Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[Guest JimH]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/12/06

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

 

Again, you continue to be extremely misleading when you say Media Coverage. Using the words media coverage is a broad brush generalization which isn't backed up by your numbers.

 

To be (somewhat more) accurate, you should state "coverage in two of the four major Chicagoland daily newspapers", with the other two being the Southtown and the Daily Herald.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, you continue to be extremely misleading when you say Media Coverage. Using the words media coverage is a broad brush generalization which isn't backed up by your numbers.

 

To be (somewhat more) accurate, you should state "coverage in two of the four major Chicagoland daily newspapers", with the other two being the Southtown and the Daily Herald.

While I certainly don't get much out of Hangar's tinfoil threads, I will say that you cannot possibly put the Southtown or even the Herald in the same league as the Trib or Sun Times. The 1 and 2 papers in Chicago are an order of magnitude more widely read than the 3rd place Herald, and I believe the Southtown is well below the Herald (though that last part I am not as sure about).

 

But I agree that it would be a step in the right direction of believability if his thread referred to this as coverage from Chicago's major newpapers, instead of the media generally.

[zach23]

But I agree that it would be a step in the right direction of believability if his thread referred to this as coverage from Chicago's major newpapers, instead of the media generally.

 

Yes, because the media in general would also include magazines such as SI, ESPN, and Sporting News. I don't know about Sporting News, but I get SI and the ESPN Magazine and both give the Sox some decent coverage.

[Hangar18]

Thats WHY its called the Chicago NewsMedia Watch.

Not the Suburban NewsMedia Watch. Those papers cater to the suburbs of Chicago.

the Tribune Entertainment Corporation has much more CLOUT than the 3 papers combined.

 

 

Yes, because the media in general would also include magazines such as SI, ESPN, and Sporting News. I don't know about Sporting News, but I get SI and the ESPN Magazine and both give the Sox some decent coverage.

 

 

This is the CHICAGO newsmedia watch. Not the NATIONAL NEWSMEDIA WATCH.

[SouthSidePride05]

SWEEEEET!!! I think I'll be visiting these boards more than WSI now, just for Hangar18's Media Watch.

[RibbieRubarb]

Thats WHY its called the Chicago NewsMedia Watch.

Not the Suburban NewsMedia Watch. Those papers cater to the suburbs of Chicago.

the Tribune Entertainment Corporation has much more CLOUT than the 3 papers combined.

This is the CHICAGO newsmedia watch. Not the NATIONAL NEWSMEDIA WATCH.

 

Now you're concerned with details...

 

Funny.

[zach23]

Thats WHY its called the Chicago NewsMedia Watch.

Not the Suburban NewsMedia Watch. Those papers cater to the suburbs of Chicago.

the Tribune Entertainment Corporation has much more CLOUT than the 3 papers combined.

 

When I lived in Chicago I got the Southtown there.

 

Plus, if newspapers affect people so much, wouldn't the pro-Sox bias of the Southtown be causing tons of surburbanites to become Sox fans thus offsetting all the damage that the Tribune does in the city?

What about national sports media such as the major sports magazines? Don't people in Chicago read those? Wouldn't they offset anything that the Tribune does? Wouldn't people outside of Chicago see those national periodicles more than local papers like the Trib and Times? If the Tribune can control what the Times is doing as far as bias, why can't they strong arm small papers like the Southtown and Herald? Shouldn't they be able to also strong arm Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine and make them show a bias to the Cubs?

I think you should include every possible newspaper in the area including the Star, the Bridgeport News, the Joliet Herald, and the sports section in StreetWise. You should also include every story in each sports magazine sold in the city and suburbs and there should be an accurate account for the total time in minutes and seconds that each team is talked about on each and every radio station and tv station in the tri-state area. This includes the FM stations, spanish stations, etc. and not just AM1000 and WSCR.

If all that was done accurately and verified by a non-biased 3rd party (maybe a board made up of people that have no interest in sports) then the media bias could be taken seriously and you could be given a nomination for a pulitzer prize for your work in exposing this.

 

Thats WHY its called the Chicago NewsMedia Watch.

Not the Suburban NewsMedia Watch. Those papers cater to the suburbs of Chicago.

the Tribune Entertainment Corporation has much more CLOUT than the 3 papers combined.

This is the CHICAGO newsmedia watch. Not the NATIONAL NEWSMEDIA WATCH.

 

Nobody in Chicago reads those magazines?

[Hangar18]

Plus, if newspapers affect people so much, wouldn't the pro-Sox bias of the Southtown be causing tons of surburbanites to become Sox fans thus offsetting all the damage that the Tribune does in the city?

 

Again, the Tribune has WAY MORE CLOUT than a little neighborhood newspaper, like the Southtown.

They arent worried about them. When the Southtown begins buying up other newspapers, radio stations

and becomes part of FOX network, than you'll probably see playing field leveled.

 

 

When I lived in Chicago I got the Southtown there.

 

Plus, if newspapers affect people so much, wouldn't the pro-Sox bias of the Southtown be causing tons of surburbanites to become Sox fans thus offsetting all the damage that the Tribune does in the city?

