Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/15/06

[Guest JimH]

Fair enough. I'm on Hangar's side, but I 100% disagree with that statement. If there is going to be any bias at all, it should lean towards the BETTER TEAM! What a concept...

 

Well I believe yours is a very fair statement.

 

Of course there really shouldn't be a bias one way or the other, but we are talking about the media here. Editors are human beings and they try to publish what they think their audience wants. Someone will always be unhappy, that's the nature of media coverage.

 

Way back when, and this is from what my dad has told me, George Halas used to manipulate the football beat writers, in the 50's particularly. Halas wanted Chicago for his own and wanted the Cardinals out. He tracked the media meticulously. Writers who said good things about the Cardinals would find their names omitted from the press pass list at Wrigley for a Bears game. Bill Gleason always hated Halas for pulling stuff like this, but it's part of ownership and media.

 

Now these days, the media is more sophisticated and there is a lot less of the good 'ole boy network. Decisions are made more on a business basis, because it's a necessity. Here is a good example ... I have been a Blackhawk follower all my life and of course now they are totally brutal. They deserve everything they've gotten, in terms of the media trashing them or ignoring them. I happened to hear the thoughts of one of the Score producers, who was being bombarded by a small core of Hawks fans asking why there wasn't more Blackhawk talk on the Score. He used to post on a message board telling people when they'd be talking hockey and asking people to call in. People didn't call in, and/or the ones who did were total dunderheads whining about the same stuff ("we need Cheli, we need Eddie, we need JR"). So they moved away from hockey talk. Simple concept.

 

Let me be very clear and say I hate the Cubs. I am from Bridgeport and sometimes I wish I could be more like my suburban friends and root for both teams because "it's Chicago". Sorry, no way. I hope the Cubs lose. Although I hope they beat Detroit this weekend, but only because the Cubs are so bad this year they are done for. I inherited it from my dad, can't change it, that's the way it is for me.

 

Anyway I digress.

 

I mention the Cubs because people are attracted to them for a variety of reasons, we all know what they are and it's some of the same reason people are attracted to the Red Sox. So for the last 20 + years there has been more of a buzz about the Cubs, due to the whole, ummm, experience. The experience sucks as far as I'm concerned but for other people, it's great. Lots of other people. So that's the way it is, people are interested in them, and the media will cover them. They will cover them a lot.

 

I see the tide turning, and it's not just about the White Sox winning. Bridegport is experiencing a renaissance. There have been a smattering of articles about all the great places in Bridgeport to eat and drink. Some people on this site have kidded me saying Jim H. you should write up an article about all the good joints. (And by the way I found another one ... Gem Bar at 2700 S. Loomis, great burgers, $4.50 pitchers of PBR on Thursdays and $1 hot dog days on Thursdays, a true Sox bar, try it). The point being, I am not smarter than anyone here, not by a long shot, but I do know how things work and its like this ... people need to experience something positive. If you tell them all the great things about the White Sox game experience and all the cool things about Bridgeport they will say "you know what ... I really enjoyed that, and plus the White Sox have a really good team". We are talking about the casual fan here, the kind of fan the White Sox want so the team can afford a $100M payroll. So in a way, I feel like I'm doing my part.

 

The flip side is, to me, what hangar does. He takes a negative spin, a chip on the shoulder approach and you know what, that tends to make people defensive and piss people off. I truly believe if he invested as much time taking a positive approach vs. counting stories ... well, you get the drift. To each their own I guess, but my objection to this whole thing is the outright subjectivity of the data.

 

Maybe someday soon I will sit down and write the article about Bridgeport and try to entice even more people to get excited about going there. More interested people = more attendance = good things for the White Sox.

[zach23]

What I learned from this thread:

 

If your name is Zach, you are genetically predisposed to hating Hangar posts.

 

Correct, I don't hate hangar as a person. In fact, if we sat down and watched a game together we would probably both get along real well.

What I do hate is the crap he spews most of the time. He embodies the stereotype that Sox fans care more about what the Cubs do than they do their own team. Plus, his media watches prove nothing. If you want to have the opinion and perception that there is a media bias, that is fine. But to thump your chest saying you have "proven" there is a bias just by counting stories as you see fit proves squat.

