Hangar18's Chicago NewsMedia Watch Thread

[retro1983hat]

Technically, the Tiger stories are Sox stories since that is the big series playing right now.

[Hangar18]

Technically, the Tiger stories are Sox stories since that is the big series playing right now.

 

the Tiger stories are all about the Detroit Tigers, and how theyve been winning with pitching and more pitching. Theres no SOX angle other than they are in the same division, and Leyland once was a coach in the SOX system

[hi8is]

the Tiger stories are all about the Detroit Tigers, and how theyve been winning with pitching and more pitching. Theres no SOX angle other than they are in the same division, and Leyland once was a coach in the SOX system

so if the cubs are playing a team like say.... the giants, and say they had some similarities.... which we're mentioned.... those wouldnt be counted as cubs stories in chicago? of course they would.... and if they were in san fran, they would be giants stories..... cubs fans would read about the giants, thus the articles do reach out to the cubs audance.

[Steff]

[Guest JimH]

Just for grins, I decided to look at a newspaper and count the stories like this guy hangar does.

 

My count is drastically different, what gives hangar, are you reading a different version of the Sun Times? You say there's 8 Cub stories and 4 White Sox stories in today's (Wed. 6/7) Sun Times?

 

Here are the titles of the articles:

 

Sox on front page of paper and back page, i.e. first page of sports section. (doesn't count as articles)

 

Sox Stories:

 

1. Page 126, "Cintron's 3 run HR stuns Tigers"

 

2. Page 125, "Win wipes out problems - but just for a night" column by Greg Couch

 

3. Page 125, "Cooper keeping faith Sox struggling pen will snap out of it"

 

4. Page 124, "Ozzie-Maggs a good patch up" Chris DeLuca column

 

5. Page 124, "Guillen mentor Leyland hasn't lost his touch"

 

6. Page 121, "Thome returns, says he can play first base"

 

7. Page 121, "Guillen hopes he's around for McCulloch"

 

Cub stories:

 

1. Page 123, "Pitcher, catcher all in one"

 

2. Page 123, "Samardzija likens himself to Zambrano"

 

3. Page 122, "Wood has little staying power"

 

4. Page 122, "Prior's next two starts set - neither with Cubs"

 

Even if you somehow spin it that Sox stories #4 and #5 are Tiger stories, that still leaves it 5 White Sox stories to 4 Cub stories. Not to mention, the White Sox were on the front page of the paper, and front page of the sports section, and White Sox coverage was in front of Cubs coverage.

 

What exactly are you smoking?

 

This inferiority/chip on the shoulder media conspiracy complex thing of yours has already gotten way beyond old ... and that's assuming you get the numbers right. When you screw up the numbers, it's borderline lunacy.

[southsider2k5]

Wow. That's a pretty big difference... So I have to ask this question, is there bias in the media bias study

[RME JICO]

It is the Guillen effect. He is listed in 3 articles, so you have to cut that value in half = 1.5, then round to the nearest number 2. Then subtract the 2 Tigers stories to get 4.

 

For the Cubs, you have to use the Scrub effect and make everything seem bigger and better. The article "Pitcher, catcher all in one" is actually 2 articles "Pitcher" and "Catcher all in one". Also, "Prior's next two starts set - neither with Cubs" is 4 articles not 1. They talk about Prior's next 2 starts = 2 articles, and how neither will be with the Cubs = 2 more. That totals 8.

 

 

A good way to do this is to use Google News. Do a news search for White Sox, then add up the total number of links/articles from various sources and do the same for Cubs. Here is what you get:

 

Google first page news search for White Sox - 616 different links/articles

Google first page news search for Cubs - 202 different links/articles

 

Another way is to check the daily count of the teams from the Front page of the major sports websites:

 

ESPN - Sox-2, Cubs-0

MLB.com - Sox-1, Cubs-0

CBS Sportsline - Sox-1, Cubs-1

Fox Sports - Sox-0, Cubs-0

CNNSI - Sox-0, Cubs-0

 

Total - Sox-4, Cubs-1

Edited June 8, 2006 by RME JICO

[Guest JimH]

It is the Guillen effect. He is listed in 3 articles, so you have to cut that value in half = 1.5, then round to the nearest number 2. Then subtract the 2 Tigers stories to get 4.

