Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/19/06

[Hangar18]

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

4 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

3 cub stories

4 sox stories

Standings as of Monday June 19th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 5th place-16 games under .500, 1 game out of 6th Cubs 598

Underdog, Media Igonred, Media Maligned, WsChamps-19 games over .500, 1.5 gms out of 1st Sox 506

 

Rick Morrissey makes sure in his column to tell you today to "bless" the 39,000 who showed up to watch yesterdays game. From my accounts, seems there were a ton of Tigger fans there, and Saturday too.

Morrissey says Cub fans were "gonna have none of it". Hmmmm, not sure what he was implying or where he was going, but Tiger fans seemed to run wild in Wrigley all weekend. Buddy of mine went to the game Saturday said the bleachers may have been 1/2 Tigers, esp where he was (dead center) and they were loud.

 

Toni Ginetti is basically the only writer to admit that there were a ton of Tiger fans up north.

Morrissey says otherwise.

Neither paper today mentions the huge contigent of SOX fans in Cincinnati this weekend, which to me may be just as big a story as the sweep itself. Sox fortunes indeed do seem to be changing, with Ozzie on Sat morning saying he couldnt believe the numbers he saw downtown and at their hotel.

 

Kudos to Ch.5 sportscaster last nite referring to cub fans as "sheep", heh heh, ive been calling them that for years ..................

 

The Tribune, had a bit more room in todays papers, so they inserted a quick blurb from Sundays Pittsburgh Gazette, in which the writer rips Ozzie over the Sean Tracey incident. Nice.

[Guest JimH]

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

4 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

3 cub stories

4 sox stories

Standings as of Monday June 19th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 5th place-16 games under .500, 1 game out of 6th Cubs 598

Underdog, Media Igonred, Media Maligned, WsChamps-19 games over .500, 1.5 gms out of 1st Sox 506

 

Rick Morrissey makes sure in his column to tell you today to "bless" the 39,000 who showed up to watch yesterdays game. From my accounts, seems there were a ton of Tigger fans there, and Saturday too.

Morrissey says Cub fans were "gonna have none of it". Hmmmm, not sure what he was implying or where he was going, but Tiger fans seemed to run wild in Wrigley all weekend. Buddy of mine went to the game Saturday said the bleachers may have been 1/2 Tigers, esp where he was (dead center) and they were loud.

 

Toni Ginetti is basically the only writer to admit that there were a ton of Tiger fans up north.

Morrissey says otherwise.

Neither paper today mentions the huge contigent of SOX fans in Cincinnati this weekend, which to me may be just as big a story as the sweep itself. Sox fortunes indeed do seem to be changing, with Ozzie on Sat morning saying he couldnt believe the numbers he saw downtown and at their hotel.

 

Kudos to Ch.5 sportscaster last nite referring to cub fans as "sheep", heh heh, ive been calling them that for years ..................

 

The Tribune, had a bit more room in todays papers, so they inserted a quick blurb from Sundays Pittsburgh Gazette, in which the writer rips Ozzie over the Sean Tracey incident. Nice.

 

 

Several points here ...

 

1. You said you were going to remove the "media ignored" statement in reference to the White Sox. You took it off for all of one day, and here it is back again. You agreed the White Sox are not media ignored, but yet you're still stating it. What gives?

 

2. The blurb about the Pittsburgh writer seemed to me to be a slap at the Gazette columnist. Possibly implying he's as dumb as Mariotti. I guess it's all subjective, it all depends how you look at things huh hangar? Sort of like looking at a raw story count to prove some supposed bias.

 

3. Please re-read Morissey's column. Not only is it a rip job on the current state of the Cubs, but you must have missed (yet again, you miss something pertinent) his last paragraph, where he says "At times Sunday, it sounded as if there were more Tigers fans than Cub fans at Wrigley". But Toni Gianetti is the only columnist to acknowledge the presence of Tiger fans?

 

Again, how about quit making obvious errors of omission to vainly try to prove your point?

 

Lastly, all weekend long there were comments in the papers about the large contingent of White Sox fans in Cincinnati.

Edited June 19, 2006 by JimH

[RME JICO]

Hangar,

Do you have the breakdown of Tribune totals and Sun-Times totals for each team?

 

I am curious to see how the overall numbers would break down in each paper.

 

Trib (Sox ? - Cubs ?)

Times (Sox ? - Cubs ?)

Total (Sox 506, Cubs 598)

 

I bet that the entire media disparity has more to do with the Trib owning the Cubs than any other factor.

