Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/19/06

[Guest JimH]

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.

 

OMG.

 

This is so far off the deep end I don't even know where to start.

 

Demographics have been around since the beginning of media. LOTS of media people talk about how to market to Cub fans, because there are so many Cub fans. Both papers said they determined the number of stories simply by who was winning? Yeah right hangar. The advertisers have no say, the stockholders have no say, the subscribers have no say, the sales numbers have no say ... are you serious? How can you possibly comment on the media when with each successive post you reveal how little you know about how it really works?

 

Are you also serious when you say "there is only one real way to explain how a team gets worse and gets better in attendance" and that's newspaper coverage? Word of mouth has nothing to do with it? Corporate ticket buyers have nothing to do with it? Restaurant and bar advertising has nothing to do with it?

There are literally HUNDREDS of reasons why any business gets more popular. Go ask Schaller's Pump. They've gotten more popular by simply doing what they do, and being historic. It has nothing to do with the media. In the Cubs case, it is only part. To say it's "the only one real way to explain it" is ... well ... pick your adjective. Naive is one that comes to mind. Another apt description would be "reach conclusion to fit desired result".

 

What about the Morissey column goof, what about the "media ignored" inclusion? You are answering all kinds of other stuff but somehow you don't seem to get around to answering those.

[Hangar18]

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.

 

 

If the Trib owned the Rush, we might not be making that case. Same with the Wolves.

[Guest JimH]

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")

 

Don't start?

 

Why not?

 

It's a very legitimate question.

 

Your argument implies all the articles about how much of a s***hole Detroit is basically constitutes a Detroit Visitors Bureau welcome mat.

 

Just because you don't want to consider it within your context doesn't mean it isn't valid.

 

If the Trib owned the Rush, we might not be making that case. Same with the Wolves.

 

Nope.

 

They write about what sells. They always have and always will.

[zach61]

My numbers made more "sense" back in 03, 04, and 05,

 

When nobody questioned anything and they just took the story count as proving something. Now everybody expects data and why the story is biased against the Sox and for the cubs instead of just how many stories there were.

[Guest JimH]

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?

 

You saying "winning" doesn't answer the question.

 

You said the White Sox having more attendance should equal more coverage, but you also said the Cubs continuing to sell out should result in less coverage.

 

Why is that?

[kapkomet]

Hangar, answer the questions that are asked of you. I'm interested. Everyone is not 'attacking' you, they just want to know your stance.

 

I think there tends to be some bias - but the #'s appear to be shifting since the Sox have won and continue to win. Eventually, a crap product will start to decline attendance, and it will shift if the Sox keep winning. The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is.

[Hangar18]

OMG.

 

This is so far off the deep end I don't even know where to start.

 

Demographics have been around since the beginning of media. LOTS of media people talk about how to market to Cub fans, because there are so many Cub fans.

 

 

Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage".

No they dont.

 

1981 Cub attendance 565,637

1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278

 

And the Chicago White Sox?

 

1981 Sox attendance 946,651

1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787

 

Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year?

[kapkomet]

Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage".

No they dont.

 

1981 Cub attendance 565,637

1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278

 

And the Chicago White Sox?

 

1981 Sox attendance 946,651

1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787

 

Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year?

That's a lot different time period. And a lot different circumstances???

[Guest JimH]

Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage".

No they dont.

 

1981 Cub attendance 565,637

1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278

 

And the Chicago White Sox?

 

1981 Sox attendance 946,651

1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787

 

Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year?

 

WHAT?

 

How about answering the questions?

 

Please address the questions that have been asked of you, specifically the ones asked by me and SS2K5.

 

1981 was a strike year wasn't it? And yes I do remember walking around then, in fact I spent a lot of time in Lincoln Park around those years. Know what? Saw a lot of Cub apparel even back then.

 

What on earth does 1981 and 1982 have to do with today? Before you post, I would suggest you start yourself. I am talking about today, not 25 years ago. There are literally millions of Cub fans. I don't like it but it's true. And no, they weren't all created by the Tribune, despite your half baked theory.

