Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[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? Why doesn't soccer get any coverage, while football owns the newspapers year round? I don't call it bias as much as filling demand.

 

 

Glad you mentioned this because Thats a Myth. The other team always "sold". MYTH. There were many many many years in the 70's when you coulndt give their tickets away. Their teams STUNK, Their farm system STUNK, Noone went to the games, and their park had ivy on the walls. They alternately DIDNT get extra media coverage.

 

Tribune buys them and WGN, gives them EXTRA coverage, tells everyone that SOX fans are hooligans and southside is dangerous dont go to the games, come to Wrigley instead and guess what happens?

 

They get 39,000 a day, because they read that Wrigley is better, the Southside is dangerous and their fans are hooligans, despite the fact and never mind that their teams STILL STINK, farm system still STINKS, and park has ivy on the walls?

 

Its the classic what came first, the Chicken or the Egg argument. Dont believe the myth that they sell thats why they get extra coverage. SOX fans are the only ones that know this, but The Cell will probably get 3 Million in 2006. So you see, the SOX are "selling" too, except were WINNING also. Next time someone visits our fine city, and asks you why is the Southside so dangerous, now you'll know what to say

[sti3]

Who gives a rats ass. If you are counting the number of stories per paper daily, you either need a woman, or need a hobby.

[southsider2k5]

Glad you mentioned this because Thats a Myth. The other team always "sold". MYTH. There were many many many years in the 70's when you coulndt give their tickets away. Their teams STUNK, Their farm system STUNK, Noone went to the games, and their park had ivy on the walls. They alternately DIDNT get extra media coverage.

 

Tribune buys them and WGN, gives them EXTRA coverage, tells everyone that SOX fans are hooligans and southside is dangerous dont go to the games, come to Wrigley instead and guess what happens?

 

They get 39,000 a day, because they read that Wrigley is better, the Southside is dangerous and their fans are hooligans, despite the fact and never mind that their teams STILL STINK, farm system still STINKS, and park has ivy on the walls?

 

Its the classic what came first, the Chicken or the Egg argument. Dont believe the myth that they sell thats why they get extra coverage. SOX fans are the only ones that know this, but The Cell will probably get 3 Million in 2006. So you see, the SOX are "selling" too, except were WINNING also. Next time someone visits our fine city, and asks you why is the Southside so dangerous, now you'll know what to say

 

Wait, are you telling me you have the media coverage charted back to the 70's? Because unless you do, there is one big hole in your arguement/

[Hangar18]

Wait, are you telling me you have the media coverage charted back to the 70's? Because unless you do, there is one big hole in your arguement/

 

 

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

Edited June 1, 2006 by Hangar18

[southsider2k5]

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 instead of simply giving us Sports News.

 

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.

[beautox]

Glad you mentioned this because Thats a Myth. The other team always "sold". MYTH. There were many many many years in the 70's when you coulndt give their tickets away. Their teams STUNK, Their farm system STUNK, Noone went to the games, and their park had ivy on the walls. They alternately DIDNT get extra media coverage.

 

Tribune buys them and WGN, gives them EXTRA coverage, tells everyone that SOX fans are hooligans and southside is dangerous dont go to the games, come to Wrigley instead and guess what happens?

 

They get 39,000 a day, because they read that Wrigley is better, the Southside is dangerous and their fans are hooligans, despite the fact and never mind that their teams STILL STINK, farm system still STINKS, and park has ivy on the walls?

 

Its the classic what came first, the Chicken or the Egg argument. Dont believe the myth that they sell thats why they get extra coverage. SOX fans are the only ones that know this, but The Cell will probably get 3 Million in 2006. So you see, the SOX are "selling" too, except were WINNING also. Next time someone visits our fine city, and asks you why is the Southside so dangerous, now you'll know what to say

 

i agree with alot of your points, but i also think sports vision played a part into it to.

[tonyho7476]

This is the type of thing that breeds stereotypes and keeps old ones alive . . .