Edited June 19, 2006 by RME JICO

[Hangar18]

Hangar,

Do you have the breakdown of Tribune totals and Sun-Times totals for each team?

 

I am curious to see how the overall numbers would break down in each paper.

 

Trib (Sox ? - Cubs ?)

Times (Sox ? - Cubs ?)

Total (Sox 506, Cubs 598)

 

I bet that the entire media disparity has more to do with the Trib owning the Cubs than any other factor.

 

 

I dont have a breakdown, but it would be easily available since I already broke them down the last couple of years, would have to go back and add them up I guess. That would mean having to go to the other website to get the numbers. I wonder if theres a way to get all of my old numbers and download them some way so I wouldnt have to venture over there to get them in the future?

[RME JICO]

I dont have a breakdown, but it would be easily available since I already broke them down the last couple of years, would have to go back and add them up I guess. That would mean having to go to the other website to get the numbers. I wonder if theres a way to get all of my old numbers and download them some way so I wouldnt have to venture over there to get them in the future?

 

Are these numbers just for this season? When was the starting point to get to the current numbers? Opening Day? Jan 1st?

 

What you could do is just start it from now on. Just add the totals in parentheses:

 

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories (20)

4 sox stories (16)

 

Chicago SunTimes:

3 cub stories (12)

4 sox stories (16)

 

 

It would probably be too much work to go back and count the previous numbers, but there is a good chance that the current numbers will be close enough to see any trends.

[Hangar18]

Are these numbers just for this season? When was the starting point to get to the current numbers? Opening Day? Jan 1st?

 

What you could do is just start it from now on. Just add the totals in parentheses:

 

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories (20)

4 sox stories (16)

 

Chicago SunTimes:

3 cub stories (12)

4 sox stories (16)

It would probably be too much work to go back and count the previous numbers, but there is a good chance that the current numbers will be close enough to see any trends.

 

 

I started at the beginning of Spring Training 2006. If you would like to help out and further count my numbers (I count the overall numbers/you breakdown those numbers) that would be great

[RME JICO]

I started at the beginning of Spring Training 2006. If you would like to help out and further count my numbers (I count the overall numbers/you breakdown those numbers) that would be great

My connection is kinda slow from here, but I will see what I can do in my off time.

[Guest JimH]

Are these numbers just for this season? When was the starting point to get to the current numbers? Opening Day? Jan 1st?

 

It would probably be too much work to go back and count the previous numbers, but there is a good chance that the current numbers will be close enough to see any trends.

 

Good questions and good idea.

 

Also, in order to see a trend it's important to define what that trend is. For example, how many are actually stories about the Cubs that sway people away from going to see the White Sox, as hangar has long contended. So, in addition to story counts, we'd need to know which are positive or negative Cubs stories, as well as positive or negative Sox stories ... in order to positively identify a meaningful trend.

 

How about it hangar? And what are your thoughts to eliminating "media ignored", and what about your omission re: Morissey's column?

[southsider2k5]

So are there no updates from Saturday's and Sunday's?

[Guest JimH]

I started at the beginning of Spring Training 2006.

 

Doesn't media coverage for both teams go year around? A lot of hot stove chatter is instrumental in getting fans interested in attending games. I bet if you counted Sox stories vs. Cubs stories from 11/1/05 to 2/28/06, and analyzed their tone (positive or negative) then perhaps you can identify a meaningful trend.

 

So are there no updates from Saturday's and Sunday's?

 

No ... and none from a good portion of the calendar year I guess.

 

I wonder if theres a way to get all of my old numbers and download them some way so I wouldnt have to venture over there to get them in the future?

 

I think there is hangar, just ask one of your friends who joined over here to search their archives.

[Hangar18]

So are there no updates from Saturday's and Sunday's?

 

 

There were a couple of guys who wanted to help out and be the "weekend" guys for the weekend counts, but they were a bit afraid of the moderators, so I just went with weekdays. They tend to average out however. As for Jims request about further breakdowns, sure

 

I think there is hangar, just ask one of your friends who joined over here to search their archives.

 

 

Well, lets put it out there. I will ask a few people who are currently now "dual" members for their help.

this could be pretty interesting to break down the data ive got already .........

[RME JICO]

Ok,

Here is June's breakdown which is all that is on this board. June 1st - June 19th, excluding weekends.

 

Chi-town Media Watch June Totals

 

Chicago Tribune:

49 Cubs stories

44 Sox stories

 

Chicago SunTimes:

54 Sox stories

52 Cubs stories

 

Just what I suspected. The Trib is going to put in more Cubs articles because that sells more tickets, which makes them more money. So it is not really a media bias, just a Trib bias, which will never change as long as they own the team.

