Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/19/06

[Brian]

First time I have looked into one of these threads. Please tell me that Hangar is not making other screen names and posting so someone defends this stuff.

[Guest JimH]

Could you

Sure marsh, no problem.

 

The Tribune is a major newspapers and it's only my assumption but I presume they like to sell newspapers.

 

They also have a big subscription base and a big marketing staff. I know this because I used to play Tribune stock options so I followed them closely. A lot closer than hangar I'd bet. I also subscribe, I read the Tribune every day, some of what they do I agree with and other things I do not.

 

But I digress.

 

They are a business. They try to find out what their customers like/want. They realize a lot of their subscribers like to read about the Cubs. They also realize a lot of diehard White Sox fans like to read about the Cubs, particularly when stories or columnists bash the Cubs

 

The Tribune is a very popular paper, not just in Chicago but in the suburbs and nationally. When I lived in suburban Los Angeles for two years I was able to buy the Tribune every day, and that was 15 years ago.

 

Let's add it up.

 

Big newspaper + very popular newspaper + editorial philosophy of writing about what lots of people want to read about = lots of Cub stories.

 

It isn't brain surgery, this is the way media works, as SS2K5 correctly identified a few pages ago.

 

Hangar suggesting that the media claims (only) "the team that wins more dominates the coverage" when in reality it is just one reason why a sports team is covered. He knows this, but won't admit it. The reason he won't admit it is because he has a gigantic chip on his shoulder about the Cubs and Cub fans. It is a popularity contest for Hangar ... Hangar hates biases in the media but at the same time pines for a media bias toward the White Sox. To me that's hypocritical and his numbers are skewed because of his iffy accounting methods, inconsistent story counting, and stating he's "proven" a media bias based on wishy washy data.

 

 

 

First time I have looked into one of these threads. Please tell me that Hangar is not making other screen names and posting so someone defends this stuff.

 

No, I don't think he's doing that.

 

I do think he's quietly alerting his supporters to clue them in on this debate though.

 

Which is perfectly fine because of two things:

 

1. Everyone is welcome here, as long as they contribute,

 

2. Hangar and his crusade will be judged on its own merits, not how many WSI refugees he recruits.

[marsh]

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.

 

Both these statements I think are correct. I also think they both equate to the cubs getting more coverage. I don't think anyone is arguing the first part, the interesting question surrounds the sun times. The obvious answer is the financial motive, but why would the Sun Times try to "out trib the tribune" as either Hendry or MacFail put it when dressing down sullivan. Seems to me any self respecting cub fan would be buying the trib based on your first statement above, the same way i guess sox fans flock to the sun times and to a lesser extent the Herald or southtown.

 

I think what has happened is the sun times figure they have sox fans in thier pocket, I mean they are certainly not gonna buy the trib, generally speaking of course. So maybe they think they have nothing to lose and much to gain by cutting into the trib's flock of cub fans. End result you have one paper with a motive or conflict of interest, depending on how you look at it, and another paper that's trying to match it, favoring the cub in terms of coverage.

[Guest JimH]

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"?

 

To borrow your words ... Please understand, CleanSox.

 

I tend to lay in the background about most things that aren't directly related to between the white lines. I don't care if Mike Caruso smoked dope, if Albert Belle snarled at women, if Willie Harris smokes Camels, if Paul Konerko is reputed to love the camera, or which players have extra marital affairs.

 

I do, however, take issue with people who try to impose their theory on a group of posters who are mostly young people. The median age here is fairly low, and just by not living as many years, they will not have the depth and breadth of experience with Chicago media. Hangar's "rally around the Sox flag, we're being maligned by the media" rant is based on sand castle data and assumptions. There are several people here who have problems with it, why not address them too Clean Sox, or has Hangar told you to address only me? Matters not to me, but I like this site, I have been here a long time ... and I think people here should see the counterpoint to all of Hangar's supposed "proof".

 

Now I'm just curious ... do you have anything to contribute to this site other than asking me why I'm taking issue with Hangar's rants?

