Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[Hangar18]

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.

 

1st question was answered previously, you just keep asking the same question.

So was the 2nd question. Just because you dont think theres a media bias against the SOX,

(but dont have your own proof, only shooting down my measurements) isnt cause to discontinue

this thread. I asked a moderator if it was OK to post this here.

 

The thread became personal because a certain person chose to start doing that. Im not following her

down that path. Shes done that to me before numerous times, but I wont take her bait.

Again, Jim, if you question my methods, why even look at this thread? or why dont you ADD something to the thread? Your quick to say there isnt a bias, but then you offer no proof. At least I have

a method, counting the number of stories in both Chicago Newspapers.

 

 

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?

 

 

SS2k's question why I didnt count Toni Ginettis "Tigers are Glorious" article was simple. She does an entire piece about them, how they got there, star players, etc. The story isnt about the SOX. It was a feature piece on the Tigers. Why they put it in the "SOX" section has no consequence, it shouldve been just a Feature. The Greenburg piece was added in the Cub section and I believed it to be about a former Cub who was just released after a freak accident.

Im not going to measure column inches ........ thats ridiculous. If you would like to measure that and add it to this thread to counter anything Im saying, thats great too.

 

Deciding how a story is "slanted"? Thats the fun part, because we can discuss it HERE afterwards (which is why we should probably NOT have ONE GIANT thread, it would be too hard to discuss separate articles)

I wouldve loved your guys opionion on that Morrissey article, which he stated that there were tons of cub fans at the SOX WS Parade, and thats why there were a lot of people there, not because the SOX are popular. I wouldve loved to hear the opinion here of another great Morrissey article, in which he stated the reason Frank Thomas didnt get any respect here in Chicago was because SOX fans didnt like him.

Thats false, he didnt get any respect because most of the time, the media would rather twist something he said, or they were too busy writing Sammy is Great stories instead.

 

JimH, are you saying the Chicago Sky getting the Front Page a couple weeks ago for like an entire Week Straight is Misleading? How so? They were on the Front/Lead story for a week. I have the pictures and the articles to prove so.

 

Okay Jim, if you'd like this to be called the Chicago Newspaper Watch, I am willing to call it that

[RibbieRubarb]

I think what we are trying to say is that yours is a self-fullfilling prophesy.

Your methods insure that the Sox are, in your opinion, ignored.

 

You refuse to view "suburban" papers or national ones.

You don't count the fact in the off-season the Sox dominated all media in the city.

A story about the White Sox main division rival, the reasoning behind their success and lead in the standings are NOT a Sox story, but an mention of a ex-cub player in another counts.

You don't look at column length in words or inches, which is how every newspaper man measures a story.

 

You feel ONE Cub article more than a Sox one is an insult.

 

You facts are skewed and inaccurate.

 

If there are posters who truly want to know how the White Sox are being handled in the media, I suggest they look elsewhere

Edited June 13, 2006 by RibbieRubarb

[zach61]

1st question was answered previously, you just keep asking the same question.

So was the 2nd question. Just because you dont think theres a media bias against the SOX,

(but dont have your own proof, only shooting down my measurements) isnt cause to discontinue

this thread. I asked a moderator if it was OK to post this here.

 

The thread became personal because a certain person chose to start doing that. Im not following her

down that path. Shes done that to me before numerous times, but I wont take her bait.

Again, Jim, if you question my methods, why even look at this thread? or why dont you ADD something to the thread? Your quick to say there isnt a bias, but then you offer no proof. At least I have

a method, counting the number of stories in both Chicago Newspapers.

SS2k's question why I didnt count Toni Ginettis "Tigers are Glorious" article was simple. She does an entire piece about them, how they got there, star players, etc. The story isnt about the SOX. It was a feature piece on the Tigers. Why they put it in the "SOX" section has no consequence, it shouldve been just a Feature. The Greenburg piece was added in the Cub section and I believed it to be about a former Cub who was just released after a freak accident.