I would even go so far as to say that something like this can't be proven by any means. The whole thing is just perception. You can see things one way while others see them differently. To prove something like this you would need to have data collected by someone that has no bias toward one side or the other. You would also need to collect that data from a wide variety of sources and not just two newspapers. Lastly you would need to have a clear definition of which things show bias before collecting the data. Even with all that, it would be hard to prove something that really isn't a black and white issue as this is.

All hangar has proven is that he hates the Tribune and that he is overly concerned with being part of something popular.

 

Oh and everything that JimH said above pretty much sums up how I feel. And that includes growing up in Bridgeport, following the Hawks, and hating the Cubs.

 

Maybe we should combine the Zachs and create a SuperZach84!

 

I have had to deal with the other Zach my whole life, please don't lump me into a single being with him. He is enough of a pain in the ass already.

Edited June 16, 2006 by zach23

[zach61]

Well I believe yours is a very fair statement.

 

Of course there really shouldn't be a bias one way or the other, but we are talking about the media here. Editors are human beings and they try to publish what they think their audience wants. Someone will always be unhappy, that's the nature of media coverage.

 

Way back when, and this is from what my dad has told me, George Halas used to manipulate the football beat writers, in the 50's particularly. Halas wanted Chicago for his own and wanted the Cardinals out. He tracked the media meticulously. Writers who said good things about the Cardinals would find their names omitted from the press pass list at Wrigley for a Bears game. Bill Gleason always hated Halas for pulling stuff like this, but it's part of ownership and media.

 

Now these days, the media is more sophisticated and there is a lot less of the good 'ole boy network. Decisions are made more on a business basis, because it's a necessity. Here is a good example ... I have been a Blackhawk follower all my life and of course now they are totally brutal. They deserve everything they've gotten, in terms of the media trashing them or ignoring them. I happened to hear the thoughts of one of the Score producers, who was being bombarded by a small core of Hawks fans asking why there wasn't more Blackhawk talk on the Score. He used to post on a message board telling people when they'd be talking hockey and asking people to call in. People didn't call in, and/or the ones who did were total dunderheads whining about the same stuff ("we need Cheli, we need Eddie, we need JR"). So they moved away from hockey talk. Simple concept.

 

Let me be very clear and say I hate the Cubs. I am from Bridgeport and sometimes I wish I could be more like my suburban friends and root for both teams because "it's Chicago". Sorry, no way. I hope the Cubs lose. Although I hope they beat Detroit this weekend, but only because the Cubs are so bad this year they are done for. I inherited it from my dad, can't change it, that's the way it is for me.

 

Anyway I digress.

 

I mention the Cubs because people are attracted to them for a variety of reasons, we all know what they are and it's some of the same reason people are attracted to the Red Sox. So for the last 20 + years there has been more of a buzz about the Cubs, due to the whole, ummm, experience. The experience sucks as far as I'm concerned but for other people, it's great. Lots of other people. So that's the way it is, people are interested in them, and the media will cover them. They will cover them a lot.

 

I see the tide turning, and it's not just about the White Sox winning. Bridegport is experiencing a renaissance. There have been a smattering of articles about all the great places in Bridgeport to eat and drink. Some people on this site have kidded me saying Jim H. you should write up an article about all the good joints. (And by the way I found another one ... Gem Bar at 2700 S. Loomis, great burgers, $4.50 pitchers of PBR on Thursdays and $1 hot dog days on Thursdays, a true Sox bar, try it). The point being, I am not smarter than anyone here, not by a long shot, but I do know how things work and its like this ... people need to experience something positive. If you tell them all the great things about the White Sox game experience and all the cool things about Bridgeport they will say "you know what ... I really enjoyed that, and plus the White Sox have a really good team". We are talking about the casual fan here, the kind of fan the White Sox want so the team can afford a $100M payroll. So in a way, I feel like I'm doing my part.

 

The flip side is, to me, what hangar does. He takes a negative spin, a chip on the shoulder approach and you know what, that tends to make people defensive and piss people off. I truly believe if he invested as much time taking a positive approach vs. counting stories ... well, you get the drift. To each their own I guess, but my objection to this whole thing is the outright subjectivity of the data.