 

For the Cubs, you have to use the Scrub effect and make everything seem bigger and better. The article "Pitcher, catcher all in one" is actually 2 articles "Pitcher" and "Catcher all in one". Also, "Prior's next two starts set - neither with Cubs" is 4 articles not 1. They talk about Prior's next 2 starts = 2 articles, and how neither will be with the Cubs = 2 more. That totals 8.

 

 

Classic post!

 

So I have to ask this question, is there bias in the media bias study

 

Mike, what would be your guess?

[Hangar18]

so if the cubs are playing a team like say.... the giants, and say they had some similarities.... which we're mentioned.... those wouldnt be counted as cubs stories in chicago? of course they would.... and if they were in san fran, they would be giants stories..... cubs fans would read about the giants, thus the articles do reach out to the cubs audance.

 

 

 

Not sure what your getting at. The way to look at it is, the Tiger stories, esp the one by Toni Ginetti,

are "TIGER" stories if we can lift them out of the newspaper, and drop them in the Detroit Tribune or whatever their paper is called.

[Hangar18]

Just for grins, I decided to look at a newspaper and count the stories like this guy hangar does.

 

My count is drastically different, what gives hangar, are you reading a different version of the Sun Times? You say there's 8 Cub stories and 4 White Sox stories in today's (Wed. 6/7) Sun Times?

 

Here are the titles of the articles:

 

Sox on front page of paper and back page, i.e. first page of sports section. (doesn't count as articles)

 

Sox Stories:

 

1. Page 126, "Cintron's 3 run HR stuns Tigers"

 

2. Page 125, "Win wipes out problems - but just for a night" column by Greg Couch

 

3. Page 125, "Cooper keeping faith Sox struggling pen will snap out of it"

 

4. Page 124, "Ozzie-Maggs a good patch up" Chris DeLuca column

 

5. Page 124, "Guillen mentor Leyland hasn't lost his touch"

 

6. Page 121, "Thome returns, says he can play first base"

 

7. Page 121, "Guillen hopes he's around for McCulloch"

 

Cub stories:

 

1. Page 123, "Pitcher, catcher all in one"

 

2. Page 123, "Samardzija likens himself to Zambrano"

 

3. Page 122, "Wood has little staying power"

 

4. Page 122, "Prior's next two starts set - neither with Cubs"

 

Even if you somehow spin it that Sox stories #4 and #5 are Tiger stories, that still leaves it 5 White Sox stories to 4 Cub stories. Not to mention, the White Sox were on the front page of the paper, and front page of the sports section, and White Sox coverage was in front of Cubs coverage.

 

What exactly are you smoking?

 

This inferiority/chip on the shoulder media conspiracy complex thing of yours has already gotten way beyond old ... and that's assuming you get the numbers right. When you screw up the numbers, it's borderline lunacy.

JIM, You are correct. Kind of. I transposed the numbers for cub/sox, but the MAIN TOTALS are still correct. I cleared them up. However, if you wouldve looked a little harder at my numbers, you wouldve NOTICED that the numbers were transposed because as I said, the TOTALS ARE STILL CORRECT.

someone sounds like their nitpicking here.

 

Lunacy? West is that you? Daver?

Say man, you call it inferiority, I call it a bias. This isnt a "conspiracy" anymore, because Ive PROVEN BEYOND a doubt that their is a Media Bias against the SOX. You dont see this apparently, because my guess is you DONT want to see it. Thats fine if you dont want to look. But certainly calling me a lunatic,

when I have stats to back up my theories doesnt make true smoking crack statements

 

 

Wow. That's a pretty big difference... So I have to ask this question, is there bias in the media bias study

 

 

No. It isnt a "pretty big difference" because the TOTALS ARE STILL THE SAME.

Q: IS there a bias in the Media Bias Study?

Hangar18: YES, because im out to slam the Chicago Media for their obsession with everything cub.

[Steff]

Lunacy? West is that you? Daver?

 

 

Do us all a favor and keep your petty animosity with WSI to yourself.

[southsider2k5]

JIM, You are correct. Kind of. I transposed the numbers for cub/sox, but the MAIN TOTALS are still correct. I cleared them up. However, if you wouldve looked a little harder at my numbers, you wouldve NOTICED that the numbers were transposed because as I said, the TOTALS ARE STILL CORRECT.

someone sounds like their nitpicking here.

 

Lunacy? West is that you? Daver?

