Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[Hangar18]

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.

 

 

 

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

[southsider2k5]

Wait, so you are saying attendance is an indicator of how popular a team is, and therefore how much coverage they should receive, I thought you were just telling me that isn't true? It makes no sense to say that attendance during the 70's means that the Sox were more popular and therefore received more media coverage, but now the Cubs have higher attendance and more media coverage and that is a bad thing today. That arguement doesn't work both ways.

 

I would need to see actual amounts of media coverage all of the way back for this to be anymore than a theory.

 

 

Out of curiousity, are you counting the Adam Greenberg signing as a Cubs story, and not the story about the Tigers and Sox? Otherwise the numbers don't add up. If so I would like to see your logic explaining how a guy signing with the Dodgers is a Cubs story, but a story about the Tigers not going away is not a story about the Sox???

 

I am still wanting to see your answers for these two posts...

 

With the first one, I want to see all of the numbers that you have complied so far. I guess you have back to 2002 so far, right? I'd still like to see them all and dig into the trends involved. To me I would guess that if this were a true conspiracy, there would be more of an effort to put down the Sox when they are doing better, mostly through either writing more Cub stories, or less Sox stories.

 

For the second quote, I still want to see how you can explain the contractiction of your accounting methods.

[RibbieRubarb]

I am still wanting to see your answers for these two posts...

 

With the first one, I want to see all of the numbers that you have complied so far. I guess you have back to 2002 so far, right? I'd still like to see them all and dig into the trends involved. To me I would guess that if this were a true conspiracy, there would be more of an effort to put down the Sox when they are doing better, mostly through either writing more Cub stories, or less Sox stories.

 

For the second quote, I still want to see how you can explain the contractiction of your accounting methods.

 

::sits next to SS2k5 on the couch::

I'm waiting too, Hanger...

 

Plushie Patrol!!

Edited June 10, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[grizzbr]

Hangar, I really enjoyed your reports from the other site. Keep up the good work. If these folks don't understand the bias, thats their problem.

 

It exists, it's well documented (thanks to you) and based on the performance of the two Chicago ballclubs to date, it's friggin' ridiculous.

[Guest JimH]

Hangar, I really enjoyed your reports from the other site. Keep up the good work. If these folks don't understand the bias, thats their problem.

 

It exists, it's well documented (thanks to you) and based on the performance of the two Chicago ballclubs to date, it's friggin' ridiculous.

 

No, we don't have a problem, but Hangar has an obsession, and when he claims things are "proven", it's because he's proven them to himself.

 

All of his "documentation" is subjective at best, and based on his own bias at worst.

[The Critic]

No, we don't have a problem, but Hangar has an obsession, and when he claims things are "proven", it's because he's proven them to himself.

 

All of his "documentation" is subjective at best, and based on his own bias at worst.

Yep.

Things stated as "proven" are largely opinion, conjecture, speculation, exaggeration and obsession.

It's entertaining to a point, but often flies past that point.

[Guest JimH]

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 keep avoiding the main question, which is how is it that you think numbers of stories paint the whole picture?

 

I notice you count separated topics in one overall story as a separate story. This is misleading and again, it is simply you putting your own personal spin to validate your conclusions. For example, in a column like today in the Tribune (Cubs Notes), a topic is offset (Fred Mitchell wrote the Cubs Notes column). You routinely count that as two stories, when in fact it's merely separate topics within the same story. Go look at todays (Sat.) Tribune if my explanation is unclear. You did the same thing several times earlier in the week.

 

Therefore, your numbers are skewed and unreliable.

 

Further, don't say "media bias" when you're strictly talking about newspapers, it is a misspoken characterization. One could take it to the nth degree and state all media is biased to some degree, because editors make decisions on what's aired/printed. They are serving their audience as best they can, based on their demographics, feedback, ratings, circulation.

 

Your numbers are unreliable, they are driven by your own personal bias to match your own personal conclusion. I would also like to know the purpose of you continually bashing some other website on this one, why do you feel the need to bring your baggage over here? You seem to think discussing your issues about another website somehow validates your crusade. It doesn't. Perhaps I should have said TWO gigantic chips on your shoulder.

 

Since your numbers are unreliable, you should start over but instead of counting stories (which is misleading, especially the way you do it), measure column inches since it's a more accurate representation. I suspect you have a slide ruler handy.

Edited June 10, 2006 by JimH

[RibbieRubarb]

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:18 PM)

 

Wait, so you are saying attendance is an indicator of how popular a team is, and therefore how much coverage they should receive, I thought you were just telling me that isn't true? It makes no sense to say that attendance during the 70's means that the Sox were more popular and therefore received more media coverage, but now the Cubs have higher attendance and more media coverage and that is a bad thing today. That arguement doesn't work both ways.