Im not going to measure column inches ........ thats ridiculous. If you would like to measure that and add it to this thread to counter anything Im saying, thats great too.

 

Deciding how a story is "slanted"? Thats the fun part, because we can discuss it HERE afterwards (which is why we should probably NOT have ONE GIANT thread, it would be too hard to discuss separate articles)

I wouldve loved your guys opionion on that Morrissey article, which he stated that there were tons of cub fans at the SOX WS Parade, and thats why there were a lot of people there, not because the SOX are popular. I wouldve loved to hear the opinion here of another great Morrissey article, in which he stated the reason Frank Thomas didnt get any respect here in Chicago was because SOX fans didnt like him.

Thats false, he didnt get any respect because most of the time, the media would rather twist something he said, or they were too busy writing Sammy is Great stories instead.

 

JimH, are you saying the Chicago Sky getting the Front Page a couple weeks ago for like an entire Week Straight is Misleading? How so? They were on the Front/Lead story for a week. I have the pictures and the articles to prove so.

 

Okay Jim, if you'd like this to be called the Chicago Newspaper Watch, I am willing to call it that

 

 

 

You need to start over because it has already been proven that your numbers are wrong. Change your rant to trib and times watch and tell us what stories you are counting and how you are interprting them to be biased against the Sox and promoting the cubs. Just counting a title isn't proving anything. What is the story about and how does that story make someone dislike the Sox and like the cubs and want to stay away from US Cellular and want to go to wrigley. That's what you keep claiming that you proved, but can't show it.

[Chisoxfn]

Personally speaking...all I need is a world series trophy, thats the only kind of pub that really matters.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Buehrle>Wood's World Series Watch

 

This post was created for you all to see me keeping track of World Series trophies accumulated in the modern baseball era by Chicago baseball teams. Here is my current count:

 

White Sox- One

Cubs- Zero

 

As you can see, good baseball play is clearly biased towards the Chicago White Sox. Something needs to be done.

[Kid Gleason]

This is a crazy thread. I see very little "media watching", but a whole bunch of people getting pissed about something rather silly.

[Hangar18]

You feel ONE Cub article more than a Sox one is an insult.

 

YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers.

It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling. The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime.

 

A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls.

 

It is an insult. My pointing out how that other team gets more stories, no matter the fortunes of the SOX

is repulsive. The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE. Zach will say Who Cares, let them say what they want, or Jim saying Hey its a story about the SOX parade, why cant you be happy is everyone missing the point.

 

 

You need to start over because it has already been proven that your numbers are wrong. Change your rant to trib and times watch and tell us what stories you are counting and how you are interprting them to be biased against the Sox and promoting the cubs. Just counting a title isn't proving anything. What is the story about and how does that story make someone dislike the Sox and like the cubs and want to stay away from US Cellular and want to go to wrigley. That's what you keep claiming that you proved, but can't show it.

 

 

I will change this to newspaper watch. More stories = More Coverage. How is it that a team with a miserable record for a Century, can have More Coverage than a Winning Team? More Fans? Incorrect.

They didnt have as many "fans" as they do now. Winning tradition? Laughable. They dont win.

How do they continue to have more coverage, and have had more than the SOX since Ive been keeping track? Because they are owned by a Media conglomerate. My pointing it out everyday just paints a picture of how absurd the whole thing is

[Chisoxfn]

The Dodgers always get more coverage than the Angels out there, although that has started to change with the Angels playing better baseball as of late.

 

But bottom line, they don't have to be "fair and balanced" when it comes to sports. Its not like politics, in which case, a paper could really have a major influence on people...its sports.

 

Fact of the matter is, the Cubs are the big boys in the city of Chicago (although the Sox are making things close) and they will get more pub, its the nature of the beast when you are the most popular team.