Say man, you call it inferiority, I call it a bias. This isnt a "conspiracy" anymore, because Ive PROVEN BEYOND a doubt that their is a Media Bias against the SOX. You dont see this apparently, because my guess is you DONT want to see it. Thats fine if you dont want to look. But certainly calling me a lunatic,

when I have stats to back up my theories doesnt make true smoking crack statements

No. It isnt a "pretty big difference" because the TOTALS ARE STILL THE SAME.

Q: IS there a bias in the Media Bias Study?

Hangar18: YES, because im out to slam the Chicago Media for their obsession with everything cub.

 

Wait then your post about there being more Tigers stories than Sox stories doesn't make any sense if it was just the numbers being transposed???

[NorthSideSox72]

JIM, You are correct. Kind of. I transposed the numbers for cub/sox, but the MAIN TOTALS are still correct. I cleared them up. However, if you wouldve looked a little harder at my numbers, you wouldve NOTICED that the numbers were transposed because as I said, the TOTALS ARE STILL CORRECT.

someone sounds like their nitpicking here.

 

Lunacy? West is that you? Daver?

Say man, you call it inferiority, I call it a bias. This isnt a "conspiracy" anymore, because Ive PROVEN BEYOND a doubt that their is a Media Bias against the SOX. You dont see this apparently, because my guess is you DONT want to see it. Thats fine if you dont want to look. But certainly calling me a lunatic,

when I have stats to back up my theories doesnt make true smoking crack statements

No. It isnt a "pretty big difference" because the TOTALS ARE STILL THE SAME.

Q: IS there a bias in the Media Bias Study?

Hangar18: YES, because im out to slam the Chicago Media for their obsession with everything cub.

Your number transposition and questionable categorizations aside... let's assume your totals are indeed correct. That means there are about 25% more Cubs articles than Sox articles (over what time period I do not know). Here is something else to consider - whether we like it or not, there are still more Cubs fans than Sox fans in this town. Even more so before last year. So wouldn't it be in the media's best interest to have a few more articles about the Cubs than the Sox? That isn't bias - its business. And that isn't really a huge difference anyway. Its not as if there are 3 articles for every 1 - its 5 for every 4, pretty darn close to the same.

[Guest JimH]

JIM, You are correct. Kind of. I transposed the numbers for cub/sox, but the MAIN TOTALS are still correct. I cleared them up. However, if you wouldve looked a little harder at my numbers, you wouldve NOTICED that the numbers were transposed because as I said, the TOTALS ARE STILL CORRECT.

someone sounds like their nitpicking here.

 

Lunacy? West is that you? Daver?

Say man, you call it inferiority, I call it a bias. This isnt a "conspiracy" anymore, because Ive PROVEN BEYOND a doubt that their is a Media Bias against the SOX. You dont see this apparently, because my guess is you DONT want to see it. Thats fine if you dont want to look. But certainly calling me a lunatic,

when I have stats to back up my theories doesnt make true smoking crack statements

No. It isnt a "pretty big difference" because the TOTALS ARE STILL THE SAME.

Q: IS there a bias in the Media Bias Study?

Hangar18: YES, because im out to slam the Chicago Media for their obsession with everything cub.

 

Hanger, I question your numbers because I've read your stuff and you put your own personal spin on things. You often fit the data to match your own personal conclusions. As such, I think you are personally biased about this media conspiracy thing. Just my opinion. Further, I think you DON'T want to see that you have your own personal biases.

 

A couple of things ... if you insist on having your own personal crusade, there's no sense doing it on a message board. Go tell the individual media outlets, see what they say. They will tell you they are serving their audience. You will disagree. Life will go on. As for PROVING a media bias against the Sox ... you have proven it in your own mind. Good for you. Other people will disagree and believe you've proven nothing, both Cub fans, Sox fans, and casual fans.

 

Example: you deem stories about the opposition "bad" (your Tigers stance) and think it's somehow a slap in the face of White Sox fans. I don't. It's also my theory that stories about the opposition lead to more interest about baseball which translates to going to more games. To illustrate further, let's suppose a casual baseball fan reads a Cubs related story and it piques their curiousity about baseball in general. Ultimately they pay their way into both ballparks. Ultimately they like the White Sox game day experience and they come back again and again, they bring their friends, etc. Believe me, it happens a lot, especially here in suburbia, but it's not limited to suburbia.