 

Those totals are pretty close to the totals if you project them out. The Sox hold the edge in the Times, and the Cubs get about 53-54% of the articles in the Trib, which is lower than I expected.

[Hangar18]

Ok,

Here is June's breakdown which is all that is on this board. June 1st - June 19th, excluding weekends.

 

Chi-town Media Watch June Totals

 

Chicago Tribune:

49 Cubs stories

44 Sox stories

 

Chicago SunTimes:

54 Sox stories

52 Cubs stories

 

Just what I suspected. The Trib is going to put in more Cubs articles because that sells more tickets, which makes them more money. So it is not really a media bias, just a Trib bias, which will never change as long as they own the team.

 

Those totals are pretty close to the totals if you project them out. The Sox hold the edge in the Times, and the Cubs get about 53-54% of the articles in the Trib, which is lower than I expected.

 

 

And looks like in June, the numbers are pretty even ............. with the Cubs getting a slight edge.

the Cubs are still by nearly 100, so it seems that with the Cubs becoming horrifically bad, that the numbers have become EVEN. I wonder what will happen should the Cubs start a 3 game winning streak?

[Guest JimH]

Hangar, what about the "media ignored" and Morrisey column mistake issues?

 

Can you address those specifically, thanks.

 

Also, thank you to RMEJICO for adding up June. Slightly more Cub stories than White Sox stories in the Tribune and on the surface, at face value, RMEJICO's point is valid. However as has been discussed a lot here, without knowing the purpose/intent of those stories, particularly columnist offerings ... it is extremely difficult if not impossible to reach any definitive conclusion.

 

Hangar can you please explain how this data proves anything, especially with:

 

- a weekend here or there missing

 

- nothing counted from end of Oct. (or is it end of regular season) to spring training

 

- no factoring in of "Cub bashing" articles, to support your ongoing assertion that the media seeks to sway people away from the White Sox and toward the Cubs, i.e. your data is merely a simple count

 

- errors of omission in your summary editorializing which conveniently (if not sloppily) push your agenda

 

Please explain how a media bias exists, and how you've proven a media bias, based on your data.

 

Thanks.

 

And looks like in June, the numbers are pretty even ............. with the Cubs getting a slight edge.

the Cubs are still by nearly 100, so it seems that with the Cubs becoming horrifically bad, that the numbers have become EVEN. I wonder what will happen should the Cubs start a 3 game winning streak?

 

Your assertion has long been the media intends to sway readers/viewers away from the White Sox and toward the Cubs.

 

Can you explain how the overwhelmingly negative coverage of Cub foibles, particulary in June, matches your assertion?

[Hangar18]

Please explain how a media bias exists, and how you've proven a media bias, based on your data.

 

Thanks.

 

 

My numbers made more "sense" back in 03, 04, and 05, when the numbers werent as "close" as they are now ............ If I had to make a comment on the data (Im smart enough to know making a case based on just this years numbers would be subject to change once I compared to other years) Id have to say that the SOX winning it all last year has had a dramatic effect on media coverage, but still not enough for them to dominate the cubs, as they did us back in 03, 04 and midway thru 05.

[southsider2k5]

Ok,

Here is June's breakdown which is all that is on this board. June 1st - June 19th, excluding weekends.

 

Chi-town Media Watch June Totals

 

Chicago Tribune:

49 Cubs stories

44 Sox stories

 

Chicago SunTimes:

54 Sox stories

52 Cubs stories

 

Just what I suspected. The Trib is going to put in more Cubs articles because that sells more tickets, which makes them more money. So it is not really a media bias, just a Trib bias, which will never change as long as they own the team.

 

Those totals are pretty close to the totals if you project them out. The Sox hold the edge in the Times, and the Cubs get about 53-54% of the articles in the Trib, which is lower than I expected.

 

What is interesting is that the numbers really outpace attendance at the ballparks, so Sox fans are actually getting relatively more coverage vs the number of people who go to the ballpark. In terms of raw attendance, the Sox are drawing about 20% less fans per game than the Cubs are, yet they are almost dead even in terms of their stories in June. Interesting. Even just isolating June, the Sox are averaging 36,017 per game, and the Cubs are getting 40,486 good for about 10% more fans per game, which to me if the Cubs are getting about 10% more coverage with 10% more fans attending their games, that seems about right to me. Looking at things from a strictly business standpoint, you expect more coverage of things that draw more paying customers. I can't really argue with that. Its the reason the Sox and Cubs get coverage, while the Sky have fallen all of the way back to the back pages of the newspapers.