 

Hell, you think we got it bad, you got to really feel for the Clippers fans. For god sakes the Clips don't deserve the same pub as the Lakers. Of course in the case of the Lakers and Dodgers you could make the case that they are historically some of the best sports franchises in the history of the game.

 

The same can't be said about the Cubs, but they are still the big boys in town.

[zach23]

YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers.

It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling. The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime.

 

A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls.

 

It is an insult. My pointing out how that other team gets more stories, no matter the fortunes of the SOX

is repulsive. The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE. Zach will say Who Cares, let them say what they want, or Jim saying Hey its a story about the SOX parade, why cant you be happy is everyone missing the point.

 

So you have proof that the Cubs have dominated the Sox in coverage since the 80's? I thought you started this in 2002?

 

Why should someone be offended about how much a newspaper writes about a baseball team? All that matters is seeing the team win, not winning popularity contests. A newspaper is a business and they are free to write about whatever they want. The Trib and Times writing about the Cubs and Sox does not affect my life and therefore doesn't offend me. If it did offend me, I wouldn't give them my money to read thier paper. And I don't give them my money because I read the Southtown. You should try the same.

 

Same thing with radio shows. If they are not catering to your needs, then don't listen. Plus, I thought you were only counting the Trib and Times in your bias reports, now you mention radio shows. Which is it? So the Southtown doesn't count, but now radio shows do? Which shows count and which don't? Or again, does it only count if it fits your perception of bias?

[RibbieRubarb]

YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers.

It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling.

 

By ONE more article? I am neither that petty or paranoid.

 

The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime.

Infrequently?!?

There are 3-5 articles every day!! Even more during the past off-season. That is a lie.

As for the next part...

All you do is count articles. Please show us proof that the Tribune does what you claim concerning the content. If not, don't pass it off as fact.

 

A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls.

 

Um, why are bringing this up again? I thought this was, according to you, only about Chicago newspapers.

But since you brought it up, is this the same station that has the "White Sox Weekly" show? A pre and post game show after every game? Not enough? A couple hours on a low-listening time like Saturday morning still need to be Sox-only?!? Odd.

 

The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE.

 

Please show me your source on this statement. I never read or heard that comment in any paper, radio or TV broadcast. It's a very condeming statement against you if you cannot prove it to be true.

 

Thank you

[zach23]

I will change this to newspaper watch. More stories = More Coverage. How is it that a team with a miserable record for a Century, can have More Coverage than a Winning Team? More Fans? Incorrect.

They didnt have as many "fans" as they do now. Winning tradition? Laughable. They dont win.

How do they continue to have more coverage, and have had more than the SOX since Ive been keeping track? Because they are owned by a Media conglomerate. My pointing it out everyday just paints a picture of how absurd the whole thing is

 

This sounds like a teenage girl whining about not being homecoming queen because she wasn't as pretty and popular as the girl that won.

 

"Why do they get more attention? We deserve it more?"

 

Sorry, but it sounds pretty sad and pathetic.

Edited June 13, 2006 by zach23

[zach61]

YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers.

It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling. The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime.

 

A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls.

 

It is an insult. My pointing out how that other team gets more stories, no matter the fortunes of the SOX

is repulsive. The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE. Zach will say Who Cares, let them say what they want, or Jim saying Hey its a story about the SOX parade, why cant you be happy is everyone missing the point.

I will change this to newspaper watch. More stories = More Coverage. How is it that a team with a miserable record for a Century, can have More Coverage than a Winning Team? More Fans? Incorrect.

They didnt have as many "fans" as they do now. Winning tradition? Laughable. They dont win.

How do they continue to have more coverage, and have had more than the SOX since Ive been keeping track? Because they are owned by a Media conglomerate. My pointing it out everyday just paints a picture of how absurd the whole thing is

 

 

So why do you bring up the radio show then? Is the trib forcing them to talk about the cubs and not talk about the Sox? And please show us the stories that backup what you are claiming. What stories are in the paper today that are promoting the cubs in a positive way and the Sox in a negative way. That is what you claimed you proved.

