Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/20/06

[Hangar18]

Apparently, the Cubs have flexed their mighty financial muscle, throwing $7 million bucks at a player they drafted .... in the 5th round. Paul Sullivan reports that pseudo-commissioner Bud Selig was angered over the events (and likely to get Sullivan another verbal beat-down by Hendry & McPhail). The SunTimes & Mike "Yellow" Kiley make no reference to the commissioners anger.

 

Today was interesting in that the SOX were off and played no game, while the other team did. Usually means the team that plays ends up by default getting more stories. That hasnt usually played out this way in the recent past however. Some of the ground the SOX gained recently has all been lost again.

 

Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, and having the 2nd best record thru the 1990's, the SOX find themselves lagging far behind in media newspaper coverage to a team that, since 1990 has ZERO 90-win seasons (98 doesnt count), and since 1950 has only THREE 90-win season

 

 

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

2 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:

4 cub stories

3 sox stories

Standings as of Tuesday June 20th, 2006

Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Historically Favored, 5th place currently Cubs 607

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Historically Ignored, WS Champs in 05 SOX 511

[kapkomet]

DUDE! It was an OFF DAY! Sample Size is a definite issue here.

[southsider2k5]

Chicago Tribune:

5 cub stories

2 sox stories

 

Please explain which stories you used to get your totals, because I am not getting the same totals again.

[Hangar18]

Please explain which stories you used to get your totals, because I am not getting the same totals again.

 

 

1 Cub backup bat 16hit explosion

1 Cub catcher starts suspension

1 Cubs draft pick deal upsets commish

1 Piven: no disrespect intended at Wrigley

+1 Cub losses hurting manager chances to return

________

 

= 5 cub stories

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Seems as if you're focused on the sports sections because I think you missed the full-page story about that cubs newspaper-parody thing and 2 of the 3 father's day pictures being from wrigley field in yesterday's sun-times...

[RibbieRubarb]

Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, and having the 2nd best record thru the 1990's, the SOX find themselves lagging far behind in media newspaper coverage to a team that, since 1990 has ZERO 90-win seasons (98 doesnt count), and since 1950 has only THREE 90-win season

 

Um...why doesn't it count? Because you say so?

They had 90 wins that season. One game playoff or not...it's official.

[Guest JimH]

Tribune 5-2 and Sun Times 4-3 by Hangar's count.

 

Tribune

 

"Rolen Into Town" (Sox - a preview of the Cards series)

 

"Baker: Fate not fait accompli" (Cubs, article on Baker possibly getting non extended)

 

"Keen on Cards Game" (Looks like Sox based to me, talks about the series and has Sox quotes)

 

"Slump, What Slump? Anderson's on the rise" (Sox)

 

"Barrett Starts Suspension" (Cubs)

 

"Blanco's bat leads 16 hit explosion" (Cubs)

 

"Samardzija deal raises Selig's ire" (Cubs)

 

"Piven: No disrespect intended" (I would call this Cubs, it's a negatively slanted article about the ongoing

debacle the 7th inning guest singer bit has become)

 

So I get 5 Cubs, 3 White Sox.

 

Hangar once again your accouting methods come into question.

 

Sun Times

 

"It's Time to Dump Dusty, bump up Brenly" (Cubs, a Mariotti stir-the-pot job)

 

"Guillen, Garner share unfriendly rivalry" (Sox)

 

"First Skipper influenced Ozzie" (Sox)

 

"LaRussa, Ozzie are polar opposites" (Sox)

 

"Dusty knows reel deal" (Cubs)

 

"Barretts' 10 game penalty expires in time to face Sox" (Cubs)

 

"Blanco picks great time to get hot" (Cubs)

 

I come up with 4-3 as well, but I'm not counting the huge back page of sports section picture which points people to a White Sox story re: the series with the Cardinals. Again, it is space devoted to the White Sox but it's not an article per se. Certainly worth mentioning if a full and true picture is desired, vs. simply couting stories and reaching a conclusion.

 

Hangar, can you please explain the ongoing disrepancy of how you count and how SS2K5 counts and how I count? Re: the Tribune.

 

Re: the Sun Times, your count is correct in my estimation although you ignore a huge lead in and picture relating to the White Sox - Cardinal series which therefore skews your data in terms of actual impact on the reader, and space devoted to the White Sox by one of Chicago's major daily papers.

 

Also Hangar ...

 

Your count should have an asterisk because as you know you missed this past weekend.

 

Not sure if you've missed other weekends or days but if you paint a picture with numbers on this site, I think it's only fair that your numbers are a true representation of your selected time period.