[Guest JimH]

My numbers made more "sense" back in 03, 04, and 05, when the numbers werent as "close" as they are now ............ If I had to make a comment on the data (Im smart enough to know making a case based on just this years numbers would be subject to change once I compared to other years) Id have to say that the SOX winning it all last year has had a dramatic effect on media coverage, but still not enough for them to dominate the cubs, as they did us back in 03, 04 and midway thru 05.

 

Ok let me try and read between the lines here.

 

- In your view, story counts definitively prove bias, regardless of the type of story.

 

- Demographics mean nothing, the newspapers shouldn't try to reach out to their readers, the large number of Cub fans in Chicagoland should basically be ignored. Further, coverage should be totally based on winning %, coverage defined as gross number of stories.

 

- It is ok to miss the occasional weekend when tabulating story counts.

 

- The legitimate questions about the Morissey column goof up and the "media ignored" issue will go unanswered by you, because, well ... it doesn't suit your agenda to answer them.

 

Am I close?

 

Thanks.

[Dick Allen]

What is interesting is that the numbers really outpace attendance at the ballparks, so Sox fans are actually getting relatively more coverage vs the number of people who go to the ballpark. In terms of raw attendance, the Sox are drawing about 20% less fans per game than the Cubs are, yet they are almost dead even in terms of their stories in June. Interesting. Even just isolating June, the Sox are averaging 36,017 per game, and the Cubs are getting 40,486 good for about 10% more fans per game, which to me if the Cubs are getting about 10% more coverage with 10% more fans attending their games, that seems about right to me. Looking at things from a strictly business standpoint, you expect more coverage of things that draw more paying customers. I can't really argue with that. Its the reason the Sox and Cubs get coverage, while the Sky have fallen all of the way back to the back pages of the newspapers.

One number that would really be interesting to see, and probably pretty hard to figure out is how many actual different people go to each park. I go to about 65-70 games a year and instead of being counted as 65, I would be counted as 1. There probably was a bigger group of people that went to USCF last year than to Wrigley due to total season tickets, although those are pawned off as well.

[Hangar18]

What is interesting is that the numbers really outpace attendance at the ballparks, so Sox fans are actually getting relatively more coverage vs the number of people who go to the ballpark. In terms of raw attendance, the Sox are drawing about 20% less fans per game than the Cubs are, yet they are almost dead even in terms of their stories in June. Interesting. Even just isolating June, the Sox are averaging 36,017 per game, and the Cubs are getting 40,486 good for about 10% more fans per game, which to me if the Cubs are getting about 10% more coverage with 10% more fans attending their games, that seems about right to me. Looking at things from a strictly business standpoint, you expect more coverage of things that draw more paying customers. I can't really argue with that. Its the reason the Sox and Cubs get coverage, while the Sky have fallen all of the way back to the back pages of the newspapers.

 

To me, theres not much difference in 40,500 and being a sellout (that team), vs us having 38,000 (and selling out). Theyre both sellouts for all intents and purposes, and the fact that one team in the last 2 years, has seen a dramatic SHIFT in attendance figures, but hasnt really translated into newsstories (when other team had well past 200+ stories beating us) as one would think. Maybe though, this is just the "upward" trend the SOX will start seeing? Next year at this time, the SOX will, if numbers "continue", be that much in front of that other team, and start to see a slide upwards?

[Guest JimH]

Looking at things from a strictly business standpoint, you expect more coverage of things that draw more paying customers.

 

The media caused the Cubs to have higher attendance in the first place, your point is not valid. BZZZZTT.

[Dick Allen]

What are the TV ratings like between the teams for similar times?

[Guest JimH]

the fact that one team in the last 2 years, has seen a dramatic SHIFT in attendance figures, but hasnt really translated into newsstories (when other team had well past 200+ stories beating us) as one would think.

 

Wait a minute hangar, didn't you just say the White Sox have gotten a lot more coverage since mid 2005? Didn't I just see you post that comment?

 

When you say "as one would think", you are correct. That "one" being you.

 

I am confused hangar. Please explain how more White Sox attendance = more coverage but in the Cubs case consistent sell outs should equal less coverage?

