Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/20/06

[Dick Allen]

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.

I live in the city and it was on page 5 of the metro section the second half of a story from page 1 of the metro section, and there was no headline mentioning the murder at all. The story was buried and that burial was a big topic of conversation on sports radio.

[chitownsportsfan]

The Tribune Company's job is not to sell newspapers, its to make profits.

 

That doesn't make any sense to me. Those terms, "profits", and "newspapers sold" enjoy a correlation, whereas you make it seem like they are mutually exclusive.

 

And then, when you say, "A few more subscriptions on the SS won't change the bottom line", you're providing evidence for my argument: the Tribune caters to the more affluent Northside, the CUBS fans, in order to sell newspapers and raise advertising rates.

 

You're correct when you say that wealthy demographics bring wealthy advertisers, which is exactly why the CUBS are featured more prominently.

 

As for the study, I'd have to personally review it before I draw any conclusions. Data can be manipulated, and "average" can be easily thrown out of wack by outliers.

[CWSGuy406]

Mr. Knue? Is that you? West?

 

Posts like these add JACK s*** to this site. You want to do your dumbass media watches, fine, I'm not going to stop you, but to act like a jackass to a poster that has proven to provide 10xxxx more knowledge than you is really uncalled for. You keep doing it, I'll lock the threads, simple as that.

 

And don't give me a schpeil about how you're getting censored or how this place is becoming WSI. I don't need to hear it.

Edited June 20, 2006 by CWSGuy406

[Steff]

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

 

Do you care to argue any of my points?

 

 

A shot at WSI. Something he has been told at my last count 3 times to stop doing.

 

 

It's like talking to a

[Guest JimH]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Those terms, "profits", and "newspapers sold" enjoy a correlation, whereas you make it seem like they are mutually exclusive.

 

And then, when you say, "A few more subscriptions on the SS won't change the bottom line", you're providing evidence for my argument: the Tribune caters to the more affluent Northside, the CUBS fans, in order to sell newspapers and raise advertising rates.

 

You're correct when you say that wealthy demographics bring wealthy advertisers, which is exactly why the CUBS are featured more prominently.

 

As for the study, I'd have to personally review it before I draw any conclusions. Data can be manipulated, and "average" can be easily thrown out of wack by outliers.

 

Intelligent logic usually wins, good post chitownsportsfan.

 

Hey Hangar, how about answering the 18 questions in the other thread?

[Dick Allen]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Those terms, "profits", and "newspapers sold" enjoy a correlation, whereas you make it seem like they are mutually exclusive.

 

And then, when you say, "A few more subscriptions on the SS won't change the bottom line", you're providing evidence for my argument: the Tribune caters to the more affluent Northside, the CUBS fans, in order to sell newspapers and raise advertising rates.

 

You're correct when you say that wealthy demographics bring wealthy advertisers, which is exactly why the CUBS are featured more prominently.

 

As for the study, I'd have to personally review it before I draw any conclusions. Data can be manipulated, and "average" can be easily thrown out of wack by outliers.

I believe you can get the Tribune for approx. $2-3 a week with a subscription. Even if their circulation was 5 million which I doubt, $10 million is not exactly that much money to the Tribune Co. It is more important for them who its circulated to, than how many its circulated to. The circulation number is important to a point,obviously. But its much better for them to circulate 20,000 in Winnetka than 40,000 in Englewood.

[Guest JimH]

Posts like these add JACK s*** to this site. You want to do your dumbass media watches, fine, I'm not going to stop you, but to act like a jackass to a poster that has proven to provide 10xxxx more knowledge than you is really uncalled for. You keep doing it, I'll lock the threads, simple as that.

 

And don't give me a schpeil about how you're getting censored or how this place is becoming WSI. I don't need to hear it.

 

That large cheering section you hear is chanting KEITH

 

I'm not sure how many times we have to see "Mr. Knue is that you? West?", it is insider WSI crap and it should've died when Hangar went belly up at WSI.

 

Hey Hangar ... instead of bashing other websites, how about answering those questions posed in the Hangar Question Thread?

 

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.

 

 

Hey Muscatel, nice job.

 

You must work for the Sun Times, digging up this stuff. It's a damn conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy.

[Hangar18]

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 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.

 

if you found my counts to have been wrong frequently as you say, did you mention it over at the other site?

Methinks you didnt. I also notice how you only bring up the shooting in "lakeview". How convenient.

For those of you who were paying attention, the murder happened right after the game, with a fan who was at the game, walking across the street, from the stadium. Shooting happened early Thursday evening. CLTV and WGN, who initially covered the incident, noticably pointed their cameras AWAY from the lovely wrigly marquee. They showed the spot where it happened, and one couldnt help but still note the ballpark right in the background. both stations initially reported it as a "shooting at cubby bear". completely wrong. It was in the street in front of the park, not at the bar. Other stations who had cameras there did point northwards (not south) getting part of the ballpark in the shot. SunTimes did have the incident on its front page. Tribune? Apparently wasnt as "newsworthy" as the fans running on the Cell Field to be put on the front page. Tribune relegated the story to a quick blurb, in its metro section.

 

Again, if anyone was paying attention, there was a firestorm of backlash towards the trib over on that other site. Everyone noticed the blatant way it was portrayed and it dominated sports talk radio the rest of the weekend. Online, the Trib used the word "lakeview" and "northside" in portraying the incident. Funny, because after the backlash within 48 hours, the word "wrigleyville" was sprinkled into the stories,

and the Trib finally made mention of this on its front page, DAYS after the incident. Someone from that newspaper came online and actually debated the thinking as to WHY they portrayed the incident as they did.