 

Maybe someday soon I will sit down and write the article about Bridgeport and try to entice even more people to get excited about going there. More interested people = more attendance = good things for the White Sox.

 

I haven't heard the name Gem Bar in yrs. I used to live near 29th and Loomis and we used to get our Friday and Saturday nite beverages from there. If you like the neighborhood hotdog carts, head over to 29th and Loomis and just east of the corner tavern is Maryann's hot dog cart. And I really miss the La Milanese steak sammiches too that used to be on 32nd and May. Too bad they let the place close. And you summed things up perfectly. Thanks. I'm still voting for the media watch to start from zero and show us which stories are actually making the Sox look bad as hangar claims. If he just wants to count stories, then fine, count them. Just don't sell me the crap that you are proving that the trib and times are out to make the Sox look bad and chase fans away and then leave out the stories or why the stories are doing that. I gave up on the Hawks quite a while ago. The Hawks are only a family tragedy away from having a winning team. And by family tragedy, I mean the whole Wirtz family.

[SoxFan76]

I'll be done when useless unrelated BS is no longer posted about me.

I'll read what I choose, but thanks for your concern.

 

So you just enjoy being a rude and ignorant smartass?

[Steff]

So you just enjoy being a rude and ignorant smartass?

 

 

Pretty much.

 

Don't like it, you STFU also.

 

Have a nice weekend.

[SoxFan76]

Pretty much.

 

Don't like it, you STFU also.

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

 

To each his/her own. All this time I was being raised to be a respectful member of society. I guess not everyone chose that path.

[SoxVann]

I said the day you slithered over here that folks would not tolerate your condescending tone, and I was right. Regardless of whether your count is wrong, your delivery is insulting, boorish, disrespecful, bad-mannered, uncooth, foul, and vulger.

 

what your selling isn't being bought as evident by the continued questioning of your dim-witted posts.

 

OMG Hangar, please dont listen to people like this. Really makes white sox fans look bad. Unreal the venom that is spewed by some of the people around here, my gosh V

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Hey.. shut the f*** up.

 

Wow, what happened to the "no more personal attacks" policy?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

SoxFan76, Hanger, Jim, Steff et al. of people in this thread.

 

I've just spent the past few minutes of my life re-reading this thread and all I can say is the following as a moderator based on this and other threads that have been making the rounds on the boards.

 

We will not have any personal attacks towards other posters. It is something that the administration and moderators have gotten sick and tired of having. We're not averse to laying down the law, so please don't make us have to.

 

Also, if reading the "Media Watch" thread gets you up in arms, I'd suggest that you don't read it. Put a person who annoys you on the ignore list. There's a reason that we have the feature and it is exactly so whining and squabbling between people is kept to a minimum.

 

And we know that there are questions regarding Hanger's methodology. We got the point. Good. Hooray. Now let's move on in keeping any debate regarding the facts of his methodology and not "OMG WELL HE'S A STOOPID CUB FAN BEFORE! LOL!!!11!1 ELEVENTY!"

 

I don't like being a babysitter and I'll be damned if I am going to be forced into the situation by a group of adults who should know how to act in a proper fashion.

[Steff]

To each his/her own. All this time I was being raised to be a respectful member of society. I guess not everyone chose that path.

 

 

You get what you give.

[Kyyle23]

damn, the fire breathing heathen brings respekt back to the thread. And it was just getting good too

[Guest JimH]

SoxFan76, Hanger, Jim, Steff et al. of people in this thread.

 

I've just spent the past few minutes of my life re-reading this thread and all I can say is the following as a moderator based on this and other threads that have been making the rounds on the boards.

 

We will not have any personal attacks towards other posters. It is something that the administration and moderators have gotten sick and tired of having. We're not averse to laying down the law, so please don't make us have to.

 

Also, if reading the "Media Watch" thread gets you up in arms, I'd suggest that you don't read it. Put a person who annoys you on the ignore list. There's a reason that we have the feature and it is exactly so whining and squabbling between people is kept to a minimum.

 

And we know that there are questions regarding Hanger's methodology. We got the point. Good. Hooray. Now let's move on in keeping any debate regarding the facts of his methodology and not "OMG WELL HE'S A STOOPID CUB FAN BEFORE! LOL!!!11!1 ELEVENTY!"

