Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[Hangar18]

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.

Exactly, nice post NorthSide.

 

 

Yes I was banned for my media watches, (which they asked that they be placed in a forum that allows discussion of that other team) I was then banned for defending my point the exact reason was "your the ringleader" regarding talking about the Cubs. They dont allow talking about the Cubs, despite having a Forum specifically created for talking about that other team (theres your conflict)

 

No one over there (moderators and posters) had a problem with my system of counting stories. If they did, this wouldve been brought up years ago.

so no ..............those arent .......conflicting Statements at all

 

No, you didn't answer SS2K5's questions, you have been asked multiple times now

 

Stop dodging SS2K5's questions.

 

Where is his question? Its kind of hard to read this kind of thread ....................the dates all blend into each other .........

[Steff]

Yes I was banned for my media watches, (which they asked that they be placed in a forum that allows discussion of that other team) I was then banned for defending my point the exact reason was "your the ringleader" regarding talking about the Cubs. They dont allow talking about the Cubs, despite having a Forum specifically created for talking about that other team (theres your conflict)

 

No one over there (moderators and posters) had a problem with my system of counting stories. If they did, this wouldve been brought up years ago.

so no ..............those arent .......conflicting Statements at all

 

 

Not much of a shock that your account of the facts are very different than those documented.

[Hangar18]

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'.

 

 

 

You are wrong.

The newspaper isnt ENTERTAINMENT, they'd probably like you to believe that.

This whole "theres more cub fans" (if thats a fact) is not reason to slant your stories towards them,

and negatively slant stories to the SOX. Does anyone understand that? The Tribune ISNT VINELINE,

which DOES have to appeal to the majority of its readership, which are cub fans.

 

 

Not much of a shock that your account of the facts are very different than those documented.

 

 

not much of a shock that steff is always trying to dig up stuff and cause havoc.

Yeah ......... well people can dig up that thread and see for themselves what happened.

[Guest JimH]

Yes I was banned for my media watches, (which they asked that they be placed in a forum that allows discussion of that other team) I was then banned for defending my point the exact reason was "your the ringleader" regarding talking about the Cubs. They dont allow talking about the Cubs, despite having a Forum specifically created for talking about that other team (theres your conflict)

 

No one over there (moderators and posters) had a problem with my system of counting stories. If they did, this wouldve been brought up years ago.

so no ..............those arent .......conflicting Statements at all

Where is his question? Its kind of hard to read this kind of thread ....................the dates all blend into each other .........

 

Yes, they are conflicting statements. "I was banned for my media watches" vs. "no one their had a problem with my methods" are opposite ends of the spectrum. Further, don't think people here don't or didn't read that site. You are choosing to forget that LOTS of people there questioned your story counting methods. That is a no-doubter.

 

Where are SS2K5's questions? Are you serious? Look at page 20. RibbieRhubarb has posted them at least twice for your convenience.

[YASNY]

Hey Hangar ... are you going to answer those questions?

 

Or ignore them and hope they go away?

 

Man up or shut up.

[Guest JimH]

You are wrong.

The newspaper isnt ENTERTAINMENT, they'd probably like you to believe that.

This whole "theres more cub fans" (if thats a fact) is not reason to slant your stories towards them,

and negatively slant stories to the SOX. Does anyone understand that? The Tribune ISNT VINELINE,

which DOES have to appeal to the majority of its readership, which are cub fans.

 

The newspaper isn't entertainment? What about Tempo, what about At Play, what about the weekend sections, what about the lifestyle section? LOL. Sports isn't entertainment? They are reporting and commenting on sports, sports is entertainment.

 

What about measuring column inches, why are you continuing to ignore the question?

 

Further do you realize that when you say "negatively slant stories to the Sox", that is your subjective opinion, which means you've proven nothing?

 

Lastly, I don't see you counting the amount of times a story is supposedly "slanted" against either the Cubs or Sox. You just count stories, and your counting method is dubious at best. Just last week, you whined that the Cubs had more stories than the Sox on a particular day, but failed to mention the Cub stories had a negative spin (they were specifically about Wood and Prior).

 

Your conspiracy theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

[Hangar18]

I can explain both disparities. The Cubs sell. Why don't you see the WNBA on the front page, while you see the Bulls on the front page for everything?

 

 

You mustve missed the Front Page Headlines for a week straight on the Chicago Sky in the Trib a couple weeks ago. Ooops, Im just making that up right?

[Guest JimH]

Hey Hangar ... are you going to answer those questions?

 

Or ignore them and hope they go away?

 

Man up or shut up.

