticed, or if it's just me that the Tribune seems be be more favorable to the Sox recently. This is most likely due to the fact that they are no longer the majority owner of the Cubs, but I wasn't really expecting anything to change when they sold them.

 

Maybe the whole Mark Gonzales / Joe Cowley thing the last couple of days has helped too. I noticed that there were 3 or 4 Sox stories this morning for example. Does anyone think that maybe the Tribune has actually changed it's tune and is going to cover the Sox on an equal basis from now on, or am I dreaming?

[bmags]

I never really thought there was a bias, it was just us having to recognize that the cubs have a sizably larger portion of Chicago's fan base. Sun Times wasn't much better, ever.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you're dreaming.

 

Some folks have posted here in that past that were convinced of a vast conspiracy at the Trib to be biased towards the Cubs. I personally never saw much of that - the Cubs coverage was maybe a little more prolific at times, but honestly, they also have a larger fan base to cater to. I didn't see a material bias, though, where there was any attempt to be more positive or negative towards either team.

 

 

 

[bmags]

I don't think people realize how far ownership, especially who would have been in control of the cubs, and a section of their paper, like the sports section, really is.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not sure if this is in the right forum or not but it is about the Sox. Mods please move this if it needs to go elsewhere.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has noticed, or if it's just me that the Tribune seems be be more favorable to the Sox recently. This is most likely due to the fact that they are no longer the majority owner of the Cubs, but I wasn't really expecting anything to change when they sold them.

 

Maybe the whole Mark Gonzales / Joe Cowley thing the last couple of days has helped too. I noticed that there were 3 or 4 Sox stories this morning for example. Does anyone think that maybe the Tribune has actually changed it's tune and is going to cover the Sox on an equal basis from now on, or am I dreaming?

 

I don't think it is bias either way. I think it is the individual reporters in question. Gonzales has always treated his column like he is a reporter, and no matter what he is writing about it, he isn't trying to sensationalize anything. He is trying to contribute something intelligent to his readership. The other guy, at the other paper, not so much. And it doesn't matter who, or what he is talking about.

[balfanman]

I probably should also state that I don't believe that I'm necessarily a "conspiracy theorist' type, but I have seen some instances over the years where there was a fairly obvious show of favoritism by the Tribune. I can't say that I blame them to a point though because afterall, the Cubs were their product.

 

It's along the same lines as the radio stations in town. Sox fans complain that WGN radio is bias towards the Cubs. Well why shouldn't they be, it's the Cubs flagship station. I actually think that the Score does a pretty fair job of discussing the Cubs overall, but as a Sox fan I wish that they would concentrate on the Sox more, but I understand why. I don't listen to much radio anyway so I don't care that much about it, although I do try to catch Ranger on White Sox Weekly every Saturday.

[Pants Rowland]

I don't know if it is a bias as much as a catering to corporate Chicago. There is a silliness about Cub and Bear coverage that I rarely see with the Sox, Bulls and Hawks. The Cubs and Bears not only have a huge following throughout Chicagoland (and nationally for the Cubs), but the concentration of Cubs fans in the business district has always seemed very over the top to me. They are very intertwined with LaSalle Street and the dumb, over the top stories just seem to fit their fan base more. Every once in a while, the big shoulders, blue collar pandering story about the Sox, Bulls and Hawks comes out, but it is usually a blurb more than anything. I personally can not listen to Bears and Cubs fans for precisely this reason. There is a silly adoration and obsession with their teams and a false sense of entitlement/royalty in their so-called traditions. It comes out in the news coverage as they are simply trying to meet the demands of the readers.

[kjshoe04]

I don't know if it is a bias as much as a catering to corporate Chicago. There is a silliness about Cub and Bear coverage that I rarely see with the Sox, Bulls and Hawks. The Cubs and Bears not only have a huge following throughout Chicagoland (and nationally for the Cubs), but the concentration of Cubs fans in the business district has always seemed very over the top to me. They are very intertwined with LaSalle Street and the dumb, over the top stories just seem to fit their fan base more. Every once in a while, the big shoulders, blue collar pandering story about the Sox, Bulls and Hawks comes out, but it is usually a blurb more than anything. I personally can not listen to Bears and Cubs fans for precisely this reason. There is a silly adoration and obsession with their teams and a false sense of entitlement/royalty in their so-called traditions. It comes out in the news coverage as they are simply trying to meet the demands of the readers.