 

I don't like being a babysitter and I'll be damned if I am going to be forced into the situation by a group of adults who should know how to act in a proper fashion.

 

Interesting.

 

So what you're saying, as I understand it, is Hangar can post his media rants without accountability for accuracy, and no one can comment on it?

 

Really? Is that what you're saying?

 

I understand about no personal attacks, but since when is it SoxTalk policy to let one special person post a daily thread, but people who disagree with it (on several levels) shouldn't comment on it?

 

Isn't it a better idea to deal with the personal attacks, specifically the people who are slinging them?

 

What does "now let's move on in keeping any debate regarding the facts of his methodology" mean? Again, I am a little confused by this. Thanks for any clarification.

 

Jim H.

[Steff]

Interesting.

So what you're saying, as I understand it, is Hangar can post his media rants without accountability for accuracy, and no one can comment on it?

Really? Is that what you're saying?

I understand about no personal attacks, but since when is it SoxTalk policy to let one special person post a daily thread, but people who disagree with it (on several levels) shouldn't comment on it?

Isn't it a better idea to deal with the personal attacks, specifically the people who are slinging them?

What does "now let's move on in keeping any debate regarding the facts of his methodology" mean? Again, I am a little confused by this. Thanks for any clarification.

Jim H.

 

 

Yes, and FWIU that's what's been done. As far as "shut the f*** up" being a personal attack, whatever, but so be it. But if you don't want some s*** slug your way, don't sling it in the first place. It's pretty telling when someone dishes it, then cries when they don't like the return meal.

[kapkomet]

OMG Hangar, please dont listen to people like this. Really makes white sox fans look bad. Unreal the venom that is spewed by some of the people around here, my gosh V

OMG, who are you really, to create a new screen name to come here and question someone?

 

That's called being scared to be who you really are, and it's shameful.

 

To everyone else... i

 

Ya'll can disagree, and that's fine. In fact, that's what this place is about. Sometimes, however, it's better to leave things unsaid - Steff and even to a lesser extent (in this thread) JimH, you knew this person was going to be an issue, fine. Please don't be the board cop - and what I mean by that is when you start feeling like you want to poke someone's eyeballs out to keep them from posting because they annoy you, it's probably time to let it go. Unfortunately, people follow in particular you two around waiting for that to happen, and use it against you. I know you don't care, and neither do those that understand, but it just adds fuel to their little personal vendettas (see Vann). Personally, I agree with you, but I won't say it (well, I just did).

 

Hangar, the condescending tone is horrible. If you disagree with someone, put the condescending crap away, and don't post. You know what you post is controversial, fine. Post your crap and then stop commenting on it. If you were on a 'fact finding' mission like you said you are, then you'd post and let others respond, not go ballistic when someone disagrees with you. You'd post FACTS back in response, but you more often then not do not back up your talk, you just talk more. I'll just tell you, your time is growing short here with the way you handle yourself, not what you post about. Think about it.

 

I'm going to say this again, I said it the other day for game threads. Instead of people calling out a bunch of crap, if there are concerns about a poster, PM the admin/mod team instead of starting the arguments out in the open. We'll take a look at it and decide how to handle it. Sometimes, it won't be right away so we can see how it plays out, but you need to let us know and not play board cop. That's what the mods and admins are for.

 

Does that pretty much cover it? I hope so.

 

Kap

[Guest JimH]

Instead of people calling out a bunch of crap, if there are concerns about a poster, PM the admin/mod team instead of starting the arguments out in the open. We'll take a look at it and decide how to handle it. Sometimes, it won't be right away so we can see how it plays out, but you need to let us know and not play board cop. That's what the mods and admins are for.

 

Kap thanks for your response.

 

What's still unanswered is the notion of someone posting something every single day, and feeling he has free reign to post it (which I'm fine with), but others can't comment on its many inaccuracies and half truths (which I'm not fine with).

 

Here is what I'm especially baffled about ...