[Hangar18]

Hey Hangar ... are you going to answer those questions?

 

Or ignore them and hope they go away?

 

Man up or shut up.

 

 

Im trying to find them. This one entire thread doesnt really work well for this kind of thing ....

what day did he ask this "question?"

[Steff]

not much of a shock that steff is always trying to dig up stuff and cause havoc.

Yeah ......... well people can dig up that thread and see for themselves what happened.

 

 

Not always. Just when the harmony of THIS site is threatened. YOU are the one that came over here after YOU were booted from there for a variety of reasons. YOU made a point of talking s*** about WSI and their mods and members. YOU invited this on yourself. YOU made a decision to bring attention to yourself with this behavior. Yes, I will call it out when bulls*** is brought here. They don't allow it there and vice versa as a courtesy. They are both sites with a common purpose. Others here have been banned there and yet they realize this is not the place to air dirty laundry. If your goal is to talk s***, take it somewhere else.

[Guest JimH]

You mustve missed the Front Page Headlines for a week straight on the Chicago Sky in the Trib a couple weeks ago. Ooops, Im just making that up right?

 

Calling them front page headlines is misleading and you know it.

 

It is now time for you to answer SS2K5's questions.

 

Im trying to find them. This one entire thread doesnt really work well for this kind of thing ....

what day did he ask this "question?"

 

CUT THE CRAP.

 

They are posted by RibbieRhubarb for your convenience on page 20.

[Felix]

Im trying to find them. This one entire thread doesnt really work well for this kind of thing ....

what day did he ask this "question?"

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1171105

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1171975

[YASNY]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1171105

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...dpost&p=1171975

 

That ought to 'help' him find them.

[zach23]

This is like watching a wounded animal try to gnaw off its own leg to get out of a trap.

 

Hangar, why are you so worried about being popular? Isn't that what Cub fans care most about?

[Hangar18]

Not always. Just when the harmony of THIS site is threatened. YOU are the one that came over here after YOU were booted from there for a variety of reasons. YOU made a point of talking s*** about WSI and their mods and members. YOU invited this on yourself. YOU made a decision to bring attention to yourself with this behavior. Yes, I will call it out when bulls*** is brought here. They don't allow it there and vice versa as a courtesy. They are both sites with a common purpose. Others here have been banned there and yet they realize this is not the place to air dirty laundry. If your goal is to talk s***, take it somewhere else.

 

 

Oh, so you care about "harmony" huh? Arent you the person that defined getting "personal" on message boards? Yeah, I was booted, I didnt hide that fact. It wasnt a "variety" of reasons Mrs. Kiley for your information. Do me a favor, if you dont have anyting interesting to add to the thread, please dont post.

Im sure others will agree.

[YASNY]

This should be good.

[Steff]

Oh, so you care about "harmony" huh? Arent you the person that defined getting "personal" on message boards? Yeah, I was booted, I didnt hide that fact. It wasnt a "variety" of reasons Mrs. Kiley for your information. Do me a favor, if you dont have anyting interesting to add to the thread, please dont post.

Im sure others will agree.

 

 

You don't really want me to start getting personal with you Henry... The disgusting s*** you did to poor "T" alone would keep you in your hole for years. Paying off that debt...?

 

Yes, I care about the harmony. It's a nice balance we have here. Open, honest, and respectful. And filled with baseball fans. Not media trackers. Save for the occasional Jay thread this bulls*** has NEVER flown here, mainly because EVERYONE here, but YOU now, focuses on what takes place between the lines.

 

You have your say here - it's something Soxtalk is known for. But thanks to that openness, you WILL get called out - as you have been. You are responsible for your words here, and unlike WSI that closes threads and tosses them to the Roadhouse you WILL be raked over the coals to furnish facts and sources. Don't like it, don't post. I know MANY others will agree.

[Hangar18]

Im sure your counting the Detroit Tiger story as a SOX story. There are no interviews with SOX players, managers, staff regarding the Tigers. The story Isnt about what the SOX think of the Tigers. Its entirely on its own all about the Tigers, and thus isnt a SOX story. However, since were all nitpicking, im going to add this to the Tiger count. AGAIN, there are only 4 SOX stories in todays Tribune.

A story about the Tigers, entirely about the Tigers and how the Tigers are a force to be reckoned with,

does them no service if its counted as a SOX story.

 

Greenbergs story was tough to call, but the Trib included it in the Cub notes section. The story im sure

didnt have to be included, but were told how he was a cub, was drafted, made his first appearance, got beaned, was injured, Cubs didnt know what to do with him, Greenburg asked Cubs to Release him making the Dodgers' interest a story in itself did qualify this as a Cub story.