 

Like that all us Sox fans are crackheads? Who has a rock for me?

[Hangar18]

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.

 

 

Attendance is generally an indicator of how "popular" a team is. In Detroit for instance this year, the park is being filled on a regular basis .............because they are Winning. Attendance and TV ratings go hand in hand for the most part. Winning usually plays a direct role in how those numbers play out. So in a nutshell, you dont want to be a BAD team, because your numbers will drop. Nature of the Beast.

The SOX were the Toast of the Town in the 1950s, and DOMINATED tv/attendance ratings because ..........

They were a Darned Good Team. They got all the extra coverage and deserved it because hey, who wants to hear about a team that stinks and is losing right?

 

Both teams fell on hard times thru the 60's and 70's, with the other team being actually a lot worse.

The other team took an even harder hit attendance wise. In the early 80's, the SOX started to get competitive again, and like clockwork, so did their fortunes improve attendance wise and on TV.

But along came the Tribune and something very peculiar happened. Stuck with the prospect of marketing a team that has STUNK for quite some time (only 3 90win seasons since 1950 / 16 90plus loss seasons since 1950. SIXTEEN!! / No back-to-back winning seasons since Nixon was in office / generally regarded as laughingstock franchise of MLB) the Trib did the Only thing they could do at that time. MARKET THE PARK.

Tell everyone how great and "historic" it is. Tell everyone what a good time it is to be there. (but wait, noones going to buy that if the SOX are across town and are pretty good) Tell everyone how bad SOX park is. Tell everyone how dangerous the area is (publicize crime daily) Write more stories. Write less about the SOX.

 

Well, this continued for a couple of decades to where we are now. The other team gets More Media coverage DESPITE not being a winning franchise. The old rules went out the window.

[longshot7]

i love this stuff. welcome home, Hangar!

[Hangar18]

i agree with alot of your points, but i also think sports vision played a part into it to.

 

 

YES. theres a guy Liptak, who chronicled this sox experiment, generally regarded as

foolish, considering one team in city was available FREE on tv, while the other wasnt available

FREE.

[LVSoxFan]

I sent Hangar a PM but again: welcome! I remember him from WSI.

 

Attendance? Yawn. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your research and your insight. But if anybody thinks the Sox will overtake the Cubs it just ain't gonna happen.

 

Only because--it is no indicator of quality, obviously--Wrigley Field is a tourist destination and landmark. It will always draw people who don't even care about baseball. The sheer landscape and geography of the Cell will never compete. Granted, if the Cubs continue their slide for years who knows? People may walk away, but I doubt it, because they have a win/win setup: if they're good, "This is gonna be the year!" If they suck, they get to fall back on the "Loveable loser/woe is me" marketing.

 

Like I've always said about Sox fans, if the Sox suck, we vote with our feet. I was there for the home closer in '04 and the park was half empty. I'd like to think our actions helped prod the team into what became 2005.

 

On the other hand, if the area surrounding the Cell continues to undergo serious gentrification and commercialization (think: Wrigleyville South), that very well could be the tipping point.

 

But as is? Forget it. Cubs will always outdraw us.

[southsider2k5]

So the Sox grandmistake of Sportsvision coupled with the Cubs being on free TV at a time when the majority of the country didn't have anything to do with it?

 

I still want to see some hard numbers relating to media coverage throughout these eras. Without them there is no facts here at all. It is a completely onesided arguement with incomplete facts. You can't tell me how much coverage the teams get today, leave out how much coverage they got during these formative years, and then draw a conclustion based on that.

 

Also I would be curious to see how much coverage has changed relative to attendance at the ballparks with the changes in the teams records. IE how much did Cubs coverage go up in 2003 relative to 2002, or how much did the Sox coverage go up in 2006 as compared to 2005, and how does it compare to how much attendance has gone up from opening day in 2005 until today?