What about national sports media such as the major sports magazines? Don't people in Chicago read those? Wouldn't they offset anything that the Tribune does? Wouldn't people outside of Chicago see those national periodicles more than local papers like the Trib and Times? If the Tribune can control what the Times is doing as far as bias, why can't they strong arm small papers like the Southtown and Herald? Shouldn't they be able to also strong arm Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine and make them show a bias to the Cubs?

I think you should include every possible newspaper in the area including the Star, the Bridgeport News, the Joliet Herald, and the sports section in StreetWise. You should also include every story in each sports magazine sold in the city and suburbs and there should be an accurate account for the total time in minutes and seconds that each team is talked about on each and every radio station and tv station in the tri-state area. This includes the FM stations, spanish stations, etc. and not just AM1000 and WSCR.

If all that was done accurately and verified by a non-biased 3rd party (maybe a board made up of people that have no interest in sports) then the media bias could be taken seriously and you could be given a nomination for a pulitzer prize for your work in exposing this.

Nobody in Chicago reads those magazines?

 

I remember someone from the Tribune, whom I wont name, saying the very same things. Said my Media Watches were biased themselves, the numbers prove nothing, the numbers could be wrong (despite my challenging them to check out my numbers-Got No Reply), im just jealous of the Tribune,

Trib doesnt strong-arm anyone, Trib doesnt support the Cubs (despite reports of Andy McPhail and Jim Hendry Cussing Out and Verbally Abusing Trib Reporter Paul Sullivan) Trib is a legitimate news source, Why is everyone else enamored with the Cubs then, Southtown is Pro-Sox why arent you mentioning them, Why arent you including small newspapers like the Bridgeport News or the Jonesville Gazette those papers have as much "influence".

I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.

[RibbieRubarb]

I remember someone from the Tribune, whom I wont name, saying the very same things. Said my Media Watches were biased themselves, the numbers prove nothing, the numbers could be wrong (despite my challenging them to check out my numbers-Got No Reply), im just jealous of the Tribune,

Trib doesnt strong-arm anyone, Trib doesnt support the Cubs (despite reports of Andy McPhail and Jim Hendry Cussing Out and Verbally Abusing Trib Reporter Paul Sullivan) Trib is a legitimate news source, Why is everyone else enamored with the Cubs then, Southtown is Pro-Sox why arent you mentioning them, Why arent you including small newspapers like the Bridgeport News or the Jonesville Gazette those papers have as much "influence".

I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.

 

Was this "someone" 6' tall and named Harvey?

[Guest JimH]

I remember someone from the Tribune, whom I wont name, saying the very same things. Said my Media Watches were biased themselves, the numbers prove nothing, the numbers could be wrong (despite my challenging them to check out my numbers-Got No Reply)

 

The person from the Tribune was right.

 

On the Daily Herald and Southtown, both papers are readily available in the city, particularly downtown. The Tribune and Sun Times receive highly significant circulation from the suburbs, so it's highly inaccurate to describe your crusade as Chicago media bias.

 

You still fail to answer SS2K5's questions (go back a few pages to see them). I presume the potshots at another White Sox fan site will cease now that a mod told you to knock it off.

 

Lest you or someone ask me why I'm clicking on this thread and responding, it's because we share something in common hanger18. I don't like it when misinformation, half truths, and inaccuracies are spread to Sox fans, especially when someone trumpets they've "proven" something.

 

Again, you have proven nothing. What about measuring column inches vs. your dubious story counting methods?

[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???

 

Here are the two posts we are waiting for your responses on, Hangar.

Edited June 12, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[Chisoxfn]

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.

Great post Critic. We got a shot to have a fun few years ahead of us.

[3 BeWareTheNewSox 5]

I hate the Cubune spin

 

Chicagosports.com poll question: 'Which Cub rookie pitcher has you most excited? Sean Marshall or Carlos Marmall?' Where is the 'who gives a ----?' option? Horrible team, and they try and make it look positive, while the real story in town is the White Sox.

 

Also on the frontpage is a story about a guy who thinks Wrigley should have a new scoreboard and be more modern. It is beginning, they are starting to lessen the blow to when they do make it more modern (charging even more for tickets), and completely contradicting what they've been selling for years

[Hangar18]

The person from the Tribune was right.

 

On the Daily Herald and Southtown, both papers are readily available in the city, particularly downtown. The Tribune and Sun Times receive highly significant circulation from the suburbs, so it's highly inaccurate to describe your crusade as Chicago media bias.

 

You still fail to answer SS2K5's questions (go back a few pages to see them). I presume the potshots at another White Sox fan site will cease now that a mod told you to knock it off.

 

Lest you or someone ask me why I'm clicking on this thread and responding, it's because we share something in common hanger18. I don't like it when misinformation, half truths, and inaccuracies are spread to Sox fans, especially when someone trumpets they've "proven" something.

 

Again, you have proven nothing. What about measuring column inches vs. your dubious story counting methods?

 

Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work

over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone.

[Guest JimH]

Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work

over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone.