 

It was no secret to anyone that hangar, and especially his media watches, would be a hornets nest. Not everyone here looks at WSI or visits there, but many do. They generated debate and discussion over there. The mods and admins here knew full well the same thing would happen at SoxTalk. It's not as if the reaction, and debate, is a surprise.

 

Basically hangar thinks he can post his media watches and shouldn't be questioned. That has never been how SoxTalk has worked. I totally agree the guy or his supporters should not be told to STFU but this guy trumpeting that he's "proven" something has been revealed as misleading at best, a flat out lie at worst.

 

I fail to understand how it's ok for someone to post the same stuff day after day in the same misleading manner, but it's not ok for people to comment on how misleading his posts are.

 

Or do I not understand the admins position? You guys knew this would be an issue when you told him it would be ok to post his daily crusade. I have had this very same discussion behind the scenes with an admin and was told that no one wants to be the bad guy.

 

If it's not me commenting on his, ummm, data .... then it would be zach61, zach23, Ribbie Rhubarb, kyyle, Steff, pods ... who else, did I miss anyone? Even if/when this current thread died down, two weeks from now it'd be the same issue. You guys are more than astute enough to realize that.

 

That said, I do understand and appreciate the main part of your message re: the personal attacks.

 

Personally I think zach23 has nailed it best (or is it zach61) when he says this is all a popularity issue on hangar's part, his real motivation is wanting to feel the team he roots for is more popular. That's great, but spewing sketchy data and stating he's "proven" something, that is BS. And you know what ... debating what many feel is BS has always been a big part of SoxTalk.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

There's a difference in debating the voracity of his claims and the numerous "STFU" type personal attack comments that went on.

 

If you find something wrong with the presentation of the data, keep the debate to the data (i.e. don't just count articles, discuss what the articles are actually saying) instead of going after Hanger as a person. Divorce the person from the presentation of the data.

 

And my "put him on ignore" was just a suggestion. If it really irks people that much then it seems logical to not read it if its going to get your anger level incredibly high. It is why we installed the ignore feature -- so people could use it.

[Guest JimH]

There's a difference in debating the voracity of his claims and the numerous "STFU" type personal attack comments that went on.

 

Totally agree with this.

[kapkomet]

JimH,

 

I wholeheartedly agree that this stuff should be debated. To clarify or re-emphasize a point, I think that debate from a topic that is a lightning rod is good, as long as the person delivering the controversy can 1) back it up with facts and 2) have a thick skin and not belittle people who disagree. That I have a major problem with. I've seen several times now from the person in question when one disagrees, the talk isn't facts to try to change a mind, it's just more talk and then it turns into belittlement. That's where the STFU's come in, and sometimes rightly so. Those STFU's come from the people who usually call out what they perceive to be stupid s***... and then we have the usual lapdogs waiting to pounce on those people who have the sensitivity to certain things. Then, we're in the viscious circle that becomes controversy at soxtalk.

 

Yes, we knew going in that these threads would bring controversy. What we want to count on, every single time, is to error on the side that people here can handle it. I hope that in the long run, all parties can prove us right. Everyone knows that we try to be a lot more open then most message boards, on a variety of topics. Sometimes, it doesn't work out, but we will always try.

 

In this case, as I said, and I'll say it again, we can find the balance, and the postees, if you will, can back up the points of their post, and if they can't, they can respect those who disagree.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[CleanSox]

....If it's not me commenting on his, ummm, data .... then it would be zach61, zach23, Ribbie Rhubarb, kyyle, Steff, pods ... who else, did I miss anyone? Even if/when this current thread died down, two weeks from now it'd be the same issue. You guys are more than astute enough to realize that.....

But won't you admit that there's a difference between "commenting on" someone's posts, and obsession with someone's posts? Let's say your main point is to show that Hanger's methods and materials are, shall we say, suspect. Okay you did that hundreds (well, lots, anyway) of posts ago. Who cares after that? Do you follow everyone who starts a thread around and fact check?

 

I don't have any horse in this race, but since the now closed thread was pointed out to me by a friend, Hanger's Media Watch and the handful of people who have been stalking him have provided me with many an entertaining moment. So thanks for that.

[Kyyle23]

How do all of the newbies automatically filter into this thread lately?

[CleanSox]

How do all of the newbies automatically filter into this thread lately?