[Hangar18]

Please show me your source on this statement. I never read or heard that comment in any paper, radio or TV broadcast. It's a very condeming statement against you if you cannot prove it to be true.

 

Thank you

 

Rick Morrissey, Chicago Tribune. It was a pretty big thread back when it happened, pissed off alot of SOX fans. And you know what? I was in Anaheim few weeks ago, chatting with some Angel fans. Someone casually mentioned that they "heard not a lot of SOX fans were at their own parade".

Trib prints more stories about certain team. Perception is that certain team must be more important.

 

 

So why do you bring up the radio show then? Is the trib forcing them to talk about the cubs and not talk about the Sox?

 

Brought up the radio show to lay to rest some here who think other SOX fans dont notice this disparity.

The guy that called in and lambasted the hosts was a "lawyer" from burbs somewhere, Marty was his name?

He gave the hosts a reaming, saying Who Cares about the Cubs anymore, they stink, lets talk about a winning team instead, a team that won the World Series. He was mocked by the hosts and dismissed,

I then was angry he was treated like that and tried to call, and they said NO, were talking cub right now.

Point is, the media has simply gotten LAZY. Why try and do some work, when we can just talk about goats and curses and ivy. "Well dont listen anymore". I could do that ........... but then that doesnt solve the problem does it? Fact is, Id love to listen to the radio and hear interesting SOX topics. Were winning and we should dominate the airwaves. What were getting is far from it. The Trib shoving that other team down everyones throats has made sports talk/media in this town a JOKE.

 

Jason brings up a good point, being in LA, everything was about the LAKERS and DODGERS, but they were WINNING! They should get the coverage and the love. A better comparison would be the Clippers getting TONS of coverage, even though the Lakers just won a NBA Title or something of that nature

[NorthSideSox72]

Rick Morrissey, Chicago Tribune. It was a pretty big thread back when it happened, pissed off alot of SOX fans. And you know what? I was in Anaheim few weeks ago, chatting with some Angel fans. Someone casually mentioned that they "heard not a lot of SOX fans were at their own parade".

Trib prints more stories about certain team. Perception is that certain team must be more important.

 

You think some random Angels fan said that because the Tribune (a paper from 1000 miles away) mentioned that some people at the parade weren't Sox fans (which is true anyway)?

 

Did it occur to you that he/she may have said that because... oh, I don't know... THEY ARE AN ANGELS FAN?! The team we beat in the ALCS?!

[Hangar18]

As for the next part...

All you do is count articles. Please show us proof that the Tribune does what you claim concerning the content. If not, don't pass it off as fact.

 

 

Man, your opening a can of worms here, where do I start, there have been so many compelling moments ..............Hmmmmmm.

OH, ok everyone remembers William Ligue right? how can you not, the Trib makes sure to link all of his troubles and court dates with a quick blurb in the Trib. In Fact, they would often link his adventures in the SOX section! Has nothing to do with sports or the SOX. Well, the Trib (on the other website) commented that it Indeed had something to do with the SOX, people wanted to "know" what was happening with him, it was a major event. Both papers put that event on the Front and back Covers of their papers. it was a BS answer on the Tribs part.

 

But when that guy got murdered after the game in front of Wrigley a couple years ago? Where was that story? It happened in front of the stadium didnt it. Well, the Trib this time decided this was a "non-baseball" issue, even though one fan was ath the game, and the other fan, was driving into the area to "party" after the game. The Trib buried it on page 3 of their Metro section called it a "traffic incident, and left it at that. Anyone remember the way some in Radio ripped on the Trib and Times for their portrayals of this? Nonsense. Well, SunTimes decides for once afterwards to take the high road,

openly wonder why it wasnt on the "front page". Anyone remember the way TV crews portrayed this?