 

Of course, ignoring the entire offseason is also worthy of an asterisk IMO but that's not relevant to this thread since in fairness you did state this count started the beginning of spring traning.

 

Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Historically Ignored, WS Champs in 05 SOX 511

 

Please define "Media Historically Ignored". Also I think it's very fair to ask you to provide some proof for that statement, and no I'm not talking about your wishy washy accounting methods or you saying in 1982 you didn't see a lot of people wearing Cubs hats around the city. Something specific please, something that definitely proves your statement that the White Sox have been historically ignored by the media.

 

IMO, that is as much of a gross misstatement as saying media ignored. Perhaps worse, because to me you are implying it's been an age old problem.

[Hangar18]

Seems as if you're focused on the sports sections because I think you missed the full-page story about that cubs newspaper-parody thing and 2 of the 3 father's day pictures being from wrigley field in yesterday's sun-times...

 

 

If I missed that, you definitely should mention gratuitious pictures like this

[Guest JimH]

If I missed that, you definitely should mention gratuitious pictures like this

 

Yes, like the big picture on the back page of today's Sun Times trumpeting the Sox-Cards series. You know, the one you ignored in your count/commentary?

 

Or are we dealing with selective representation and fact reporting here?

[zach61]

If I missed that, you definitely should mention gratuitious pictures like this

 

But you shouldn't be missing that much. It's been proven over and over that you are not counting accurately, so you need to start over fresh and tell us what you are counting and why it is biased against the Sox to make them look bad. You keep claiming that the media is out to make the Sox look bad, but then you only count stories from 2 papers. This media watch tells us nothing except that you attempt to count stories from only 2 papers and do it wrong. How have you proven that the times and trib are out to make the Sox look bad? Please shows us those stories instead of just some bogus count of what you feel like counting.

[Hangar18]

Hangar, can you please explain the ongoing disrepancy of how you count and how SS2K5 counts and how I count? Re: the Tribune.

 

 

Also I think it's very fair to ask you to provide some proof for that statement, and no I'm not talking about your wishy washy accounting methods or you saying in 1982 you didn't see a lot of people wearing Cubs hats around the city.

 

So my 1982 attendance records for the SOX and Cubs are wishy-washy?

 

as of 8am this morning, those were the stories that were entered in Tribune online. Same with SunTimes.

Looks like the Trib has just added a "SOX" story. Your Zeal and Zestful manner in which you try to uncover sinister plots on my end to "cook" up the numbers are nothing more than the Trib now adding a story. I also note that the Trib has changed the Title of the Dusty contract article. Or are we going to call me out on that too Jim?

[Guest JimH]

This media watch tells us nothing except that you attempt to count stories from only 2 papers and do it wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

So my 1982 attendance records for the SOX and Cubs are wishy-washy?

 

as of 8am this morning, those were the stories that were entered in Tribune online. Same with SunTimes.

Looks like the Trib has just added a "SOX" story. Your Zeal and Zestful manner in which you try to uncover sinister plots on my end to "cook" up the numbers are nothing more than the Trib now adding a story. I also note that the Trib has changed the Title of the Dusty contract article. Or are we going to call me out on that too Jim?

 

Exactly what do 1982 attendance records have to do with today? What do 1982 attendance records have to do with a media bias? Aren't you the one who finally admitted yesterday that there were a number of factors which led to Cub popularity, outside of media? I believe SS2K5 explained that to you yesterday, please tell me we don't have to rehash the same points made from yesterday.

 

If you are going to do this, do it right. If that means waiting a bit until you get the actual correct data, then you need to do that. Otherwise your Trib/Sun Times story count will be challenged every day Hangar. It's bad enough you use questionable accounting methods but now you are defending your count based on the time of day you did it?

 

I sense you are getting a little upset Hangar, your characterization of me trying to uncover "sinister plots" is a little over the top wouldn't you say? Here is an idea, why don't you begin to realize that as long as you count wrong, people will challenge you? Here is another idea, why don't you begin to realize that as long as you liberally insert your jaundiced opinion into something that by your definition is supposed to be simply a count, people will challenge you on it.

 

Also, please answer the question about "Historically media maligned" and explain how that's better than "Media ignored" ... with proof please. Again, using story counts doesn't cut it because your story counts have been proven as questionable, at best. In addition there are certain weekends you skip, so who knows what the numbers really are. All we know is they're in question, and when there's reasonable doubt, proof goes out the window.