Hello back atcha!

 

I think the obvious reply to your question is that the outsize response by certain of your old-timers made this an absolute magnet - for newbies and lurkers alike. If no one got all bent out of shape and made a big deal about it, who would be viewing this thread?

 

How many members do you have on this site? And how many of them have actually taken up arms against the big bad villain Hanger? Six? Ten?

 

As Hawk says, "it's all self-induced."

Edited June 17, 2006 by CleanSox

[Guest JimH]

But won't you admit that there's a difference between "commenting on" someone's posts, and obsession with someone's posts? Let's say your main point is to show that Hanger's methods and materials are, shall we say, suspect. Okay you did that hundreds (well, lots, anyway) of posts ago. Who cares after that? Do you follow everyone who starts a thread around and fact check?

 

I don't have any horse in this race, but since the now closed thread was pointed out to me by a friend, Hanger's Media Watch and the handful of people who have been stalking him have provided me with many an entertaining moment. So thanks for that.

 

First of all you say you had a friend point you over to this thread, so I think you are another of hangar's supporters, and that's fine.

 

As for "who cares", if someone insists on posting grey area data, and claims it "proves" a point, and does it every day ... then people will comment on it every day. Go quote zach23's comments. Go quote zach61's comments. Go quote steff's comments. Go quote ribbie rhubarb's comments. Why mine? They are all saying basically the same thing I'm saying.

 

 

Also ... why do you not call out hangar for "stalking" the media?

 

Yeah, I think you actually do have a horse in this race. If you want to call it a race. Your words, not mine.

 

Hmmm ... let's see ... a whole bunch of people taking issue with Hangar's methodology. It's SoxTalk, people have a way of calling out people who post suspect data.

 

In return, do you go around registering on White Sox message boards for the sole purpose of supporting hangar? While at the same time saying you're a neutral party? LOL.

Edited June 17, 2006 by JimH

[Flash Tizzle]

Cleansox, I like the way you're put together.

 

Welcome aboard.

[Guest JimH]

Cleansox, I like the way you're put together.

 

Welcome aboard.

 

My guess is he's been here before, or another WSI expatriate.

 

No matter to me, everyone is welcome here, but it's highly interesting he was pointed to this thread by a "friend".

 

LOL.

 

How many members do you have on this site? And how many of them have actually taken up arms against the big bad villain Hanger? Six? Ten?

 

As Hawk says, "it's all self-induced."

 

How many brand new members have been pointed here by a "friend" to stick up for hangar's rants? As Hawk doesn't say "it's all arm twisting".

 

I've seen several times now from the person in question when one disagrees, the talk isn't facts to try to change a mind, it's just more talk and then it turns into belittlement. That's where the STFU's come in, and sometimes rightly so. Those STFU's come from the people who usually call out what they perceive to be stupid s***... and then we have the usual lapdogs waiting to pounce on those people who have the sensitivity to certain things. Then, we're in the viscious circle that becomes controversy at soxtalk.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Kap,

 

Yes what you say makes a lot of sense and once again let me say I appreciate your insight.

 

Let me ask this ... you identified three problems here, they are:

 

1. the person in question who, when people disagree, responds with talk that isn't facts but simply more talk which turns into belittlement

 

2. the STFU's that result

 

and

 

3. The usual lapdogs who pounce on those people who have the sensitivity to the STFU's

 

Why not just deal with the people who are the cause of those three identified problems? I presume you guys are, not my business, but I think my question is legit.

Edited June 17, 2006 by JimH

[Flash Tizzle]

My guess is he's been here before, or another WSI expatriate.

 

No matter to me, everyone is welcome here, but it's highly interesting he was pointed to this thread by a "friend".

 

LOL.

How many brand new members have been pointed here by a "friend" to stick up for hangar's rants? As Hawk doesn't say "it's all arm twisting".

It's obvious Hangar's friends from WSI are defending him. If you browsed their website occasionally, or simply knew his relationship among members from others on Soxtalk, you know there were a sizable contingent of supporters who fueled his rants.

 

If his only purpose in registering is to post in this thread, well, that's a shame. Even though he opposes your opinion on this issue, I believe we can both agree members who add substance to this website should be welcomed.