CLTV and WGN BOTH made sure their cameras of the incident pointed AWAY from that bogus marquee of theirs, and towards the CubbyBear Lounge, to make you think the incident occured there as opposed to

directly in front of Wrigley. We never did hear about the guy who was caught, never heard of any subsequent court dates, and basically never heard anything else about the story.

[NorthSideSox72]

Man, your opening a can of worms here, where do I start, there have been so many compelling moments ..............Hmmmmmm.

OH, ok everyone remembers William Ligue right? how can you not, the Trib makes sure to link all of his troubles and court dates with a quick blurb in the Trib. In Fact, they would often link his adventures in the SOX section! Has nothing to do with sports or the SOX. Well, the Trib (on the other website) commented that it Indeed had something to do with the SOX, people wanted to "know" what was happening with him, it was a major event. Both papers put that event on the Front and back Covers of their papers. it was a BS answer on the Tribs part.

 

But when that guy got murdered after the game in front of Wrigley a couple years ago? Where was that story? It happened in front of the stadium didnt it. Well, the Trib this time decided this was a "non-baseball" issue, even though one fan was ath the game, and the other fan, was driving into the area to "party" after the game. The Trib buried it on page 3 of their Metro section called it a "traffic incident, and left it at that. Anyone remember the way some in Radio ripped on the Trib and Times for their portrayals of this? Nonsense. Well, SunTimes decides for once afterwards to take the high road,

openly wonder why it wasnt on the "front page". Anyone remember the way TV crews portrayed this?

CLTV and WGN BOTH made sure their cameras of the incident pointed AWAY from that bogus marquee of theirs, and towards the CubbyBear Lounge, to make you think the incident occured there as opposed to

directly in front of Wrigley. We never did hear about the guy who was caught, never heard of any subsequent court dates, and basically never heard anything else about the story.

 

Ligue attacked a coach DURING A GAME, and INSIDE THE STADIUM. Thus, it was by nature, a sports event. The homicide outside Wrigley? Not sports.

 

Why can't you accept that the media delivers what people want to read? If they don't they go out of business. And the Ligue mess was absolutely something people, including Sox fans, read about and cared about.

Edited June 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Steff]

[Hangar18]

You think some random Angels fan said that because the Tribune (a paper from 1000 miles away) mentioned that some people at the parade weren't Sox fans (which is true anyway)?

 

Did it occur to you that he/she may have said that because... oh, I don't know... THEY ARE AN ANGELS FAN?! The team we beat in the ALCS?!

 

 

 

I thought about that, but the person in question posed it to me as if he heard this 3rd or 4th hand, and openly questioned this. the fact that he "heard it somewhere" is exactly what the Trib likes to do.

I told this person where that LIE originated from, a guy named Morrissey. I assured him that I was at that same parade, and it was all SOX FANS. I told him how the Chicago Police (who are in charge of estimating crowd sizes) were SURPRISED at the numbers of people (2million) and were expecting hundred thousands or so.

 

Plant a lie, and watch how it becomes an even bigger lie down the road. thats the Trib when it comes to the SOX. How many fans have I met who think that Comiskey is "dangerous" and "stabbings" "home break-ins" and "robberies" happen outside the park all the time? If I had a dollar. But then, these same people who "heard" this, also hear that

the other park is "Fun" "Safe" "good times" "historic". Where would you want to go? Wasnt Mark Twain

the one who once said "Tell a Lie and watch it run halfway around the world before the Truth has a chance to tie its shoes". By the way, the Tribune owns the LA Times

[Steff]

Hey Ribbie.. member that couple standing in front of us that was rude to the boy... Holding a Sox flag and wearing Cubs hats. :rolly

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought about that, but the person in question posed it to me as if he heard this 3rd or 4th hand, and openly questioned this. the fact that he "heard it somewhere" is exactly what the Trib likes to do.