[Hangar18]

I think there tends to be some bias - but the #'s appear to be shifting since the Sox have won and continue to win. Eventually, a crap product will start to decline attendance, and it will shift if the Sox keep winning. The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is.

 

 

this is what the numbers showed, once it was broken down by paper. I did say that hey, since June began, the Cubs have only had a slight lead this month, with the numbers basically saying both teams are being covered dead even. The Cubs slide into oblivion this month seems to have put BOTH teams on even ground as far as storie counts go. The only thing left to do is base these numbers on their record now the next few months. Will the numbers Grow larger for the SOX the more the other team keeps losing? Or will it stay the same?

 

WHAT?

 

How about answering the questions?

 

Please address the questions that have been asked of you, specifically the ones asked by me and SS2K5.

 

1981 was a strike year wasn't it? And yes I do remember walking around then, in fact I spent a lot of time in Lincoln Park around those years. Know what? Saw a lot of Cub apparel even back then.

 

What on earth does 1981 and 1982 have to do with today? Before you post, I would suggest you start yourself. I am talking about today, not 25 years ago. There are literally millions of Cub fans. I don't like it but it's true. And no, they weren't all created by the Tribune, despite your half baked theory.

 

 

1981 and 1982 are the first years the Trib bought that other team ............ and the "shift" in coverage began immediately. Where did these fans come from? I was around in 1980, I NEVER remember hearing "historic" wrigley field as much as I did that year and every year after. I also remember that team stunk miserably. I remember nobody going there, so where are all these fans coming from? What im trying to say, is their "popularity" if we want to call it something, is in direct correlation, with the Trib buying them and marketing the heck out of them. That includes giving them all the extra coverage in the world they could possibly give them.

[Guest JimH]

this is what the numbers showed, once it was broken down by paper. I did say that hey, since June began, the Cubs have only had a slight lead this month, with the numbers basically saying both teams are being covered dead even. The Cubs slide into oblivion this month seems to have put BOTH teams on even ground as far as storie counts go. The only thing left to do is base these numbers on their record now the next few months. Will the numbers Grow larger for the SOX the more the other team keeps losing? Or will it stay the same?

 

No, the numbers show numbers. They show a story count, and that's all they show. Readership will demand Cub coverage, and a lot of it, even if they go 0-162. I'm not sure why you fail to grasp that.

 

What about the "media ignored" inclusion?

 

What about your goof on the Morissey column?

 

Both are misleading, wouldn't you admit? Especially after you posted you'd eliminate saying the White Sox are "media ignored" as recently as last week. It speaks to credibility.

[Hangar18]

Jim, your question to me, regarding whether I said "the attendance numbers have changed" is my acknowledgement that SOX attendance has risen, but not exponentially with their record. The Trib told us whoever is winning, usually gets the most coverage. That team didnt have as many fans as they do now, were it not for the shrewd marketing scheme of theirs. YES, sox attendance has gone up, but to say thats why the coverage is dead-even doesnt explain the "winning" team gets the coverage philosophy the media has held steadfastly to. The only thing that can explain that is the Trib has a double-standard, because, well, shoot they own one of the teams.

The team they own Stinks on a regular basis, they cant have coverage be applied to it using the "winning team gets coverage" rule, they change the rules.

 

Again, maybe June 06 is the highwater mark for that other team and the pendulum begins swinging the other way.

 

.................The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is.

 

 

 

This does seem to be the case ...........if things continue just like this

[kapkomet]

You do realize that attendance can't 'go up exponentially' in EITHER club's case, right?

[Guest JimH]

1981 and 1982 are the first years the Trib bought that other team ............ and the "shift" in coverage began immediately. Where did these fans come from? I was around in 1980, I NEVER remember hearing "historic" wrigley field as much as I did that year and every year after. I also remember that team stunk miserably. I remember nobody going there, so where are all these fans coming from? What im trying to say, is their "popularity" if we want to call it something, is in direct correlation, with the Trib buying them and marketing the heck out of them. That includes giving them all the extra coverage in the world they could possibly give them.