 

You, it seems, are of the mindset that only dyed in the wool true blue White Sox fans should be attending games, like it's our own little personal club. It isn't. I have a neighbor who hails from Colorado, he is a casual baseball fan with disposable income. He goes to both Wrigley and U.S. Cellular, he likes baseball and he follows the players. He has booked a patio party at U.S. Cellular each of the last three years. Dyed in the wool White Sox fan? No. Does the team want his money? Yes. How did he get interested in Chicago baseball? In his words: "the papers and TV stations always talk about baseball, it gets me interested in baseball in general and makes me want to go to games".

 

You really need to broaden your horizons and see the bigger picture. You won't though, because this thing has become a crusade and an obsession. It's pointless, but if it makes you feel better, hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

Just make sure to check your numbers before you post, if you insist on carrying on this overwrought tradition dredged over from another fan site.

[zach23]

Hangar's old obsession - The Sox are cheap and won't win because they get cheap players like Dye instead of spending money for better players.

 

Now that he can't complain about that anymore his new crusade is the media bias.

 

The most classic piece of Hangar lunacy was when he complained that the media did not beleive in the 2005 Sox from opening day when he himself spent most of the season griping that they could not go far because they were too cheap to keep C. Lee and Maggs and had Dye in RF.

 

Some people just always need something to complain about.

[Hangar18]

The SOX creep just a little closer to 1st Place today, but unfortuneately this doesnt translate into any extra coverage for the 2005 WS Champs. They are nearly 100 stories behind the 5th Place team who are only 2 games out of Last Place now, but still continue to get more coverage in Chicago.

 

Fred Mitchell today decides to do a piece on a Cub from yesteryear. Timely.

I did notice online how the Tribune linked both MLB drug stories with the SOX, so on quick perusal, makes you think the SOX are intimately linked to this new scandal.

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

4 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

4 cub stories

5 sox stories

Standings as of June 8th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 05, 2 Games out of Last Place, Cubs 545

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WSChamps 05, 1/2 Games out of 1st Place, SOX 449

[Hangar18]

Example: you deem stories about the opposition "bad" (your Tigers stance) and think it's somehow a slap in the face of White Sox fans. I don't. It's also my theory that stories about the opposition lead to more interest about baseball which translates to going to more games.

 

Toni Ginetti is the author in question here. Her story couldve been for the Detroit Free Press. Had nothing to do with the White Sox. And thats fine................if she were sent to Detroit to do a piece on the Tigers amazing record so far this year (again, the media didnt do this for the SOX last year, another story though)

Toni Ginetti was on assignment at US CELLULAR FIELD. ("hey who cares its about baseball") OK, I'll buy that maybe, what was her excuse last week, when Ginetti, again live from US Cellular Field, did a piece on the Cubs. Wasnt she supposed to be doing a piece on the SOX since she is only sent to the home parks of both teams (doesnt travel)?

 

My problem, is that the media seems, at every chance, do a piece on the Cubs (thus furthering that particular product) and simply ignore the SOX. People on the other site used to come up with tired excuses for the Media like "well there are more cub fans" or "they only cover who is winning....Win something and the coverage will come....WATCH!!" My keeping track of this proves that the media keeps changing the rules and refuses to give the SOX the onslaught of coverage they Deserve for having actually WON Something of Significance.

 

So if a NATIONAL writer like Phil Rogers does a piece on the Detroit Tigers, hes well qualified to do so since that is his jobtitle. Having the writers who are covering the SOX instead do a piece on the Cubs, or a whole entire RAHRAH piece on the Tigers is a bit over the top

[zach61]

The SOX creep just a little closer to 1st Place today, but unfortuneately this doesnt translate into any extra coverage for the 2005 WS Champs. They are nearly 100 stories behind the 5th Place team who are only 2 games out of Last Place now, but still continue to get more coverage in Chicago.

 

Fred Mitchell today decides to do a piece on a Cub from yesteryear. Timely.

I did notice online how the Tribune linked both MLB drug stories with the SOX, so on quick perusal, makes you think the SOX are intimately linked to this new scandal.

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

4 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

4 cub stories

5 sox stories

Standings as of June 8th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 05, 2 Games out of Last Place, Cubs 545

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WSChamps 05, 1/2 Games out of 1st Place, SOX 449

 

 

After reading Jim H's post in another one of these pointless watch threads, please post the titles of the stories to back up your numbers. And I think you should be starting with new numbers since the mistake was already caught about mis counting stories. You're numbers can't be considered accurate now unless you can post all the story titles to verify their correctness and so that we can read them too. Start tomorrow at 0 for both teams and post the stories so we can all see what you are claiming and counting.