I told this person where that LIE originated from, a guy named Morrissey. I assured him that I was at that same parade, and it was all SOX FANS. I told him how the Chicago Police (who are in charge of estimating crowd sizes) were SURPRISED at the numbers of people (2million) and were expecting hundred thousands or so.

 

Plant a lie, and watch how it becomes an even bigger lie down the road. thats the Trib when it comes to the SOX. How many fans have I met who think that Comiskey is "dangerous" and "stabbings" "home break-ins" and "robberies" happen outside the park all the time? If I had a dollar. But then, these same people who "heard" this, also hear that

the other park is "Fun" "Safe" "good times" "historic". Where would you want to go? Wasnt Mark Twain

the one who once said "Tell a Lie and watch it run halfway around the world before the Truth has a chance to tie its shoes". By the way, the Tribune owns the LA Times

You are hilarious. I just have no response to your post. No need.

[Hangar18]

Ligue attacked a coach DURING A GAME, and INSIDE THE STADIUM. Thus, it was by nature, a sports event. The homicide outside Wrigley? Not sports.

 

Why can't you accept that the media delivers what people want to read? If they don't they go out of business. And the Ligue mess was absolutely something people, including Sox fans, read about and cared about.

 

 

I personally DONT want to hear about Ligue anymore, at least stop linking him with SOX sports section.

Ligue attacked a coach DURING A GAME and INSIDE THE STADIUM. Weve been "hearing" about this

for years now. Why? Tribune says the same thing, its of "interest" to people, even SOX fans want to hear more. They didnt ask me thats for sure. Every time thats brought up, the SOX look worse for it.

 

Whatever happened to that "fan" at Wrigley a few years ago, ran on field and ATTACKED RANDY MYERS, DURING A GAME, INSIDE THE STADIUM? Myers had to fight the guy off, resulting in a brawl on the mound etc.

Why wasnt that brought up ? As Much? As Often? I'll bet nobody even remembers that incident, much less the offenders name? The Trib decided that that particular event Wasnt "news", and was an "isolated incident" and not worthy of being brought up anymore. Its funny to sit in an airport and have someone say "you guys run on the field and attack coaches". Were not the only ones, I tell the person, this happened before at Wrigley and Randy myers. "Yeah right, stop lying"

[RibbieRubarb]

Hey Ribbie.. member that couple standing in front of us that was rude to the boy... Holding a Sox flag and wearing Cubs hats. :rolly

 

 

I personally DONT want to hear about Ligue anymore, at least stop linking him with SOX sports section.

Ligue attacked a coach DURING A GAME and INSIDE THE STADIUM. Weve been "hearing" about this

for years now. Why? Tribune says the same thing, its of "interest" to people, even SOX fans want to hear more. They didnt ask me thats for sure. Every time thats brought up, the SOX look worse for it.

 

Whatever happened to that "fan" at Wrigley a few years ago, ran on field and ATTACKED RANDY MYERS, DURING A GAME, INSIDE THE STADIUM? Myers had to fight the guy off, resulting in a brawl on the mound etc.

Why wasnt that brought up ? As Much? As Often? I'll bet nobody even remembers that incident, much less the offenders name? The Trib decided that that particular event Wasnt "news", and was an "isolated incident" and not worthy of being brought up anymore. Its funny to sit in an airport and have someone say "you guys run on the field and attack coaches". Were not the only ones, I tell the person, this happened before at Wrigley and Randy myers. "Yeah right, stop lying"

 

Um..ok...so this one guy didn't remember...um..ok :rolly

[Steff]

This makes you paranoid...

[RibbieRubarb]

This makes you paranoid...

 

What?!? Who said that?!? No it doesn't!! Does it?!? s***!!!

[Guest JimH]

1st question was answered previously, you just keep asking the same question.

So was the 2nd question. Just because you dont think theres a media bias against the SOX,

(but dont have your own proof, only shooting down my measurements) isnt cause to discontinue

this thread. I asked a moderator if it was OK to post this here.