 

You said it was the "only possible explanation" but you conveniently ignore multiple other factors. I was a young adult during that era, very in tune with baseball and the media, perhaps moreso than I am now.

 

- Resurgence of Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville

 

- Subsequent resurgence of other north side neighborhoods, continuing to this day

 

- Negative fallout toward the White Sox for the loss of a very popular broadcaster, subsequently adopted by the young adult north side crowd as a partying Uncle Harry.

 

- The exploding growth of WGN, particularly into other states

 

- The increased rate of job transferees in the 80's. Many many many more "transplants".

 

- Lots of old ballparks were still around. Wrigley was well maintained, stood the test of time, and screamed "party" to a blossoming number of affluent young adults. The more Wrigley lasted, the more "historic" it became, including being listed as a tourist attraction in travel books.

 

- Negative fallout later in the 80's toward Reinsdorf and Einhorn, including the threatened move to Florida, the perception they staged a hold up to get the new ballpark, people bemoaning the loss of old Comiskey, the difference in vibrancy between Bridgeport and Wrigleyville. All word of mouth factors.

 

There's at least a half dozen that had nothing to do with the Tribune.

 

Direct correlation between Cub popularity and Tribune ownership? Perhaps but certainly not the only factor as you paint it. Far from it.

 

BTW, are you going to answer the questions I raised? This is only about the 7th time I've asked and you conveniently seem to ignore them.

 

the "winning" team gets the coverage philosophy the media has held steadfastly to. The only thing that can explain that is the Trib has a double-standard, because, well, shoot they own one of the teams.

The team they own Stinks on a regular basis, they cant have coverage be applied to it using the "winning team gets coverage" rule, they change the rules.

 

Where is this rule written, stated, accepted, taken as gospel?

 

Personally I believe this was told to you by a Tribune staffer at some point, along with a dozen other reasons, eleven of which you've conveniently forgotten.

 

Because reality is hangar, there are multiple reasons why a topic receives print coverage, many of which have been explained (yet again) today by myself and SS2K5 ... and once again ignored by you.

 

The questions aren't going away hangar. If you can't answer them, then you need to post about something else.

[Hangar18]

You said it was the "only possible explanation" but you conveniently ignore multiple other factors. I was a young adult during that era, very in tune with baseball and the media, perhaps moreso than I am now.

 

- Resurgence of Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville

 

- Subsequent resurgence of other north side neighborhoods, continuing to this day

 

- Negative fallout toward the White Sox for the loss of a very popular broadcaster, subsequently adopted by the young adult north side crowd as a partying Uncle Harry.

 

- The exploding growth of WGN, particularly into other states

 

- The increased rate of job transferees in the 80's. Many many many more "transplants".

 

- Lots of old ballparks were still around. Wrigley was well maintained, stood the test of time, and screamed "party" to a blossoming number of affluent young adults. The more Wrigley lasted, the more "historic" it became, including being listed as a tourist attraction in travel books.

 

- Negative fallout later in the 80's toward Reinsdorf and Einhorn, including the threatened move to Florida, the perception they staged a hold up to get the new ballpark, people bemoaning the loss of old Comiskey, the difference in vibrancy between Bridgeport and Wrigleyville. All word of mouth factors.

 

There's at least a half dozen that had nothing to do with the Tribune.

 

Direct correlation between Cub popularity and Tribune ownership? Perhaps but certainly not the only factor as you paint it. Far from it.

 

BTW, are you going to answer the questions I raised? This is only about the 7th time I've asked and you conveniently seem to ignore them.

 

 

All of those points were brought up by you and others, and helped slide the sox to the bottom tier of course.