 

You do know we have other forums besides this one ... right? Maybe add something to the site before questioning why people are doing things in your first three posts?

 

JimH pulls out his old Van Halen records

 

Close ... but is it ok if they are Led Zeppelin and Crosby, Stills, and Nash?

 

[marsh]

In reply to Jim H:

 

I do agree that it generally describes how any newspaper determines coverage of anything. It's pretty simple, but I don't think it answers the question. Saying that there is a direct correlation between the cubs popularity and tribune ownership implies to me, perhaps wrongly is that there are forces at work within the tribune to advance the cubs popularity. That's the motive, right?

 

JimH wrote:

They try to find out what their customers like/want. They realize a lot of their subscribers like to read about the Cubs.

Big newspaper + very popular newspaper + editorial philosophy of writing about what lots of people want to read about = lots of Cub stories.

 

 

 

I think the whole discussion revolves around the belief that they favor the cubs because they own them, not because they want to sell more papers. Is is a chicken and egg arguement? Maybe it just worked out wonderfully for them that way. I guess I'm a little more skeptical.

[SouthsideNorthsideFan]

Do you demand the same rigor (and expend the same effort) on the endless stream of threads started with topics like "......"?

I do, however, take issue with people who try to impose their theory on a group of posters who are mostly young people. The median age here is fairly low, and just by not living as many years, they will not have the depth and breadth of experience with Chicago media.

... and I think people here should see the counterpoint to all of Hangar's supposed "proof".

 

... look at the rebuttals as a way to keep the impressionable posters informed, and not being led toward becoming whiny, oppressed-sounding fans; those which cubs fans have always loved laughing at.

 

anyone could care less about the effects of sensational non-Sox related crap (headless bodies, whatever) in this forum...

[Steff]

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?

 

 

Yay.. another new pot stirring troll.

[Kyyle23]

But really, why should he even attempt to answer your queries if his credibility is zero around here?

See, when a regular reads a response like this in a thread like this, it just makes me think that you came to this site specifically to argue in Hangars thread. You are entitled to do that, for sure, but the above statement is not well researched. this site has a tendency to go overboard with proof and "verified "evidence" of claims, because I believe the members realize that the credibility of the site is based on the credibility of the posters. If you post something outlandish and hard to believe(even if it is true, see:wcw2323 re:Charlie Haeger.), you better be able to show your facts seperately from your opinion. There are plenty of people who hate the Cubs(see: Cuck the Fubs), and that is perfectly fine(even though somewhat annoying at times), but Hangar has taken his hate and impressed it upon a medium that is hard to define. So he now is defining it the way he wants to, and people are taking issue. Steff has seen this happen before apparently, and doesnt like the way things are going. I can totally understand why. My above thread was in jest, but there was a lot of truth to it, these threads start and finish the same way, every week. JimH and SS2K5 have done a marvelous job of staying to the point of his argument, and Hangar honestly has avoided his questions every time. Why? If he believes in his crusade, he should be able to back it up. But he hasnt, he just moves on with his counting.

 

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"?

 

Absolutely. If someone posts a story about a lady losing her head, and its false, the thread starter finds out. This site is funny that way, people seem to want to hear the truth. Aint that strange?

 

 

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?

 

Lets not forget the other, other contingent. You know, all the people registering to run to Hangars defense.

Edited June 20, 2006 by kyyle23

[Hangar18]

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?

 

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. What has not been proved is that the Sun Times is involved in anything except maximizing profits.

 

#2 Hey, I ask the same thing, Im not sure what the heck the SunTimes is thinking ............ other than they ARENT thinking. The SunTimes looks at the Trib as the belle of the ball, and tries to mimic everything they do. Someone at the SunTimes will have to step up and tell us why theyve gone out of their way to help promote the product of their rival. The only thing I can think of, is they are simply taking the SAFE way out. Cowards

 

#1 If the Trib is giving the SOX more coverage now, they havnt been doing it consistently. The big question is, will they keep giving them more coverage? or will that fall by the wayside the first 3 game Cub winning streak?