 

And by the way, the Trib adds the William Ligue tales as "SOX" related, but I dont include those either.

Are you guys gonna sweat me for not including the Ligue stuff too?

 

 

This was my response to SSKs 2nd question, To which I ALREADY ANSWERED.

 

 

The disgusting s*** you did to poor "T" alone would keep you in your hole for years. Paying off that debt...?

 

Yes, I care about the harmony. It's a nice balance we have here. Open, honest, and respectful.

 

 

See what Im talking about? open honest and respectful, but Steff feels the need to try and air what might be construed as dirty laundry about myself, in order to feel better? or make me look bad? what does that

have to do with my media watch?

[Steff]

This was my response to SSKs 2nd question, To which I ALREADY ANSWERED.

See what Im talking about? open honest and respectful, but Steff feels the need to try and air what might be construed as dirty laundry about myself, in order to feel better? or make me look bad? what does that

have to do with my media watch?

 

 

 

When you give it, you get it.

 

You know me well enough to know that if you try to take a shot, I will return with a direct hit.

 

To be honest Henry, I am the least of your problems here. The fact checkers will eat you alive soon enough.

 

Have a lovely day.

[RibbieRubarb]

Calling them front page headlines is misleading and you know it.

 

It is now time for you to answer SS2K5's questions.

CUT THE CRAP.

 

They are posted by RibbieRhubarb for your convenience on page 20.

 

I think he is ignoring me...

[Guest JimH]

This was my response to SSKs 2nd question, To which I ALREADY ANSWERED.

See what Im talking about? open honest and respectful, but Steff feels the need to try and air what might be construed as dirty laundry about myself, in order to feel better? or make me look bad? what does that

have to do with my media watch?

 

Well, the first question has yet to be answered, it is the opinion of several here that your method of counting stories is questionable, and now the thread has become personal, in a bad way.

 

I also don't see it getting any better, mainly because you IMO are failing to take the hint that many people are poking holes in your methodology (if not overall purpose), and will continue to do so.

 

Moderators ... I think it's more than time to put this out of its misery. Not my call of course, but this is going nowhere good.

[Steff]

The over under was/is 15 days.

[Hangar18]

NO. but all you simply have to do is look at tv ratings for both teams for those decades. Also, look at attendance records for both teams thru the decades. You can also ask some of the old-timers (if there are any here) whether this was a "soxtown" before now. They will all say gosh-darn yes. This was a SOXTown from the 1950's on. That other team has stunk since 1950 (only 3 90-win seasons since then. that is Pathetic) but incredibly, their attendance/tv ratings (read: popularity) rose coincidentally with the Trib Entertainment Corporation owning them. How in the world can attendance go UP for a team that has gotten WORSE? Does this mean the Rockies and DevilRays will see similar spikes in popularity/attendance?

Probably not. Unless a major media magnate buys one of them.

 

So to go back to the original statement, that the other team "sells" and thats why they get more media-coverage is false. They get more media coverage because the major news outlet in this city is More Interested in Cross Promoting one of its products AHEAD of simply giving us and reporting Sports News.

A huge Conflict of Interest, by journalist standards

 

 

Here is my ANSWER to SSk's 1st question.

[RibbieRubarb]

Well, the first question has yet to be answered, it is the opinion of several here that your method of counting stories is questionable, and now the thread has become personal, in a bad way.

 

I also don't see it getting any better, mainly because you IMO are failing to take the hint that many people are poking holes in your methodology (if not overall purpose), and will continue to do so.

 

Moderators ... I think it's more than time to put this out of its misery. Not my call of course, but this is going nowhere good.

 

No, don't lock this thread. I think the personal attacks will cease.

 

There are many who actually do enjoy this "media watch". But I want to make sure they understand that if they are at all concerned with the attention the Sox are getting in the local media, they should get the facts in an accurate and fair way or from a reliable source.

 

There is nothing personal in what we are asking...it's just business.

/cue Godfather music

[Guest JimH]

Here is my ANSWER to SSk's 1st question.

 

Actually, no, it isn't.

 

Take a look at page 20, SS2K5 addresses your double standard.

 

What about my questions, which are why do you call it Chicago MediaWatch when in fact you're just looking at two aspects of Chicago media ... and ... since your methodology of counting stories has rightfully IMO being quetioned, why don't you measure column inches? Oh and my other question, which is, isn't deciding how a story is "slanted" subjective on your part, and how can you use a subjective (opinion based) measure as "proof" of a bias?