 

I would need to see actual amounts of media coverage all of the way back for this to be anymore than a theory.

 

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:43 AM)

 

Out of curiousity, are you counting the Adam Greenberg signing as a Cubs story, and not the story about the Tigers and Sox? Otherwise the numbers don't add up. If so I would like to see your logic explaining how a guy signing with the Dodgers is a Cubs story, but a story about the Tigers not going away is not a story about the Sox???

 

I am still wanting to see your answers for these two posts...

 

With the first one, I want to see all of the numbers that you have complied so far. I guess you have back to 2002 so far, right? I'd still like to see them all and dig into the trends involved. To me I would guess that if this were a true conspiracy, there would be more of an effort to put down the Sox when they are doing better, mostly through either writing more Cub stories, or less Sox stories.

 

For the second quote, I still want to see how you can explain the contractiction of your accounting methods.

 

We're all still waiting...

[zach61]

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.

[knightni]

The best way to get an answer from him is to lock this thread.

[Kyyle23]

The best way to get an answer from him is to lock this thread.

 

please dont, I feel he might reply. That could be fun to watch

[gosox41]

Just wanted to say hello to everyone here. Ive been documenting the Chicago Media blatant bias against the World Champion White Sox for a number of years. Its been a hot topic the last couple of years, ESPECIALLY in the last couple of weeks. Most casual fans had no idea the lengths and trouble the Chicago Media goes thru to A: Make the SOX look bad and B: Make that north-side team look great.

From constantly comparing the attendance figures between both parks, hiliting the Good (them) and the Bad (always us), the Media Watch is way to shine a light right back on the people who are supposedly in charge of getting and reporting to us the News. The Internal Affairs of sports if you will.

 

Some of you may know me from the other website, truth be known, I was BANNED for my Media Watches.

Some there feel that if you Ignore the Problem, It will Go Away. (that never works, history tells us so)

Some there feel it important that Everyone Agree with them or Else. Thats not the case here.

If you dont agree. Hallelujah. Its a Democracy!

 

Media Attention is very important for a baseball team, especially one in a two team city. That other team

is somehow known the world over, for simply, being BAD? Were the Champions, and were going to make sure the SOX get their due. The Deserve It.

 

 

You were banned for your news media watches? Id idn't ralize that was the reason.

 

 

Bob

[zach23]

The past few issues of ESPN the magazine have had Sox stories on Ozzie and Thome and only one Cubs story on Zambrano.

Recently Sports Illustrated has also had stories on Ozzie and Thome and an interview with Buehrle while only having one story on Maddux.

 

Do major sports magazines also not count as "media" in the same way that the Southtown doesn't count?

 

"Sportsrise" on Comcast Sports Net Chicago spent 4 minutes and 45 seconds on Sox highlights and interviews while only spending 3 minutes and 15 seconds on the Cubs. WGN news at 9PM spent 1 minute and 35 seconds on the Sox while only spending 1 minute and 5 seconds on the Cubs.

 

While watching various TV channels during scattered times in a 2 day period there were 14 Sox commercials as opposed to 3 for the Cubs.

 

There was a Sox player on Saturday Night Live in the recent past, and no Cubs players appeared on the show.

 

At my local Jewel I counted 12 Sox balloons displayed and only 8 for the Cubs.

 

The local businesses, restaurants, and bars in my town displayed 26 Sox signs as opposed to 15 for the Cubs.

 

I polled the guys on my baseball team, the opposing team, and people at the game and out of 34 people 33 said they don't think there is a media bias for the Cubs and 1 was too young to understand the question and answer anything other than "dada". That poll should be just as scientific and accurate as your Metrodome poll.

 

All of this clearly proves that playing with polls and numbers is complete bulls*** and can be easily twisted to make whatever point anyone chooses to make. Just ask any politician.

[Steff]

You were banned for your news media watches? Id idn't ralize that was the reason.

Bob

 

 

 

No, he wasn't.

[Dick Allen]

I really don't think anyone could question the fact that the media has been slanted in the Cubs direction for a long time. I do see things have changed a little bit, of course it took a WS trophy (something hangar18 has btw). While I may not be into the numbers like hangar is, and I really have no idea how accurate he is, I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you his numbers may be slightly off. He is looking at this like a raging Sox fan. The fact remains, the media has not been 50-50 with their coverage over the years even though the Sox have consitantly had better teams. If it was the Cubs who won the WS last year, the White Sox wouldn't be on page 1 of any sports section. The Tribune article last year as the playoffs opened that mentioned the stench of marijuana was ridiculous, and goes to show just how far that media outlet will go to try and protect the popularity of their sister company.This has been going on a long time. In 1993 the Sox were in the playoffs and the sports segment was coming on. I figured there was a playoff game it would be all Sox. The lead story was the Cubs fired their manager. They go through that and then, oh yeah, the playoff game. It is what it is, and will probably always be until people quit filling up the Urinal. Hangar18's watchdog efforts are appreciated by me, and I could understand why others are bothered by them.