Your Wrigley was well-maintained theory doesnt hold if the Trib hadnt been the ones Screaming "Party here" first. Yes, these were also factors, but I believe the Tribs ownership of the Cubs, and their Unique ability to directly and indirectly Influence first-hand some of these "fans" to come and spend their money and days, partying their butts off, never mind the teams record. Explains why the Trib is so sensitive to the marketing of its team, despite the fact they continue to this day to tell us that the Cub product has nothing to do with the Tribune, its a separate entity. Sure it is

Thats why a Paul Sullivan gets a Verbal Beat-Down by Jim Hendry and Andy McPhail.

[Hangar18]

As for your question regarding Rick Morrissey (hes the guy who once wrote that the SOX ws parade wasnt all SOX fans, but lots of Cub fans out to witness a parade)

 

"at times sunday, it sounded as if there were more Tiger fans than Cub fans at Wrigley (at times? Im told Sunday there WERE more Tiger fans than cub fans, at least thats the way it Sounded, and the way it was painted by witnesses), and it made some sense. Detroits not too far from Chicago. But are instant converts out of the realm of possibility? Not on this day, not in this season" Planting the seed of doubt if Cub fans maybe decided they were going to turn into Tiger fans midgame and cheer for them.

 

Why imply this later then? "and bless the 39,938 fans who showed up on Sunday and decided they were having none of it" As if the entire stadium were Cub fans who booed lustily? Hardly. Tiger fans could be audibly heard running wild in that park, cheering and making a case for this being Comerica West.

[Guest JimH]

As for your question regarding Rick Morrissey (hes the guy who once wrote that the SOX ws parade wasnt all SOX fans, but lots of Cub fans out to witness a parade)

 

"at times sunday, it sounded as if there were more Tiger fans than Cub fans at Wrigley (at times? Im told Sunday there WERE more Tiger fans than cub fans, at least thats the way it Sounded, and the way it was painted by witnesses), and it made some sense. Detroits not too far from Chicago. But are instant converts out of the realm of possibility? Not on this day, not in this season" Planting the seed of doubt if Cub fans maybe decided they were going to turn into Tiger fans midgame and cheer for them.

 

Why imply this later then? "and bless the 39,938 fans who showed up on Sunday and decided they were having none of it" As if the entire stadium were Cub fans who booed lustily? Hardly. Tiger fans could be audibly heard running wild in that park, cheering and making a case for this being Comerica West.

 

The FACT is, hangar, you omitted mentioning he said anything about Tiger fans being there. Quit trying to spin it. You're using both sides of the coin here ... first you count it as a Cub story, now to combat my argument you're using the "tone" of the article. That's EXACTLY what you say doesn't count in this crusade of yours.

 

So which is it? You can't have it both ways, although every day you continue to try and have it both ways.

 

Further, you are the one who said that Toni Gianetti was the ONLY reporter who discussed there being a lot of Tiger fans there. Now, instead of saying "I WAS WRONG" you go on some lengthy spin session. All of a sudden, implying is part of your measurement. Again, which is it?

 

Also, what about the "media ignored" issue? Why won't you address that? Last week you admitted it was wrong, and then lo and behold, a new week starts (minus you not doing a weekend count of course, which I guess is ok to skip a few weekends in your book, hey, let's only count when we feel like it), and here you are using the same phrase ... "media ignored White Sox". Again, which is it? How much flip flopping do we have to endure from you hangar?

 

Your Wrigley was well-maintained theory doesnt hold if the Trib hadnt been the ones Screaming "Party here" first. Yes, these were also factors, but I believe the Tribs ownership of the Cubs, and their Unique ability to directly and indirectly Influence first-hand some of these "fans" to come and spend their money and days, partying their butts off, never mind the teams record. Explains why the Trib is so sensitive to the marketing of its team, despite the fact they continue to this day to tell us that the Cub product has nothing to do with the Tribune, its a separate entity. Sure it is

Thats why a Paul Sullivan gets a Verbal Beat-Down by Jim Hendry and Andy McPhail.