 

 

To borrow your words ... Please understand, CleanSox.

 

I tend to lay in the background about most things that aren't directly related to between the white lines. I don't care if Mike Caruso smoked dope, if Albert Belle snarled at women, if Willie Harris smokes Camels, if Paul Konerko is reputed to love the camera, or which players have extra marital affairs.

 

I do, however, take issue with people who try to impose their theory on a group of posters who are mostly young people. The median age here is fairly low, and just by not living as many years, they will not have the depth and breadth of experience with Chicago media. Hangar's "rally around the Sox flag, we're being maligned by the media" rant is based on sand castle data and assumptions. There are several people here who have problems with it, why not address them too Clean Sox, or has Hangar told you to address only me? Matters not to me, but I like this site, I have been here a long time ... and I think people here should see the counterpoint to all of Hangar's supposed "proof".

 

Now I'm just curious ... do you have anything to contribute to this site other than asking me why I'm taking issue with Hangar's rants?

 

You do know we have other forums besides this one ... right? Maybe add something to the site before questioning why people are doing things in your first three posts?

Close ... but is it ok if they are Led Zeppelin and Crosby, Stills, and Nash?

 

 

 

Jim, they are good questions ................

 

 

In reply to Jim H:

 

I do agree that it generally describes how any newspaper determines coverage of anything. It's pretty simple, but I don't think it answers the question. Saying that there is a direct correlation between the cubs popularity and tribune ownership implies to me, perhaps wrongly is that there are forces at work within the tribune to advance the cubs popularity. That's the motive, right?

 

JimH wrote:

They try to find out what their customers like/want. They realize a lot of their subscribers like to read about the Cubs.

Big newspaper + very popular newspaper + editorial philosophy of writing about what lots of people want to read about = lots of Cub stories.

I think the whole discussion revolves around the belief that they favor the cubs because they own them, not because they want to sell more papers. Is is a chicken and egg arguement? Maybe it just worked out wonderfully for them that way. I guess I'm a little more skeptical.

 

 

 

CHEERS

well thought out, someone that can read between the lines and formulate an opinion of what might be happening, and not worrying about semantics

[southsider2k5]

#2 Hey, I ask the same thing, Im not sure what the heck the SunTimes is thinking ............ other than they ARENT thinking. The SunTimes looks at the Trib as the belle of the ball, and tries to mimic everything they do. Someone at the SunTimes will have to step up and tell us why theyve gone out of their way to help promote the product of their rival. The only thing I can think of, is they are simply taking the SAFE way out. Cowards

 

The thing is, that isn't their methodology AT ALL, when you compare the rest of the papers.

 

The Chicago Tribune is a world wide newspaper with one of the top 5 circulations in the US because of the highly respected writers that they hire. The Trib has excellent hard hitting investigative reporters, while the Sun-Times favors the more tabloid side of things, focusing more on the screaming headlines. The Trib has reporters world wide, and is known for their news coverage independant of the wire services, while the ST focuses much more on the local stories. Heck compare some of the writers for the Tribune, you get guys like John Kass, Clarence Page, and Charles Madigan while the Sun Times leads with people like Carol Slezak and Jay Mariotti.

 

The Sun Times tries to distinguish itself from the Tribune at EVERY turn, and once again, it is for the explicit reason of trying to offer up an alternative to the massive TribCo, and to try to get underserved readers to pick up their paper instead... Yet we are to believe that in the one instance where there is a market of potentially millions of underserved Sox fans, they blow it off in favor of trying to siphon of the one area where the Tribune is going to be strongest provider of, and that is their own Cubs? It does not add up.

[Guest JimH]

#2 Hey, I ask the same thing, Im not sure what the heck the SunTimes is thinking ............ other than they ARENT thinking. The SunTimes looks at the Trib as the belle of the ball, and tries to mimic everything they do. Someone at the SunTimes will have to step up and tell us why theyve gone out of their way to help promote the product of their rival. The only thing I can think of, is they are simply taking the SAFE way out. Cowards

 

Where do you get the impression the Sun Times tries to mimic everything the Tribune does?