This is the reason that I'm not really a football fan. I kind of like the bears but hate bears fans.

[Buehrlesque]

I don't know if it is a bias as much as a catering to corporate Chicago. There is a silliness about Cub and Bear coverage that I rarely see with the Sox, Bulls and Hawks. The Cubs and Bears not only have a huge following throughout Chicagoland (and nationally for the Cubs), but the concentration of Cubs fans in the business district has always seemed very over the top to me. They are very intertwined with LaSalle Street and the dumb, over the top stories just seem to fit their fan base more. Every once in a while, the big shoulders, blue collar pandering story about the Sox, Bulls and Hawks comes out, but it is usually a blurb more than anything. I personally can not listen to Bears and Cubs fans for precisely this reason. There is a silly adoration and obsession with their teams and a false sense of entitlement/royalty in their so-called traditions. It comes out in the news coverage as they are simply trying to meet the demands of the readers.

Wow, this is right on! Great post!

[Pants Rowland]

Wow, this is right on! Great post!

 

Thanks and fantastic name in "Buehrlesque". Welcome to Soxtalk.

[Milkman delivers]

I don't know if it is a bias as much as a catering to corporate Chicago. There is a silliness about Cub and Bear coverage that I rarely see with the Sox, Bulls and Hawks. The Cubs and Bears not only have a huge following throughout Chicagoland (and nationally for the Cubs), but the concentration of Cubs fans in the business district has always seemed very over the top to me. They are very intertwined with LaSalle Street and the dumb, over the top stories just seem to fit their fan base more. Every once in a while, the big shoulders, blue collar pandering story about the Sox, Bulls and Hawks comes out, but it is usually a blurb more than anything. I personally can not listen to Bears and Cubs fans for precisely this reason. There is a silly adoration and obsession with their teams and a false sense of entitlement/royalty in their so-called traditions. It comes out in the news coverage as they are simply trying to meet the demands of the readers.

 

You're a smart man, Pants.

[lostfan]

I love the Bears (not the 2009 team, which I hate but the concept of the franchise in general) but I would have to agree that Bears fans are pretty dumb.

[kjshoe04]

I love the Bears (not the 2009 team, which I hate but the concept of the franchise in general) but I would have to agree that Bears fans are pretty dumb.

Well over half of Bears fans are Cubs fans so it makes sense.

[WCSox]

I've always felt that the Trib gave more extensive and positive coverage to the Cubs. But the motive for that (vested financial interest vs. catering to a much larger fan base) has never been clear to me. At the very least, I never believed that the Trib was blatantly unfair to the Sox. And a certain disgraced sportswriter for their major competitor was the most anti-Sox person in town.

 

In general, I don't think that it's healthy that the a major newspaper own a sports team in the town that they're based in. Especially in this day and age, where media outlets all over the country are clearly "in the tank" for various organizations.

 

[elrockinMT]

I just hope this translates into more Sox games on WGN in 2010

[Buehrlesque]

Thanks and fantastic name in "Buehrlesque". Welcome to Soxtalk.

Thanks! It's good to be here. I lurked for a while, but it's time for me to start postin'.

[joeynach]

I think you're dreaming.

 

Some folks have posted here in that past that were convinced of a vast conspiracy at the Trib to be biased towards the Cubs. I personally never saw much of that - the Cubs coverage was maybe a little more prolific at times, but honestly, they also have a larger fan base to cater to. I didn't see a material bias, though, where there was any attempt to be more positive or negative towards either team.

 

Did anyone ever mention that if there really was a conspiracy in corporate policy to actively promote and favor all things cubs vs. sox then it would be like one of the biggest scandals of all time. The tribune is a huge company, if there were a conspiracy it would have to kept under wraps by hundreds or thousands of people over the last almost 30 years by writers, editors, staff, executives, board members, etc. Furthermore, think of whats at stake. If the tribune newspaper were caught or people were to come forward and say there were instructed to present bias media perspectives they would go out of business for being provent to be a fraudulent media source and essentially every investor in the company would lose their $$ and every employee lose their job. There is no way risking the entire company from the Tribune, to the LA times, to WGN, would ever justify some sort of bias or conspiracy to paint the cubs in better picture than the sox. There is simply to much at stake, its a very simply risk vs. reward thing. The tribune is a business, their job is to sell papers, commercials, etc. If no one in this town gave a crap about the cubs they would be up the sox ass so fast it would be ridiculous, and vica versa, that's their freaking job.