 

I guess what I am saying is a set up numbers by itself is well, a set of numbers. I am an economist at heart. I analyse trends, not a single set of numbers. Give me changes in totals as compared to the different factors that would affect attendance, and relative to that, how much coverage a team should receive. Granted if your numbers just began in the last few seasons your data set is going to be very incomplete, but at least we can gather some information from the trends in the shortterm. Any conclusions you have reached without actual data to back them up on the times prior to your body of work are pure speculation, and pretty much worthless for a fact based arguement.

[Balta1701]

Dealing only with the Sun Times, because that's what Lexis is letting me have

 

Mentions of the Cubs vs. White Sox in the headline or first sentences of an article:

 

2006 (as requested)

Cubs: 570

White Sox: 513

 

2005 (note, White Sox sweep Astros to win first world series since 1917)

Cubs: 1351

White Sox: 1486

 

2004

Cubs: 1800

White Sox: 1138

 

2003 (note: Cubs make NLCS, choke)

Cubs: 2024

White Sox: 1391

 

2002

Cubs: 1281

Sox: 893

 

2001

Cubs: 1015

Sox: 736

 

2000 (note...White Sox won AL Central this year)

Cubs: 944

Sox: 948

 

1999

Cubs: 939

Sox: 560

Edited June 1, 2006 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

Any 2006 numbers out of curiousity?

 

To me that pretty well makes sense from 99-05, and it seems to mirror the play of the teams more than the attendence of the teams. If anything that saids to me that we are getting a disproportionate share of stories, because our corresponding attendence rates sure haven't looked like that.

[zach61]

Any 2006 numbers out of curiousity?

 

To me that pretty well makes sense from 99-05, and it seems to mirror the play of the teams more than the attendence of the teams. If anything that saids to me that we are getting a disproportionate share of stories, because our corresponding attendence rates sure haven't looked like that.

 

 

If the Sox want all the press, then they should get their own paper too.

[BigSqwert]

Dealing only with the Sun Times, because that's what Lexis is letting me have

 

Mentions of the Cubs vs. White Sox in the headline or first sentences of an article:

 

2006 (as requested)

Cubs: 570

White Sox: 513

 

2005 (note, White Sox sweep Astros to win first world series since 1917)

Cubs: 1351

White Sox: 1486

 

2004

Cubs: 1800

White Sox: 1138

 

2003 (note: Cubs make NLCS, choke)

Cubs: 2024

White Sox: 1391

 

2002

Cubs: 1281

Sox: 893

 

2001

Cubs: 1015

Sox: 736

 

2000 (note...White Sox won AL Central this year)

Cubs: 944

Sox: 948

 

1999

Cubs: 939

Sox: 560

What sticks out is the 2003 Cubs vs the 2005 Sox. Even thought the Sox won the first WS series in ages for Chicago, the Sun Times had less to say about them then they did for the Cubs in 2003.

[Balta1701]

What sticks out is the 2003 Cubs vs the 2005 Sox. Even thought the Sox won the first WS series in ages for Chicago, the Sun Times had less to say about them then they did for the Cubs in 2003.

Or the Cubs in 04 for that matter. By quite a bit too.

[rangercal]

after reading the first page of this thread...

I dont get why all the regulars have to team up and bash a guy making a point. I see this treatment more often than not. No one is going to have the same views all the time . I am tired of reading threads that have THE Regualrs vs The others. It's getting old and making my soxtalk experience less enjoyable. As long as the guy is not trolling, why have a 10-1 battle? If someone wants to talk about the media bias, so what? He has the facts and this is more than thread worthy for the fans who would like to talk about it.

Edited June 1, 2006 by rangercal

[Steff]

I dont get why all the regulars have to team up and bash a guy making a point. I see this treatment more often than not. No one is going to have the same views all the time . I am tired of reading threads that have THE Regualrs vs The others. It's getting old and making my soxtalk experience less enjoyable. As long as the guy is not trolling, why have a 10-1 battle? If someone wants to talk about the media bias, so what? He has the facts and this is more than thread worthy for the fans who would like to talk about it.