 

Now you admit to their being possible other factors to the Cubs rise in popularity. Well today you admit it anyway. Tomorrow, you will likely go back to the old party line. And we will have to do this all over again because you admit something one day, and then the next day you flip flop (see: "media ignored White Sox")

 

On Wrigley being well maintained, for a lifelong Chicagoan, you really don't know your history that well do you? P.K. Wrigley was notorious for spending money on upkeep of Wrigley Field. The infrastructure had always been quite sound and well maintained until the last 5-7 years when it began crumbling, wow, how did I know it had crumbling concrete, could that have been the media where I heard that?

 

I can tell you from first hand experience, word of mouth has A LOT to do with people attaching themselves to the Cub experience. Maybe not where you are in Pilsen but out in the suburbs we get tons of transferees who could care less about the Chicago Tribune or Channel 9. It's all about what they hear from neighbors, friends, their workplace.

 

As for Paul Sullivan, my understanding is management felt he was getting too personal about players, vs. simply criticizing their performance. Personally I think the writers should have more free reign but this is not the first time Sullivan has been put under the spotlight. Don't blame it all on the Tribune hangar, there are other factors with this situation too.

 

Where is this rule written, stated, accepted, taken as gospel?

 

Personally I believe this was told to you by a Tribune staffer at some point, along with a dozen other reasons, eleven of which you've conveniently forgotten.

 

Because reality is hangar, there are multiple reasons why a topic receives print coverage, many of which have been explained (yet again) today by myself and SS2K5 ... and once again ignored by you.

 

What about this hangar?

 

Where is this "rule" you speak of, where is it written?

 

If this is something that was simply told to you, sorry, it's sorely lacking in credibility. You've shown a habit of missing pertinent facts and misrepresenting others to advance your viewpoint.

 

Again, closer to the truth is that there are probably a dozen reasons why a certain topic receives coverage, in this case a sports team.

 

My hunch is, you were told multiple reasons and chose to remember one reason, conveniently the one reason that fits your viewpoint.

[Muscatel]

This is an interesting discussion that attracted me first as an observer and now as a participant.

 

I’m disappointed that weekend stories weren’t counted, because that surely affects the outcome. If this were a lawsuit, a judge might throw out the case if there was such a glaring oversight.

 

I don’t get the S-T, but Saturday’s Tribune had three Sox stories and three Cubs stories. Results of the Friday games for both teams started on the front Sports page and the others were on page 3.

 

Sunday, in what some may see as more evidence of favoritism, the Cubs won the story count 4-3 because the Trib ran one about the return of Mark Prior and a sidebar about his previous “comebacks.”

 

The number of stories may not be the only indicator of whether there is bias. The story on the Sox’s 8-6 win was on the front page of Sports, and the Cubs’ 9-3 loss was on page 3, so the Sox got more prominent play.

 

But the story of the Cubs game was negative in tone, so did the Trib “bury” it on page 3 to minimize the impact on ticket sales (which some believe is the case) or just relegate the Cubs to their rightful place? You decide.

 

Here is the top of the game story by Paul Sullivan, which ran under the headline “Home turns sour on skidding Cubs.” I challenge anyone to find evidence of pro-Cubs bias in this excerpt:

 

The blue “L” flag waved in the wind from the center-field scoreboard Saturday after the Cubs’ 9-3 loss to Detroit, just as it has after every game on the current homestand.

 

The Cubs have lost five straight and 10 of their last 12 at Wrigley Field despite near-sellout crowds every day.

 

“It’s embarrassing,” second baseman Todd Walker said. “It’s not fun to go out there and lose every day, especially when you’re giving your heart to it.”

 

The Cubs were one game ahead of last-place Pittsburgh in the NL Central with the third-lowest winning percentage in baseball.

 

Since April 20, the day Derrek Lee went on the disabled list, the Cubs are 17-36, the second-worst record in the majors in that span. Kansas City was 16-37 after Saturday night’s loss at Houston.