 

Why are you telling us the Sun Times goes out of their way to help promote the Cubs?

 

As SS2K5 says, it doesn't add up, nor do I see a Chicago major daily wanting to commit business suicide in that fashion.

 

You really need to come up with something better hangar. Your responses have been smoke and mirrors at best.

 

Lastly, you never answered my repeated question about "media ignored" White Sox. Last week you admitted it was an ill turned phrase, yet yesterday you included it again. What gives?

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimH

[Dick Allen]

This notion that the Tribune bases everything it does on its customer base is absurd. The Tribune routinely endorses Republican political candidates, almost always the Republican candidate for President, and in its circulation area, the Democratic candidate usually gets more votes. The company has used its newspaper, its sports section in particular, as an advertisement for another branch of its companies. To say there have been more Cub stories than Sox stories in that particular paper over the years, and the reason is the Cubs are more popular is BS. If anything, the exposure has made them more popular. Isn't one of the reasons the Sox popularity was not what it used to be blamed on its leaving WGN(yet another Tribune Co.) many years ago? As far as why the Sun-Times would have the same discrepancy, the Tribune is the big fish, they have to follow, although I really doubt there is a high percentage of people who purchase a newspaper based on Cubs vs. Sox content. At least they offer a more objective perspective on issues such as Ligue, the murder at Clark and Addison actually rated a headline from them, and they were a lot more objective than the Tribune when Wrigley Field starting crumbling down. The Sox are always going to be a little behind with the Cubs a sister company of a newspaper, television station and radio station. All three have bent over backwards promoting this team and its home for the past 22 years. People are getting sick of Wood, Prior, they tired of Sosa, but they will never get sick of that dump they play in. The Sox have closed the gap, and the newspapers have to, and apparently have at least a little bit, responded, as hangar's numbers lately have been pretty even, but with the Tribune's entire media machine running on all cylinders, I think the Cubs could lose 100 games a year for the next 20 years and on a July day in 2027 Wrigley Field would be packed for yet another meaningless major league game played on the north side of Chicago.

[Hangar18]

Where do you get the impression the Sun Times tries to mimic everything the Tribune does?

 

Why are you telling us the Sun Times goes out of their way to help promote the Cubs?

 

As SS2K5 says, it doesn't add up, nor do I see a Chicago major daily wanting to commit business suicide in that fashion.

 

 

 

Lastly, you never answered my repeated question about "media ignored" White Sox. Last week you admitted it was an ill turned phrase, yet yesterday you included it again. What gives?

 

 

Well, have you noticed those Red Newsboxes all around the city? both newspapers have the same version of a paper, even including the word RED in the papers name. ("Hey Hangar, I have proof that the SunTimes was first with their paper, so again, your full of stuff man") Whichever paper came first doesnt really matter, what matters is that both papers are in close tandem fighting for readership in the city.

 

Your repeated "question" about the Media Ignored isnt really a question, ive always felt the Media has ignored the SOX in relation to that other team. "Well hangar, there was a story about the Sox today, so they arent really ignored are they? hahahah, your so full of it man hahahahaah" But in order to save some bandwith, I will use a different term. Thanks much.

[Guest JimH]

In reply to Jim H:

 

I do agree that it generally describes how any newspaper determines coverage of anything. It's pretty simple, but I don't think it answers the question. Saying that there is a direct correlation between the cubs popularity and tribune ownership implies to me, perhaps wrongly is that there are forces at work within the tribune to advance the cubs popularity. That's the motive, right?

 

JimH wrote:

They try to find out what their customers like/want. They realize a lot of their subscribers like to read about the Cubs.

Big newspaper + very popular newspaper + editorial philosophy of writing about what lots of people want to read about = lots of Cub stories.

I think the whole discussion revolves around the belief that they favor the cubs because they own them, not because they want to sell more papers. Is is a chicken and egg arguement? Maybe it just worked out wonderfully for them that way. I guess I'm a little more skeptical.