[Hangar18]

Hangar's old obsession - The Sox are cheap and won't win because they get cheap players like Dye instead of spending money for better players.

 

Now that he can't complain about that anymore his new crusade is the media bias.

 

The most classic piece of Hangar lunacy was when he complained that the media did not beleive in the 2005 Sox from opening day when he himself spent most of the season griping that they could not go far because they were too cheap to keep C. Lee and Maggs and had Dye in RF.

 

Some people just always need something to complain about.

 

 

Zach23, did you think the SOX were going to go All The Way last year, in spring training? With a guy coming off an injury himself (dye)? I'll bet you were

Did you think the SOX were going all the way when Chris Snopek was the everyday replacement for Robin Ventura? I'll bet you were

How about when the SOX had a continuous merry-go-round of Right Fielders, all signed to 1 year deals, cast-offs and available low-cost, when the SOX needed Power & Average and to get that, wouldve had to spend a bit because of what was available. Were you confident in the SOX back then to go all the way?

I'll bet you were

 

You know darn well what my argument was last year, your turning it into a "hangar-says-sox-are-cheap" argument. Shame on you. I said if were going to be trading guys because of salary (KW will tell you Konerko was originally the one he was trying to trade, but got a taker for Lee instead) I always said who

are we replacing them with?

 

Dont be patting yourself on the back so Fast, and in turn Patting the SOX on the back for last season.

We got very lucky with what happened (taking so many chances on certain players) and having everyone pan out like they did. Kenny Williams will tell you so himself. KW acknowledged himself that he wasnt going to head into 2006 with the same "lack of offense" as he had in 2005 and knew he needed a proven run producer (Thome). Thome didnt come cheap by the way.

 

Save the patting-of-WhiteSox-backs for this year, because they did something they havnt done in years. Went out and addressed weaknesses and werent afraid to spend to KEEP players. So dont pat yourself on the back there Zach, Dye started out the 05 season miserably, and I wondered if he was ever really going to be healed. Think of this, Zach. What if Dye werent coming off that injury plagued season, and instead was at the top of his game heading into the Free Agent class of 05? Would the SOX have pursued him to play in RF? I dont think so ................. it wouldve been someone who made sense $$$$$$$$$$$.

 

Of course, things are different now, the SOX are acting like the big-market team they always were.

[Hangar18]

After reading Jim H's post in another one of these pointless watch threads, please post the titles of the stories to back up your numbers.

 

And I think you should be starting with new numbers since the mistake was already caught about mis counting stories. You're numbers can't be considered accurate now unless you can post all the story titles to verify their correctness and so that we can read them too.

 

Start tomorrow at 0 for both teams and post the stories so we can all see what you are claiming and counting.

 

Did you read my response to JimH's post? The only mistake that was made, was where the numbers were placed in Cub/Sox. They all corresponded and are still correct, if you look at the totals. For instance....

 

Apples 1 + 1 = 6

Oranges 4 + 2 = 2

 

Apples-2

Oranges-6

 

Right away, one would say Hey these numbers are all wrong, but the Totals are correct.

How about if I post the LINK to both papers, you guys can read for yourselves what im "claiming"

[Hangar18]

Do us all a favor and keep your petty animosity with WSI to yourself.

 

 

Do us all a favor and keep your petty animosity towards me to yourself

[Kalapse]

You're cute little shtick would be absolutely perfect for the 3rd Sox board, they'd totally love you over there.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I can't be the only one who just doesn't care.

[Steff]

Do us all a favor and keep your petty animosity towards me to yourself

 

 

I have no problem with you personally. I do however have a problem with you using this forum for taking shots at WSI. Others here also have issues yet they are grown up enough to keep it to themselves.

 

I know it's a lot to ask from a 40 something year old man... :rolly but go talk whatever crap you have to spew about their members and mods on their site. That bulls*** doesn't belong here.

 

 

You're cute little shtick would be absolutely perfect for the 3rd Sox board, they'd totally love you over there.

 

 

 

That's harsh...

[Kalapse]

That's harsh...

When have I ever been anything but? It's just frustrating listening to the same s*** year after year with people complaining about media bias when all these papers are doing is running the way they see fit and frankly it's working for them. Can anyone really argue with the number Cubs to Sox fans? Since there's a large discrepency doesn't it seem that there may be a difference in the amount of coverage each team sees in the papers of that city?