 

Mark Prior returns Sunday, but instead of trying to save the season, his main task will be to help keep the Cubs from enduring an 0-6 homestand. Wrigley somehow has become the home away from home for almost every team the Cubs play.###

 

And another thing ….

 

The Sunday Trib also had a story on page 4 about how most pitchers don’t come back from torn labrum surgery. Kerry Wood was prominently mentioned in this story since that is his injury, but so were several ex-Sox pitchers who went through the same thing.

 

Is this a Sox or Cubs story? Or in the intricate world of media watching, does each team get a point? I'm asking, because there are probably several stories like this during the course of a season. Depending on who is doing the counting they could end up in the wrong column.

[Dick Allen]

This is an interesting discussion that attracted me first as an observer and now as a participant.

 

I’m disappointed that weekend stories weren’t counted, because that surely affects the outcome. If this were a lawsuit, a judge might throw out the case if there was such a glaring oversight.

 

I don’t get the S-T, but Saturday’s Tribune had three Sox stories and three Cubs stories. Results of the Friday games for both teams started on the front Sports page and the others were on page 3.

 

Sunday, in what some may see as more evidence of favoritism, the Cubs won the story count 4-3 because the Trib ran one about the return of Mark Prior and a sidebar about his previous “comebacks.”

 

The number of stories may not be the only indicator of whether there is bias. The story on the Sox’s 8-6 win was on the front page of Sports, and the Cubs’ 9-3 loss was on page 3, so the Sox got more prominent play.

 

But the story of the Cubs game was negative in tone, so did the Trib “bury” it on page 3 to minimize the impact on ticket sales (which some believe is the case) or just relegate the Cubs to their rightful place? You decide.

 

Here is the top of the game story by Paul Sullivan, which ran under the headline “Home turns sour on skidding Cubs.” I challenge anyone to find evidence of pro-Cubs bias in this excerpt:

 

The blue “L” flag waved in the wind from the center-field scoreboard Saturday after the Cubs’ 9-3 loss to Detroit, just as it has after every game on the current homestand.

 

The Cubs have lost five straight and 10 of their last 12 at Wrigley Field despite near-sellout crowds every day.

 

“It’s embarrassing,” second baseman Todd Walker said. “It’s not fun to go out there and lose every day, especially when you’re giving your heart to it.”

 

The Cubs were one game ahead of last-place Pittsburgh in the NL Central with the third-lowest winning percentage in baseball.

 

Since April 20, the day Derrek Lee went on the disabled list, the Cubs are 17-36, the second-worst record in the majors in that span. Kansas City was 16-37 after Saturday night’s loss at Houston.

 

Mark Prior returns Sunday, but instead of trying to save the season, his main task will be to help keep the Cubs from enduring an 0-6 homestand. Wrigley somehow has become the home away from home for almost every team the Cubs play.###

 

And another thing ….

 

The Sunday Trib also had a story on page 4 about how most pitchers don’t come back from torn labrum surgery. Kerry Wood was prominently mentioned in this story since that is his injury, but so were several ex-Sox pitchers who went through the same thing.

 

Is this a Sox or Cubs story? Or in the intricate world of media watching, does each team get a point? I'm asking, because there are probably several stories like this during the course of a season. Depending on who is doing the counting they could end up in the wrong column.