 

Personally I think it's worked out very well for them (the Tribune), up until recently. They have financial problems, a huge pending tax judgement. But that whole issue is really unrelated to their coverage of the Cubs. I believe they've capitalized on every fortuitous marketing related angle over the past 25 years. If not every one, almost every one.

 

Let's face it, from a marketing perspective, things have gone very well for the Cubs the last 1/4 century. I believe the Tribune has capitalized on all of those developments, promoted them, and readers draw their own conclusions.

 

Let me provide an example.

 

Hangar looks at the sports section, counts stories, and says that tells the story. Take a look at the Tempo section, the At Play section, the real estate section. It will reveal their demographic base, it will reflect what the Trib readers want to know about. You generally won't read about Army and Lou's soul food restaurant on 75th Street, but you will read about a new restaurant on north Wabash, north Dearborn, and Lincoln Park.

I believe that is changing though. I see more features in the real estate section about Bronzeville, I see reviews of new restaurants in Hyde Park, I saw a brief write up of the new Italian joint in Bridgeport, Trattoria 31 (or whatever it's called). Why is this? Because the demographic is changing, more affluence is coming to other areas. They are a business, they want to appeal to affluence. They want to appeal to people who will spend money with their advertisers.

 

I believe it's correct to say this is a chicken/egg discussion, because both things happened simultaneously ... that being Tribune ownership, Tribune circulation base expanding, Chicago affluence rising, Chicago neighborhood resurgence thru the 80's and 90's, fortuitous marketing decisions by the Cubs, some bad marketing decisions by the Sox.

 

Now, has the Tribune downplayed all of these fortunate developments? Of course not. Why would they? It's good business. Similarly, why would they run the risk of pissing off potential advertisers by trashing certain south side neighborhoods? Why would they purposely turn their back on potential advertising income? I can tell you with great certainty that the Tribune advertising sales staff is one of the most aggressive I've ever seen. I ran a small business and considered advertising in the Trib and they were like hungry wolves coming after me for 6 months. And I was a little guy running a resume business.

 

By the way, can someone tell me who owns Metromix? Is that part of the Tribune conglomerate? I'm talking about metromix.com - they have great writeups of all kinds of places around Bridgeport and the south side.

 

Another paper to look at, and people may laugh at this, is The Reader. Yes it free and yes that makes a difference. I pick it up whenever I go to hangar's neighborhood (Pilsen ... Skylark at 22nd/Halsted). They are continually running articles on all the out-of-the-way south side joints. And I'm not talking just about the usual suspects ... I'm talking about Caribbean restaurants in Englewood, BBQ joints on the east side, soul food places at 63rd and Halsted, etc. I mention this because I clearly see the tide turning, and the tide is turning because you see more affluence and disposable income in the heart of Sox country.

 

Anyways this is a long way around the point, which is, newspapers will appeal to their demographic with disposable income. There is a whole other argument regarding the Tribune which is politically based which I don't want to get into ... i.e. they are staunchly conservative and appeal to more of the suburban market. Not saying that's good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating reality. It's well known but there's no definitive proof.

 

But the bottom line is, I do not see and can't fathom the Chicago Tribune purposely and willfully turning its back on lucrative sources of advertising revenue and/or potential subscribers. And I will take it a step further and say this ... it is bad for their business to try and bury the White Sox. In my estimation they have enough smart business people at the Tribune to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will.

[Guest JimH]

Well, have you noticed those Red Newsboxes all around the city? both newspapers have the same version of a paper, even including the word RED in the papers name. ("Hey Hangar, I have proof that the SunTimes was first with their paper, so again, your full of stuff man") Whichever paper came first doesnt really matter, what matters is that both papers are in close tandem fighting for readership in the city.

 

Your repeated "question" about the Media Ignored isnt really a question, ive always felt the Media has ignored the SOX in relation to that other team. "Well hangar, there was a story about the Sox today, so they arent really ignored are they? hahahah, your so full of it man hahahahaah" But in order to save some bandwith, I will use a different term. Thanks much.