 

Lastly in fairness I think you should answer zach61's post because I feel he raises a very fair point.

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimH

[Brian]

[Hangar18]

Exactly what do 1982 attendance records have to do with today? What do 1982 attendance records have to do with a media bias?

 

 

You mention frequently that there have always been "more cub fans" than SOX fans, and that factor is the business model for which the Trib has decided to slant their coverage towards the Cubs. I told that isnt the case, its the Tribs trumpeting how great the Cubs are and the park, and how cold the beer is in Wrigley, that has caused them to fill the park. I showed you the attendance for 1981, and 1982, which isnt that long ago ......... to prove that park wasnt filled to capacity with sheep as it is today.

[Guest JimH]

You mention frequently that there have always been "more cub fans" than SOX fans, and that factor is the business model for which the Trib has decided to slant their coverage towards the Cubs. I told that isnt the case, its the Tribs trumpeting how great the Cubs are and the park, and how cold the beer is in Wrigley, that has caused them to fill the park. I showed you the attendance for 1981, and 1982, which isnt that long ago ......... to prove that park wasnt filled to capacity with sheep as it is today.

 

No, you are inaccurate. I did not say "there have always been more Cub fans than Sox fans".

 

I think you should look up what I said. I believe I said, or at the very least implied, there are currently more Cub fans than Sox fans.

 

If I didn't state it specifically in that fashion I apologize. I lived through a time when I felt there were more Sox fans than Cub fans (mid 1960's) so now you know my belief.

 

The question still stands though, I believe I've listed it in my Hangar's Questions thread, but for your convenience, let me repeat it ... what does 1982 attendance have to do with a media bias today? And the related question was, didn't you admit yesterday that yes, there were in fact other factors which caused the Cubs to become significantly more popular, unrelated to the media? Are you flip flopping on that admission today?

[chitownsportsfan]

I really can't stand complaints about the mainstream media. If it bothers you, ignore it. The fact that there are more Cubs stories on average than White Sox ones isn't some grand conspiracy to keep the White Sox down, but is entirely due to the fact that the Cubs are more popular and thus more likely to sell newspapers.

 

The Tribune Company's job is to sell newspapers. The sports page isn't hard news, they don't even need the pretense of objectity.

 

It's threads like these that foster the stereotype of Sox fans as insecure whiners more obsessed about the Cubs than the Sox.

Edited June 20, 2006 by chitownsportsfan

[Muscatel]

There is a logical explanation about Hangar's inability to count stories correctly -- he's from Chicago. This is a long-standing tradition that is usually celebrated on election days.

[Hangar18]

I really can't stand complaints about the mainstream media. If it bothers you, ignore it. The fact that there are more Cubs stories on average than White Sox ones isn't some grand conspiracy to keep the White Sox down, but is entirely due to the fact that the Cubs are more popular and thus more likely to sell newspapers.

 

The Tribune Company's job is to sell newspapers. The sports page isn't hard news, they don't even need the pretense of objectity.

 

It's threads like these that foster the stereotype of Sox fans as insecure whiners more obsessed about the Cubs than the Sox.

 

 

Mr. Knue? Is that you? West?

[chitownsportsfan]

I don't understand the question and I won't respond to it.

 

Do you care to argue any of my points?

[Hangar18]

I don't understand the question and I won't respond to it.

 

Do you care to argue any of my points?

 

 

 

Ignoring the Media doesnt work. See Reinsdorf, Jerry; Gallas,Rob for more information

[zach61]

Ignoring the Media doesnt work. See Reinsdorf, Jerry; Gallas,Rob for more information

 

Seems to work for you though. You ignore everything except what you want to ignore and then call it proof. When are you going to show us these phantom stories in this great big Chicago newsmedia(all of 2 papers) that will prove that they are writing stories to make the Sox look bad and the cubs look good. All you do is count the stories you want to count. Show us how the story makes the Sox look bad, what paper it was in, and how many of these negative stories there are. You keep putting a worthless total of stories up here and expect us to believe that they are all negative Sox stories.

[Muscatel]

I found Hangar’s count to be inaccurate on other occasions when he was doing his media watch on WSI. But I also question some of his other claims about bias and how the “Cubune” frequently buries negative stories about the Cubs.

That came up yesterday, when either Hangar or one of his supporters mentioned the murder of the fan outside Wrigley Field as evidence, noting that the paper uses “Lakeview” instead of “Wrigleyville” to protect the franchise.

So, on company time, I went to the library today to check it out.