 

 

There are other subtle things the Tribune does to plant a seed. When the guy got beat up and killed at Clark and Addison it was buried in the Metro section on page 5 in the back of another story, so it didn't even get a headline. The continuing Ligue stories. Who cares what Ligue is up to these days or whose car he's breaking into except the car's owner and local law enforcement. The Tribune though loves to update Ligue's arrests any chance they get to keep it in the back of people's minds who are on the fence that USCF may be a little too dangerous. Do you ever see updates on the guy who went after Randy Myers? Did they ever even tell you his name? A few years ago they were digging for a body about 3 or 4 blocks from USCF, and the Tribune made sure everyone knew it was within walking distance of USCF, although a body was not found. There's probably a lot of crimes that occur in the 4 block radius of Wrigley that you will never hear mentioned in the Tribune. The Tribune also has 2 names it calls the area around Wrigley. On its positive pieces its Wrigleyville, if its something unpleasant the area reverts back to Lakeview. Hangar gets attacked, but yet I haven't seen a count that would disprove his numbers. To think that the Tribune doesn't have bias would be naive IMO. Sullivan got called into the principal's office. He even stated the Cubs expected the paper to be its "house organ". Sullivan then backtracks a little bit, and what do you know, a fluff piece on the Cubs.

[marsh]

Direct correlation between Cub popularity and Tribune ownership? Perhaps but certainly not the only factor as you paint it. Far from it.

 

Could you please elaborate on why you think that there perhaps could be a direct correlation. Thank you.

[southsider2k5]

If the Trib owned the Rush, we might not be making that case. Same with the Wolves.

 

That's it? That's the answer? OK.

 

#1 If their is a big conspiracy to screw the Sox, why is the Tribune giving the Sox more coverage?

 

#2 If their is a big conspiracy to screw the Sox, why would the Tribune Company's biggest media rival be either complicit or even participating in something that would AID their biggest competitor in the Chicago market? Wouldn't it make sense for the Sun Times to try to exploit the Tribune company's lack of thrust into the Sox market by catering to them, well if there were THAT many underserved Sox fans, to prop up their own bottom lines?

 

As I said before, I can accept the Trib trying to bury the Sox because it makes sense to their bottom line. What I don't understand is how you can claim the Sun Times is part of this when ever fiber of business and common sense saids otherwise. The ONLY motive of the Sun Times ownership is to make money, and if their was an opportunity to make money by catering to the White Sox, they would do it in a New York minute.

Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage".

No they dont.

 

1981 Cub attendance 565,637

1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278

 

And the Chicago White Sox?

 

1981 Sox attendance 946,651

1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787

 

Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year?

 

Do you have media numbers for those years? Do we know that media coverage skewed during those years? Do we have numbers for memorablia sales etc? If not, they are not relevant to the discussion, as that makes it all conjecture, especially when you factor in the terrible marketing decesions by White Sox during the past 25 years, when compared to the genius moves by the Cubs over the same time span.

 

There are other subtle things the Tribune does to plant a seed. When the guy got beat up and killed at Clark and Addison it was buried in the Metro section on page 5 in the back of another story, so it didn't even get a headline. The continuing Ligue stories. Who cares what Ligue is up to these days or whose car he's breaking into except the car's owner and local law enforcement. The Tribune though loves to update Ligue's arrests any chance they get to keep it in the back of people's minds who are on the fence that USCF may be a little too dangerous. Do you ever see updates on the guy who went after Randy Myers? Did they ever even tell you his name? A few years ago they were digging for a body about 3 or 4 blocks from USCF, and the Tribune made sure everyone knew it was within walking distance of USCF, although a body was not found. There's probably a lot of crimes that occur in the 4 block radius of Wrigley that you will never hear mentioned in the Tribune. The Tribune also has 2 names it calls the area around Wrigley. On its positive pieces its Wrigleyville, if its something unpleasant the area reverts back to Lakeview. Hangar gets attacked, but yet I haven't seen a count that would disprove his numbers. To think that the Tribune doesn't have bias would be naive IMO. Sullivan got called into the principal's office. He even stated the Cubs expected the paper to be its "house organ". Sullivan then backtracks a little bit, and what do you know, a fluff piece on the Cubs.

 

As I said, the Tribune company does have a motive to favor the Cubs. What has not been proved is that the Sun Times is involved in anything except maximizing profits.