 

What do red boxes have to do with the Sun Times mimicing everything the Tribune does? Newspapers have had newspaper boxes since the beginning of time. I thought we were talking about content, not some peripheral method of getting the paper into reader's hands. You really need to get out of the city a little bit. There's a whole broader perspective in terms of circulation and readership if you consider the entire metro area. Now of course that doesn't fit your MO so I expect you to ignore it.

 

As for the media ignored question ... here was my question ... "hangar you admitted the phrase was improper and misleading, you agreed to eliminate it last week, why did you add it in again this week?". And now you say, "That isn't really a question".

 

It isn't?

 

Your media count, flawed as it is, clearly shows the White Sox are not "media ignored", not in relation to the Cubs, not in relation to anything. "Media ignored" means just that, ignored by the media. No coverage. Ignored. Left alone.

 

You saying "media ignored" is just another in a long line of examples of you sensationalizing your agenda. I had to ask the question at least seven times before I got an answer. This is now the 2nd time you've agreed to drop the phrase. I wonder if it will stick this time, or if we will need to go through this yet again. (rhetorical comment, not a question).

[Hangar18]

But the bottom line is, I do not see and can't fathom the Chicago Tribune purposely and willfully turning its back ..... it is bad for their business to try and bury the White Sox.

 

In my estimation they have enough smart business people at the Tribune to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will.

 

You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice.

 

You estimate there are smart business people at the Trib to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. Well they may have "realized" that, but it sure didnt translate into Trib policy the last couple of decades did it? I cant begin to tell you how many times columnists, writers, fans, tourists and others, have simply ASSUMED that since that other team gets 39,000 daily, while the South Side team gets 20,000 it must mean that there are more cub "fans" than Sox fans and license to give that team more coverage than the SOX, Won-Loss records be damned. Were finding out just how WRONG it was to assume that theory as law this very season. Both teams have a chance to hit 3 million ....EACH! "Yeah Hangar, thats only because those are cub fans that want to see the SOX too now, so you again are full of stuff man, these media watches dont prove anything! ahahahahaha")

 

This town could ALWAYS support two teams ..........

[Guest JimH]

The Tribune has a whole bunch of its circulation numbers in suburban areas where conservative politics plays better. And that's a big part of their audience. Not sure why that's tough to understand.

 

I do not wish to turn this into a political discussion which is why I was hesitant to bring it up. I was merely trying to address a larger point to exemplify the Tribune reaching out to its audience.

[kapkomet]

You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice.

 

They won't 'ignore' the Sox right now. Why? Because the Sox will make the Tribune $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, as silly as that sounds. That's the hole in your theory, IMO.

[Guest JimH]

You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice.

 

You estimate there are smart business people at the Trib to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. Well they may have "realized" that, but it sure didnt translate into Trib policy the last couple of decades did it? I cant begin to tell you how many times columnists, writers, fans, tourists and others, have simply ASSUMED that since that other team gets 39,000 daily, while the South Side team gets 20,000 it must mean that there are more cub "fans" than Sox fans and license to give that team more coverage than the SOX, Won-Loss records be damned. Were finding out just how WRONG it was to assume that theory as law this very season. Both teams have a chance to hit 3 million ....EACH! "Yeah Hangar, thats only because those are cub fans that want to see the SOX too now, so you again are full of stuff man, these media watches dont prove anything! ahahahahaha")

 

This town could ALWAYS support two teams ..........

 

Again, prove it.

 

Counting stories doesn't do it.

 

You've claimed you've proven something, you haven't.

Please tell me EXACTLY how the Tribune has buried the White Sox.

 

Trib policy the last couple of decades? Please explain what that is. Are you privy to it? And not your usual dust in the wind theories Hangar. Tell us about the Tribune policy, in detail, without your editorial spin on it.

 

Your last sentence borders on idiotic. Cub fans that want to see the White Sox too now? Who said that? Certainly not me. You are dreaming stuff up. Stick to the point without the blowhard stuff. Stop with the blind rage editorializing and show definitive proof of a bias. Saying "the Tribune has a motive" doesn't cut it.