The shooting took place on Thursday, May 6, 2004. In Friday’s paper, a story appeared on the front page of the Tribune Metro section, not on page 5 as someone said yesterday. The headline said “Pedestrian fatally shot near Wrigley.”

On Saturday, May 8, the Tribune had a front-page story – front page of the newspaper, not the Metro section -- with two photos and a graphic showing where it happened and the headline was “Suspect charged in killing near Wrigley.” In scanning the story, “Wrigleyville” was mentioned at least four times and I didn’t see “Lakeview” once. Note: I only scanned the story quickly, so I’m not claiming this is fact.

On Sunday, May 9, a story on the front of the Metro section said “Volatile mix at Wrigley a worry,” and the story talked about all the drinkers in the neighborhood after games and the problems they can create. Now, I saw “Lakeview” used twice in that story, but one of them was a direct quote from someone from Citizens United for Baseball in Sunshine, a group opposed to night games at Wrigley. That means some people in the neighborhood call it “Lakeview” too.

Rick Morrissey also had a column on the front of the Sunday Sports section under the head “Wrigleyville a neighborhood, not a theme park”

That’s four stories in three days, all prominently displayed. I don’t see that as an attempt by the Tribune to bury a negative story about the Cubs. I was looking at Chicago city editions, so story placement may have been different in suburban editions – where people expect to see news about their suburbs.

Were the stories biased in the way they were written, worded to protect the company’s image? That’s something individual readers have to decide (sorry, I can’t reproduce the stories here).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and when the beholder is as hell-bent as Hangar is to prove his point, then only a fool would take what he says as gospel. It’s his perception, and that perception may be warped by things that none of us know anything about.

I don't have time to check all of Hangar's alleged "facts," so I guess the best thing is to treat them for what they are -- rants.

[Dick Allen]

I really can't stand complaints about the mainstream media. If it bothers you, ignore it. The fact that there are more Cubs stories on average than White Sox ones isn't some grand conspiracy to keep the White Sox down, but is entirely due to the fact that the Cubs are more popular and thus more likely to sell newspapers.

 

The Tribune Company's job is to sell newspapers. The sports page isn't hard news, they don't even need the pretense of objectity.

The Tribune Company's job is not to sell newspapers, its to make profits. Coming up with a couple thousand more subscriptions from a non-affluent part of the city on the southside is not going to change their advertising rates, and certainly will not make a dent in their bottom line. The Tribune caters to the affluent, which probably don't make up the majority of their readers, but are the force that their advertisers want to advertise to. Its one of the reasons the notion that the rich and beautiful go to Wrigley and the poor and uneducated go to USCF has been around. It may shock you to learn, after we have had this beat into our heads for years that a study was done last year, and the average White Sox fan actually was slightly higher educated and earned slightly more money than the average Cub fan. With the Cubs being under the Tribune Co.'s umbrella, there is no way they would ever make the White Sox the media darlings of Chicago. Have you seen the baseball commercial on WGN? The World Champion White Sox, and the world renowned Cubs? Ridiculous. They haven't been as over-the-top unfair recently, but if for some reason the Cubs won the WS last year, and the Sox had the Cubs record this year, the White Sox would be as insignificant in the Tribune as the Blackhawks. The WS parade shocked a lot of people last year. There are far more people that care about the White Sox than even the White Sox knew.

[chitownsportsfan]

Wonderful post Muscatel, welcome aboard!

[Hangar18]

The Tribune Company's job is not to sell newspapers, its to make profits. Coming up with a couple thousand more subscriptions from a non-affluent part of the city on the southside is not going to change their advertising rates, and certainly will not make a dent in their bottom line. The Tribune caters to the affluent, which probably don't make up the majority of their readers, but are the force that their advertisers want to advertise to. Its one of the reasons the notion that the rich and beautiful go to Wrigley and the poor and uneducated go to USCF has been around. It may shock you to learn, after we have had this beat into our heads for years that a study was done last year, and the average White Sox fan actually was slightly higher educated and earned slightly more money than the average Cub fan. With the Cubs being under the Tribune Co.'s umbrella, there is no way they would ever make the White Sox the media darlings of Chicago. Have you seen the baseball commercial on WGN? The World Champion White Sox, and the world renowned Cubs? Ridiculous. They haven't been as over-the-top unfair recently, but if for some reason the Cubs won the WS last year, and the Sox had the Cubs record this year, the White Sox would be as insignificant in the Tribune as the Blackhawks. The WS parade shocked a lot of people last year. There are far more people that care about the White Sox than even the White Sox knew.

 

Logic usually wins, good post DA