 

 

 

Here we go again.... :rolly

 

 

Who the hell is bashing him? It's called conversation. A debate. A disagreement. He's pointing out his side, and others are pointing out their side.

 

Want know what I'm sick of.. the pot stirring.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

after reading the first page of this thread...

I dont get why all the regulars have to team up and bash a guy making a point. I see this treatment more often than not. No one is going to have the same views all the time . I am tired of reading threads that have THE Regualrs vs The others. It's getting old and making my soxtalk experience less enjoyable. As long as the guy is not trolling, why have a 10-1 battle? If someone wants to talk about the media bias, so what? He has the facts and this is more than thread worthy for the fans who would like to talk about it.

 

Usually a select few that our overly-aggressive and like to be confrontational because they think they know it all and aren't very open to differing, valid opinions...But that's what makes it entertaining.

[rangercal]

Here we go again.... :rolly

Who the hell is bashing him? It's called conversation. A debate. A disagreement. He's pointing out his side, and others are pointing out their side.

 

Want know what I'm sick of.. the pot stirring.

all Im saying is... if someone does not like a thread topic.. move on. That's all. We are all sox fans. We have different views of the team, how the team gets treated by the media ect. Nothing wrong with a good debate, but a debate is not when it is 10-1 with 5 people debating and the other 5 posting agreements our cheap comments.

 

Usually a select few that our overly-aggressive and like to be confrontational because they think they know it all and aren't very open to differing, valid opinions...But that's what makes it entertaining.

It's entertaining for a while, I'm sure we are on the same page. But after a while, you kinda feel bad for the soxtalk minorities

[SnB]

after reading the first page of this thread...

I dont get why all the regulars have to team up and bash a guy making a point. I see this treatment more often than not. No one is going to have the same views all the time . I am tired of reading threads that have THE Regualrs vs The others. It's getting old and making my soxtalk experience less enjoyable. As long as the guy is not trolling, why have a 10-1 battle? If someone wants to talk about the media bias, so what? He has the facts and this is more than thread worthy for the fans who would like to talk about it.

because we've seen these threads time and time again?

 

It gets old, especially when it really doesn't have anything to do with our team.

 

It's people looking for something to complain about.

 

The two concrete examples will always be attendance and media coverage.

[RockRaines]

all Im saying is... if someone does not like a thread topic.. move on. That's all. We are all sox fans. We have different views of the team, how the team gets treated by the media ect. Nothing wrong with a good debate, but a debate is not when it is 10-1 with 5 people debating and the other 5 posting agreements our cheap comments.

It's entertaining for a while, I'm sure we are on the same page. But after a while, you kinda feel bad for the soxtalk minorities

What does this thread have to do with debate at all? Its whining about media coverage, has nothing to do with the team, or the workings of the team. Its about someone complaining about something.

[zach61]

Here we go again.... :rolly

Who the hell is bashing him? It's called conversation. A debate. A disagreement. He's pointing out his side, and others are pointing out their side.

 

Want know what I'm sick of.. the pot stirring.

 

Isn't there a tribune or suntimes message board that this hangar guy could go play on? They might actually care about media coverage. I don't even read those papers. Read the southtown if you don't like the coverage of the trib. Plus, the trib owns the cubs, why would they want to write about the Sox?

[Steff]

all Im saying is... if someone does not like a thread topic.. move on. That's all. We are all sox fans. We have different views of the team, how the team gets treated by the media ect. Nothing wrong with a good debate, but a debate is not when it is 10-1 with 5 people debating and the other 5 posting agreements our cheap comments.

 

 

I know what you are saying. But it's like I said in one of these wacky threads today.. it's like a Frank praise thread. It's started with the topic. "Good Job Big Hurt" and within 8 minutes there are 42 posts (sic) "Eff that baby... big skirt... whiner...etc, etc..." I don't see any cheap comments. There is a serious stereotype that Sox fans are obsessed with the Cubs... and Henry fits that to a "T". It's not a shot... it's a fact. Besides.. no need to worry about Henry. He's been getting his balls busted about this stuff for years.