[southsider2k5]

To me, theres not much difference in 40,500 and being a sellout (that team), vs us having 38,000 (and selling out). Theyre both sellouts for all intents and purposes, and the fact that one team in the last 2 years, has seen a dramatic SHIFT in attendance figures, but hasnt really translated into newsstories (when other team had well past 200+ stories beating us) as one would think. Maybe though, this is just the "upward" trend the SOX will start seeing? Next year at this time, the SOX will, if numbers "continue", be that much in front of that other team, and start to see a slide upwards?

 

You just said in a prior post that the numbers have shifted?!?!?!

 

Id have to say that the SOX winning it all last year has had a dramatic effect on media coverage, but still not enough for them to dominate the cubs, as they did us back in 03, 04 and midway thru 05.

 

My observation all along as been that attendance is much more of a deteriming factor vs record, and it seems to be holding true. As the Sox attendance has gotten to the point where it is very near the Cubs, their media coverage has jumped up almost identially in terms of number of stories. The Sox big attendance jump didn't occur until late 2005, and into 2006 it has continued, and right their with it, seemingly the media coverage has followed.

 

Like I said, it isn't conspiracy, its good business. Think about it, the Chicago Rush won a national title, does that mean they should have completely owned the sports pages? How about all of the years that the lowly Chicago Wolves were winning Turner Cup titles, while the Blackhawks were in their death spiral down, should the Hawks have been relegated to the back page, while the Wolves knocked the Bulls and Hawks off of the front pages during the winters? Not a chance. You publish what sells, period. The Sox winning and the Cubs losing as nothing to do with it. Cubs fans buying way more Tribunes, Sun-Times, and everything else under the sun is all that matters. You might be able to convince me of evil intent at the Trib, but no way that you can tell me that the Tribs arch enemy, the Sun Times, would aid the TribCo in lining their pockets and propping up the Cubs artificially. The Sun-Times is a multimedia group who only cares about one thing, and that is profits. If the Cubs gets the ST profits, than they will publish stories on the Cubs, and if the Sun-Times thought for one second that they could make more money by selling to Sox fans, they would ditch the Cubs faster than a Scott Borass client offered an extra dollar a year in salary. If the Sox were truely underrepresented at ANY time, the profit motive would have been plenty enough motivation for SOMEONE to step in and OVER represent the White Sox.

[Hangar18]

Ok let me try and read between the lines here.

 

- In your view, story counts definitively prove bias, regardless of the type of story.

 

- Demographics mean nothing, the newspapers shouldn't try to reach out to their readers, the large number of Cub fans in Chicagoland should basically be ignored. Further, coverage should be totally based on winning %, coverage defined as gross number of stories.

 

1st part of your question, is basically a YES (dont start the "how can there be a bias if some of the stories are negative")

 

2nd part. You continue to go down this "demographic" path. When the Trib bought the Cubs, they didnt have as "many" fans (sheep) as they do today, and that is even arguable. The Trib said their ownership would not "interfere" with their coverage of the White Sox (there was no mention of "demographics" or anything remotely close to saying "but since there are more cub fans, that still allows us to devote more stories to them). Noone, nowhere, no now ever said anything about their being more cub "fans" and that they had a loophole just in case the SOX are Winning in any of those years. No, in fact, both papers said they determined the number of stories devoted to both teams simply by who was "Winning".

 

The Cubs have done plenty of the opposite in the couple of decades theyve been owned by that Entertainment Empire. In fact, the number of stories (negative and positive) has greatly outpaced that of the SOX, despite some very good years by the south-siders. "so what hangar, big deal that they get more stories the last few years". Guess whats happened in that same time-span? Cub attendance has SKYROCKETED. Im not going bore us with attendance for that team, but how is it that a team can GET WORSE over the course of a few years, and actually GET BETTER IN ATTENDANCE? Theres only one real way to explain this. The number of stories in a paper continuously talking about that team can only have helped them.

 

 

Wait a minute hangar, didn't you just say the White Sox have gotten a lot more coverage since mid 2005? Didn't I just see you post that comment?

 

When you say "as one would think", you are correct. That "one" being you.

 

I am confused hangar. Please explain how more White Sox attendance = more coverage but in the Cubs case consistent sell outs should equal less coverage?

 

 

 

We keep going down this path. Winning.

 

What are the TV ratings like between the teams for similar times?

 

 

 

This was Quietly mentioned very recently. The SOX were blowing away the flubbies in Tv Ratings,

the article mentioned cub viewership down like 54% IIRC

[southsider2k5]

This was Quietly mentioned very recently. The SOX were blowing away the flubbies in Tv Ratings,

the article mentioned cub viewership down like 54% IIRC

 

What were the totals?