 

Again, you are putting your spin on things and passing it off as proof.

 

No, you didn't answer SS2K5's questions, you have been asked multiple times now, you had the time to respond to my post but you can't seem to specifically answer his questions, they are posted on this page, why are you having a problem answering them?

 

No one ever said everything is a sunny day regarding the media (or the Trib and Sun Times, not sure what your crusade represents). It isn't. There are human beings running those companies, there are certain biases that occur when human beings are involved. However, you state there's a conspiracy theory and supposedly back it up with dubious numbers, and when questioned on those numbers, all you state is "it's been written previously over at that other site". Well, if you want to continue your schtick here, then you should answer the legit questions which are posed to you HERE.

 

Stop dodging SS2K5's questions.

 

And nobody had a problem with your methods over there?

Edited June 13, 2006 by JimH

[Steff]

For the sake of credibility, you might want to get your stories straight...

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work

over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone.

[NorthSideSox72]

Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work

over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone.

People here don't all think everything is a "Sunny Day". But having posted here and there a lot in the last year, I think you'll find posters here in general are a lot less apt to take ANYTHING at face value. All are questioned, even veteran posters. Discussion is had. That's the kind of board this is, for better or worse.

[NYSox35]

For the sake of credibility, you might want to get your stories straight...

 

And that is a Knockout!!!!

[Guest JimH]

Now THAT's funny.

 

Hangar first you say you were banned due to your media watches, and then you say no one over there had a problem with your methods.

 

Two totally conflicting statements, and yet we are to believe your numbers have credibility?

 

Please answer SS2K5's questions.

 

People here don't all think everything is a "Sunny Day". But having posted here and there a lot in the last year, I think you'll find posters here in general are a lot less apt to take ANYTHING at face value. All are questioned, even veteran posters. Discussion is had. That's the kind of board this is, for better or worse.

 

Exactly, nice post NorthSide.

[Felix]

I've likely missed the time to ask these sorts of questions, and reading 20 pages or so on stuff that I find foolish isn't too appealing right now, but humor me please.

 

Isn't the media supposed to write stories that appeal to the majority of the public? Doesn't Chicago still have more Cubs fans than White Sox fans? So wouldn't it make sense that the Chicago papers write about the Cubs more?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to see the point of this 'research'.

[zach61]

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.

[southsider2k5]

People here don't all think everything is a "Sunny Day". But having posted here and there a lot in the last year, I think you'll find posters here in general are a lot less apt to take ANYTHING at face value. All are questioned, even veteran posters. Discussion is had. That's the kind of board this is, for better or worse.

 

Thanks, you pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Due to the open nature of the board, we encourage people to ask questions, investigate, and come up with their own opinions. We feel that following the herd doesn't accomplish anything, and that it makes for bad fans. By allowing this type of enviornment, you have to EXPECT to be questioned on anything that has gray area in it, and it seems that many people have questions on that. Its the nature of the beast here. An open forum, means an open forum both for good and for bad.

[RibbieRubarb]

Here, again, are the two posts we are waiting for your responses on, Hangar.

 

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???

 

Please don't reference your posts on WSI as proof. We would like answers to these specific questions.

Thank you

[Hangar18]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/13/06

 

With the Cubs being off on Monday and the SOX having a national telecast on ESPN, it seemed like a good chance for the SOX to make a serious dent into the 95 story lead the Cubs currently hold over the World Series Champion White Sox. Unfortuneately, the teams remained dead-even again and the SOX unable to gain any ground. Mike Kiley, who has become the king of ridiculously propogandistic articles, continues his reign with a pure speculation piece, which among other things says that other team will be in the playoffs because Marmol will be the 06 NL Rookie of the Year (only 1 MLB start) , Nevin can still hit the ball on the "button", Wood/Prior-you just cant count them out, Pierre will show why he'll be here for "years to come" and ..........well the bible says "the last shall be first", inferring that since that other team is last in everything, they will end the season first in everything?

 

The SOX stories today were basic in nature, one being the Game Story and mentioning Contreras being a shoo-in now for the starting slot in the All Star Game. I really hope this fact gets the ball rolling and he in fact does start the game.

 

Despite Winning The World Series in 2005, the White Sox INEXPLICABLY find themselves lagging far far behind in media stories, to a team that finished in 4th place the previous year.

 

 

Chicago Tribune:

4 cub stories

4 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

3 cub stories

3 sox stories

Standings as of Tuesday, June 13th 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 2005 Cubs 567

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 05 Sox 472

 

And that is a Knockout!!!!

 

 

 

Hardly .........

[Guest JimH]

Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/13/06

Hardly .........

 

Would you say you are hardly able or definitely not able to answer SS2K5's questions here on this site?

 

And what about measuring column inches vs. your dubious method of counting stories, this is at least the 3rd time I've asked. Oh and also, for about the 10th time, your title is misleading, it isn't the Chicago NewsMedia Watch, that is grossly inaccurate. Yours is the Trib/Sun Times Newspaper Watch.

 

Why do I get a visual of an ostrich with its head in the sand?

Edited June 13, 2006 by JimH