[Hangar18]

You cant see them trying to bury the White Sox? Why not. The SOX are the direct competitor of their sister (weak sister at that) franchise, the Cubs. They have motive. And theyve done exactly that. You didnt notice. Others, myself included, did notice.

 

You estimate there are smart business people at the Trib to realize the metro area has always supported two teams and always will. Well they may have "realized" that, but it sure didnt translate into Trib policy the last couple of decades did it? I cant begin to tell you how many times columnists, writers, fans, tourists and others, have simply ASSUMED that since that other team gets 39,000 daily, while the South Side team gets 20,000 it must mean that there are more cub "fans" than Sox fans and license to give that team more coverage than the SOX, Won-Loss records be damned.

 

How many articles have we read about how "theres more cub fans"? How many times was this mentioned on tv? Seems if you keep repeating it, people believe it as gospel, never questioning how did become to be in the first place, if its so?

 

Were finding out just how WRONG it was to assume that theory as law this very season. Both teams have a chance to hit 3 million ....EACH! "Yeah Hangar, thats only because those are cub fans that want to see the SOX too now, so you again are full of stuff man, these media watches dont prove anything! ahahahahaha")

 

This town could ALWAYS support two teams ..........

[southsider2k5]

They won't 'ignore' the Sox right now. Why? Because the Sox will make the Tribune $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, as silly as that sounds. That's the hole in your theory, IMO.

 

Ding. Winner. If this were TRUELY an effort to bury the White Sox, the effort by the TribCo would be INCREASING now, as the Cubs have fallen into the toilet, while the Sox are world champs. This is a crucial junction at which we could be witnessing the transformation of Chicago from a Cubs town to a Sox town, and yet the Tribune is theoretically helping out the Sox by publishing more of their stories in relation to recent history than they ever have done before? No way. There would be more of an effort to slander the Sox, as the Cubs marketshare is being challenged for the first time since the early 90's. Now why would the Tribune all of the sudden be MORE interested in the Sox, at the expense of their own team? Profit motivation. They see more dollars on the table, and they want them.

[Hangar18]

Again, prove it.

 

Counting stories doesn't do it.

 

You've claimed you've proven something, you haven't.

Please tell me EXACTLY how the Tribune has buried the White Sox.

 

My counting the number of stories over the past few years has proven nothing?

If you think my system proves nothing, then my thread is probably of no interest to you .......

What do you propose Jim, I sneak into the ivory tower and wear a wire?

[RibbieRubarb]

Ding. Winner. If this were TRUELY an effort to bury the White Sox, the effort by the TribCo would be INCREASING now, as the Cubs have fallen into the toilet, while the Sox are world champs. This is a crucial junction at which we could be witnessing the transformation of Chicago from a Cubs town to a Sox town, and yet the Tribune is theoretically helping out the Sox by publishing more of their stories in relation to recent history than they ever have done before? No way. There would be more of an effort to slander the Sox, as the Cubs marketshare is being challenged for the first time since the early 90's. Now why would the Tribune all of the sudden be MORE interested in the Sox, at the expense of their own team? Profit motivation. They see more dollars on the table, and they want them.

 

Stop trying to bring facts into the equation...

 

My counting the number of stories over the past few years has proven nothing?

If you think my system proves nothing, then my thread is probably of no interest to you .......

What do you propose Jim, I sneak into the ivory tower and wear a wire?

 

Use the same parameters that newspaper men use...

Size of columns, picture count and content.

[Guest JimH]

They won't 'ignore' the Sox right now. Why? Because the Sox will make the Tribune $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, as silly as that sounds. That's the hole in your theory, IMO.

 

Kap,

 

I offer there's a much bigger hole in the theory.

 

Hangar saying "ignored" is about as wrong as wrong can be, and it's completely symptomatic of Hangar using sensationalism and over-the-top rhetoric, served up on a plate saying "here's your proof".