 

The thread became personal because a certain person chose to start doing that. Im not following her

down that path. Shes done that to me before numerous times, but I wont take her bait.

Again, Jim, if you question my methods, why even look at this thread? or why dont you ADD something to the thread? Your quick to say there isnt a bias, but then you offer no proof. At least I have

a method, counting the number of stories in both Chicago Newspapers.

SS2k's question why I didnt count Toni Ginettis "Tigers are Glorious" article was simple. She does an entire piece about them, how they got there, star players, etc. The story isnt about the SOX. It was a feature piece on the Tigers. Why they put it in the "SOX" section has no consequence, it shouldve been just a Feature. The Greenburg piece was added in the Cub section and I believed it to be about a former Cub who was just released after a freak accident.

Im not going to measure column inches ........ thats ridiculous. If you would like to measure that and add it to this thread to counter anything Im saying, thats great too.

 

Deciding how a story is "slanted"? Thats the fun part, because we can discuss it HERE afterwards (which is why we should probably NOT have ONE GIANT thread, it would be too hard to discuss separate articles)

I wouldve loved your guys opionion on that Morrissey article, which he stated that there were tons of cub fans at the SOX WS Parade, and thats why there were a lot of people there, not because the SOX are popular. I wouldve loved to hear the opinion here of another great Morrissey article, in which he stated the reason Frank Thomas didnt get any respect here in Chicago was because SOX fans didnt like him.

Thats false, he didnt get any respect because most of the time, the media would rather twist something he said, or they were too busy writing Sammy is Great stories instead.

 

JimH, are you saying the Chicago Sky getting the Front Page a couple weeks ago for like an entire Week Straight is Misleading? How so? They were on the Front/Lead story for a week. I have the pictures and the articles to prove so.

 

Okay Jim, if you'd like this to be called the Chicago Newspaper Watch, I am willing to call it that

 

Instead of ONCE AGAIN re-typing all the inaccuracies and personal spin you impart on your paranoia laden crusade, I will just refer you to RibbieRhubarb and zach23's posts immediately below your original post.

 

Frankly IMO you are so biased on this whole issue and have a big gigantic chip on your shoulder about this newspaper thing that I don't blame the Trib for laughing at you. It is totally warranted IMO, as are the comments from other posters. Further you are accomplishing exactly the opposite of what you choose to accomplish, you are trying to get people to not buy the Tribune when in fact your rants bring more PR to the Trib. However, I don't think you understand that and I'm tired of explaining it to you.

 

I don't CARE what you call your mindless rants. Personally I think they should dry up and blow away, because they're so skewed and inaccurate, they're useless. Me pointing out the title was simply another example of an inaccuracy ... and yet you think covering up a pile of s*** with a shiny new banner somehow makes it better LOL.

 

You call measuring column inches ridiculous? Why is that? Because it doesn't fit with YOUR accepted methodology of determining bias? It's the only way to truly determine how much space each team is given, or aren't you able to connect the dots?

 

You are also incorrect to suggest that I haven't added to the thread. I disagree with your rants, I think they are inaccurate and dumb, I've said so, and I've told you why. The last I checked, that's the nature of this board.

 

Also, proof of a bias is you telling us your own personal opinion about the way things are "slanted". You already counted the stories wrong, and you conclude your daily rants with an adjective laden pukefest which clearly shows your own vendetta. You call it "truth" (LOL) and back it up with shady numbers. I call it a blatant bias on YOUR part, driven by your need to validate your own conclusions.

 

As for the Chicago Sky, your statement saying "front page headline" is misleading and a misrepresentation. They were mentioned on the back page of the sports section, that ain't front page headline.

 

Oh, and the thread became personal because you did in fact follow Steff down the path. Stop pleading innocence, you contributed to it as well.

 

Personally, I think you should shut up and quit whining, but that's just my opinion. If you got booted off a website due (at least in part) to this crap, it ought to send you a message. Sadly though, I don't think the dots are connecting.