[The Critic]

Dick, all we can do as Sox fans until the climate changes is fill USCF, watch the games to lift the ratings, buy the gear (more World Series gear, hopefully ) and patronize sponsors of White Sox baseball.

The tide IS turning, albeit slowly. The White Sox's attention to families and children is now and will continue to gain new fans and young fans. As the Cub demographic grows older and the new Sox fans become the ones with expendable income, you'll see the shift exposed more in the media.

Harping on about it ad infinitum does very little, IMO.

Also, I have no problem seeing 2 positive Sox stories and 5 negative Cub stories. That's another "statistic" Hangar ignores - how many of the Cub articles would actually sway a fan to root for the Cubs?

If I read yet another Kerry Wood DL story and another story detailing the mysterious litany of Mark Prior ailments, I am NOT thinking, "OOOOOH, I GOTTA go see Carlos Marmol pitch on Monday!!!!"

As long as JR and KW stay the course, I see good things in the Sox's future, and the media will not be able to ignore it.

[Beauty35thStreet]

What's wrong with Hangar's conspiracy theory? I tend to agree with him. I think what he says is a lot more interesting than what the great majority of soxtalk posters post

 

Dick, all we can do as Sox fans until the climate changes is fill USCF, watch the games to lift the ratings, buy the gear (more World Series gear, hopefully ) and patronize sponsors of White Sox baseball.

The tide IS turning, albeit slowly. The White Sox's attention to families and children is now and will continue to gain new fans and young fans. As the Cub demographic grows older and the new Sox fans become the ones with expendable income, you'll see the shift exposed more in the media.

Harping on about it ad infinitum does very little, IMO.

Also, I have no problem seeing 2 positive Sox stories and 5 negative Cub stories. That's another "statistic" Hangar ignores - how many of the Cub articles would actually sway a fan to root for the Cubs?

If I read yet another Kerry Wood DL story and another story detailing the mysterious litany of Mark Prior ailments, I am NOT thinking, "OOOOOH, I GOTTA go see Carlos Marmol pitch on Monday!!!!"

As long as JR and KW stay the course, I see good things in the Sox's future, and the media will not be able to ignore it.

[Kalapse]

What's wrong with Hangar's conspiracy theory? I tend to agree with him. I think what he says is a lot more interesting than what the great majority of soxtalk posters post

 

FUN!!

[knightni]

He must not have gotten the Sunday papers today.

 

Guess his semi is late.

[The Critic]

What's wrong with Hangar's conspiracy theory? I tend to agree with him. I think what he says is a lot more interesting than what the great majority of soxtalk posters post

That's the "beauty" of everyone having their own opinion.

Give it a few thousand more views, and watch every thread get twisted into a media conspiracy, and see if it's still interesting.

For me, at least, it's like shouting every morning "HEY, CHECK IT OUT, THE SUN CAME OUT!!!!"

[SouthsideNorthsideFan]

"Sportsrise" on Comcast Sports Net Chicago spent 4 minutes and 45 seconds on Sox highlights and interviews while only spending 3 minutes and 15 seconds on the Cubs. WGN news at 9PM spent 1 minute and 35 seconds on the Sox while only spending 1 minute and 5 seconds on the Cubs.

I don't care! There was still Cubs bias - they were talking faster during those 65 seconds!!!

- Hangar Jr.

 

At my local Jewel I counted 12 Sox balloons displayed and only 8 for the Cubs.

Umm, were those strictly display balloons, or sale items?

[Kyyle23]

Umm, were those strictly display balloons, or sale items?

 

I think the better question would be "Was the Jewel IN Chicago, or was it out in the suburbs where it doesnt really count?"

 

[zach23]

I don't care! There was still Cubs bias - they were talking faster during those 65 seconds!!!

- Hangar Jr.

Umm, were those strictly display balloons, or sale items?

 

I have no idea if the balloons were for sale or if they were just for decoration.

 

Yes, it was in the suburbs where it doesn't count.

[SouthsideNorthsideFan]

At my local Jewel I counted 12 Sox balloons displayed and only 8 for the Cubs.

---

All of this clearly proves that playing with polls and numbers is complete bulls*** and can be easily twisted to make whatever point anyone chooses to make.

I have no idea if the balloons were for sale or if they were just for decoration.

So, the number of cute little balloons proves nothing with regards to anti-Sox bias, other than that the Cubs may have sold more (to suburban ass-clowns).

You're right...twisting numbers to prove your point is easy!

[Hangar18]

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