 

I learned to read in the mid 1960's and have been reading the Tribune since then. Also read the Chicago American, Chicago Today, Daily News, Sun Times. We used to get all four papers every day from the newsstand at 31st and Halsted. To this day I subscribe daily to the Tribune, Sun Times, and Daily Herald. I say this only to emphasize I've watched and read Chicago newspapers on a consistent basis for a very long time.

 

My particular point in this post is that the Tribune has never "ignored" the White Sox. Ever. I recall back in 1983 and early 1984 (but can't prove it) when White Sox coverage was in depth and heavy in the Tribune. Just my recollection.

 

If Hangar is going to do this, he should do it fairly and more even handedly. That should include:

 

- not saying media, it's misleading. It should be Trib/Times story count. Media is a broad brush term and it

implies a broader reach.

 

- stop with the sensationalistic adjectives. If this is a report, a count, then it should be just that. Stop leading the witness. Report the numbers and let people draw their own conclusions.

 

- stop selectively reporting. He misses weekends, he ignores November thru February (or is it October thru Feb.?), and routinely counts things incorrectly while applying his own extremely loose standards to push his agenda.

 

- answer legitimate questions which are asked. That is the nature of this site.

 

Use the same parameters that newspaper men use...

Size of columns, picture count and content.

 

Exactly and this is what I've been saying all along.

 

Do it in a fair balanced method, free of your personal bias.

 

You haven't and I suspect you won't because it doesn't fit your agenda. That's why holes are continually being blown in your theory.

 

My counting the number of stories over the past few years has proven nothing?

If you think my system proves nothing, then my thread is probably of no interest to you .......

What do you propose Jim, I sneak into the ivory tower and wear a wire?

 

Exactly, story counts prove nothing. The tone and slant of articles mean a lot in terms of public relations and drawing people to (or against) a team.

 

If you don't believe it, ask Bill Wirtz.

[Hangar18]

Ding. Winner. If this were TRUELY an effort to bury the White Sox, the effort by the TribCo would be INCREASING now, as the Cubs have fallen into the toilet, while the Sox are world champs. This is a crucial junction at which we could be witnessing the transformation of Chicago from a Cubs town to a Sox town, and yet the Tribune is theoretically helping out the Sox by publishing more of their stories in relation to recent history than they ever have done before? No way. There would be more of an effort to slander the Sox, as the Cubs marketshare is being challenged for the first time since the early 90's. Now why would the Tribune all of the sudden be MORE interested in the Sox, at the expense of their own team? Profit motivation. They see more dollars on the table, and they want them.

 

 

 

This is correct, The SOX of course need to keep Winning.

 

Continueing to Win has put them at a very important Fork-In-The-Road regarding the Chicago Media I truly believe ("how can you believe that? based on what hangar? dude your a lunatic") The fact that the SOX will get close to 3 Million People this year, a franchise record, broke the number of sellouts in franchise history, have gotten to 1Million in attendance fastest in franchise history, sold out all of their season tickets for the first time in franchise history, and have stellar TV Ratings right now, has made the SOX very very hard to Ignore. Dont get me wrong, since spring training began, the Media ran wild with "its cubs' turn now" and gave them a disproportionate amount of coverage ("can you prove this hangar? why would they do that? thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard? you sir are a lunatic, making sox fans look bad, arent you ever happy?") considering the SOX just won the World Series and shouldve dominated the media coverage. All were seeing right now is a very very BAD Cub team being able to stay ahead in newspaper coverage to SOX team with the 2nd best record in baseball, and fighting for 1st place.

 

Which way the media goes now is very interesting, SOX fans are showing they too have financial muscle (always had it) and will have to play out over the coming months. Whoever thought we'd get to this position, where the Media (Where the Tribune goes, everyone else will follow) has to make an ideological decision like this. I tend to think money will win out in the end, and even the Tribune cant be that dumb to continue to alienate such a big fanbase like this. A Winning Fanbase. We will certainly see.

 

But does that mean theres no need for the MediaWatches? Of course not.