[Kyyle23]

HOW THE MEDIA COUNT LOOKS FROM AN INTERESTED VIEWER

 

*Hangar posts numbers

 

*JimH politely asks pointed questions about the legitamacy of the numbers.

 

*Southsider2k5 chimes in, usually something funny about the numbers.

 

*Hangar ignores JimH' question, instead answers(but not really) SS2k5, and once again drones about his time at WSI where the holy grail of bulls*** numbers resides, waiting to be rescued.

 

*JimH repeats his question.

 

*Hangar continues to ignore JimH. More droning.

 

*Southsider2k5 pokes another hole in Hangars numbers.

 

*Hangar references 1981 and 1982 out of nowhere. JimH pulls out his old Van Halen records but fails to care about the numbers. Neither does anyone else.

 

*Hangar attempts to answer whats asked of him. Fails miserably, creates more questions about his numbers.

 

*JimH' blood pressure rises as he asks his questions for the 503rd time, never to be answered.

 

*thread closed. See you next week.

 

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

*thread closed. See you next week.

 

 

These threads should be re-named "The Official Soxtalk Weekly Trainwreck Thread".

 

 

[CleanSox]

....The questions aren't going away hangar. If you can't answer them, then you need to post about something else...

Why?

 

Don't get me wrong. I hope he doesn't stop and that you folks don't stop spending hours deconstructing all his "theories" and posting your frustrated replies and demands. It's a great read. (Well, at least if you subtract all that nastiness and personal stuff from "STFU Steff") And from the number of hits his threads draw, I can tell I'm not the only one being entertained.

 

But really, why should he even attempt to answer your queries if his credibility is zero around here? Do you demand the same rigor (and expend the same effort) on the endless stream of threads started with topics like "Wife's Severed Head Flies From Truck When Man Crashes: Police Found Wife's Headless Body At Home"?

 

Please understand, Jim. I'm not trying to "call you out" as you put it in an earlier post. You just seem like a good surrogate for the serious questioners. When I say "you" I really mean everyone who keeps trying to get things to line up in a way that doesn't offend their sense of the logical. There's the other contingent that seems to have history with Hanger, and still others who always come around when they hear the big dogs start barking. So what else is new in the realm of internet forums?

[Guest JimH]

Why?

 

Don't get me wrong. I hope he doesn't stop and that you folks don't stop spending hours deconstructing all his "theories" and posting your frustrated replies and demands. It's a great read. (Well, at least if you subtract all that nastiness and personal stuff from "STFU Steff") And from the number of hits his threads draw, I can tell I'm not the only one being entertained.

 

But really, why should he even attempt to answer your queries if his credibility is zero around here? Do you demand the same rigor (and expend the same effort) on the endless stream of threads started with topics like "Wife's Severed Head Flies From Truck When Man Crashes: Police Found Wife's Headless Body At Home"?

 

Please understand, Jim. I'm not trying to "call you out" as you put it in an earlier post. You just seem like a good surrogate for the serious questioners. When I say "you" I really mean everyone who keeps trying to get things to line up in a way that doesn't offend their sense of the logical. There's the other contingent that seems to have history with Hanger, and still others who always come around when they hear the big dogs start barking. So what else is new in the realm of internet forums?

 

I don't know exactly what your post is trying to accomplish, it appears to go around in circles.

 

If this is entertaining to you, great. However, as a new member of SoxTalk, follow our tradition and try to contribute something of substance vs. telling us you're enjoying the movie and the popcorn.

 

Is this a Sox or Cubs story? Or in the intricate world of media watching, does each team get a point? I'm asking, because there are probably several stories like this during the course of a season. Depending on who is doing the counting they could end up in the wrong column.

 

Thank you for contributing, great post, well thought out.

 

I agree with you completely, the tone of the stories mean a lot.

 

This is something hangar has resisted, until today, when he used it in his argument against me. But never fear, he'll have forgotten about it by tomorrow morning and this will start all over again ... at least until the mods have seen enough of hangar's rant being disected and skewered on a daily basis.