Muscatel isnt telling you the full story, as I dont expect him to. After all, everyone knows its not in the best interest of the Tribune to downplay bad news when it comes to the cubs right? Everyone knows that this never happened right? Hangar makes this stuff up as he goes along. Every poster of that other site knew he was full of it .................. His Media Watches werent from 2002 like he says. He just started it this past April and they told him to shove off, his information is fake and biased.

 

That large cheering section you hear is chanting KEITH

 

Hey Muscatel, nice job.

 

You must work for the Sun Times, digging up this stuff. It's a damn conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy.

 

 

Nice job Muscatel, you really uncovered the anti-conspiracy didnt you?! WELL DONE! There never was a conspiracy after all !!! Hip HooraY!

 

But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span?

[Pods22]

if you found my counts to have been wrong frequently as you say, did you mention it over at the other site?

Methinks you didnt. I also notice how you only bring up the shooting in "lakeview". How convenient.

For those of you who were paying attention, the murder happened right after the game, with a fan who was at the game, walking across the street, from the stadium. Shooting happened early Thursday evening. CLTV and WGN, who initially covered the incident, noticably pointed their cameras AWAY from the lovely wrigly marquee. They showed the spot where it happened, and one couldnt help but still note the ballpark right in the background. both stations initially reported it as a "shooting at cubby bear". completely wrong. It was in the street in front of the park, not at the bar. Other stations who had cameras there did point northwards (not south) getting part of the ballpark in the shot. SunTimes did have the incident on its front page. Tribune? Apparently wasnt as "newsworthy" as the fans running on the Cell Field to be put on the front page. Tribune relegated the story to a quick blurb, in its metro section.

 

Again, if anyone was paying attention, there was a firestorm of backlash towards the trib over on that other site. Everyone noticed the blatant way it was portrayed and it dominated sports talk radio the rest of the weekend. Online, the Trib used the word "lakeview" and "northside" in portraying the incident. Funny, because after the backlash within 48 hours, the word "wrigleyville" was sprinkled into the stories,

and the Trib finally made mention of this on its front page, DAYS after the incident. Someone from that newspaper came online and actually debated the thinking as to WHY they portrayed the incident as they did.

Muscatel isnt telling you the full story, as I dont expect him to. After all, everyone knows its not in the best interest of the Tribune to downplay bad news when it comes to the cubs right? Everyone knows that this never happened right? Hangar makes this stuff up as he goes along. Every poster of that other site knew he was full of it .................. His Media Watches werent from 2002 like he says. He just started it this past April and they told him to shove off, his information is fake and biased.

Nice job Muscatel, you really uncovered the anti-conspiracy didnt you?! WELL DONE! There never was a conspiracy after all !!! Hip HooraY!

 

But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span?

 

most of your stuff is bias....you want the sox to be underrated so you have something to b**** about. miserable individual

[zach61]

if you found my counts to have been wrong frequently as you say, did you mention it over at the other site?

Methinks you didnt. I also notice how you only bring up the shooting in "lakeview". How convenient.

For those of you who were paying attention, the murder happened right after the game, with a fan who was at the game, walking across the street, from the stadium. Shooting happened early Thursday evening. CLTV and WGN, who initially covered the incident, noticably pointed their cameras AWAY from the lovely wrigly marquee. They showed the spot where it happened, and one couldnt help but still note the ballpark right in the background. both stations initially reported it as a "shooting at cubby bear". completely wrong. It was in the street in front of the park, not at the bar. Other stations who had cameras there did point northwards (not south) getting part of the ballpark in the shot. SunTimes did have the incident on its front page. Tribune? Apparently wasnt as "newsworthy" as the fans running on the Cell Field to be put on the front page. Tribune relegated the story to a quick blurb, in its metro section.

 

Again, if anyone was paying attention, there was a firestorm of backlash towards the trib over on that other site. Everyone noticed the blatant way it was portrayed and it dominated sports talk radio the rest of the weekend. Online, the Trib used the word "lakeview" and "northside" in portraying the incident. Funny, because after the backlash within 48 hours, the word "wrigleyville" was sprinkled into the stories,

and the Trib finally made mention of this on its front page, DAYS after the incident. Someone from that newspaper came online and actually debated the thinking as to WHY they portrayed the incident as they did.

Muscatel isnt telling you the full story, as I dont expect him to. After all, everyone knows its not in the best interest of the Tribune to downplay bad news when it comes to the cubs right? Everyone knows that this never happened right? Hangar makes this stuff up as he goes along. Every poster of that other site knew he was full of it .................. His Media Watches werent from 2002 like he says. He just started it this past April and they told him to shove off, his information is fake and biased.

Nice job Muscatel, you really uncovered the anti-conspiracy didnt you?! WELL DONE! There never was a conspiracy after all !!! Hip HooraY!

 

But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span?

 

So what do the TV cameras have to do with your so called media watch that only includes the times and trib?Are you now going to count all Chicago media? Make up your mind. And starting now, show us the current stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad. You are avoiding what you claim to be proving.

 

Just editing to point out that I didn't read your media watch stuff on the "other" site, so please keep the other site stuff on the other site and don't drag your dirty laundry here. If you want to prove a point, please do. I enjoy reading that stuff, but all you are doing is counting stories from 2 papers from a major market city with a lot of other media and showing us nothing.

Edited June 20, 2006 by zach61

[Hangar18]

But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span?

 

 

And to continue that line of questioning, if in that same time span from 2002 til now, why hasnt anyone DISPROVEN my theory? I wouldve thought the Muscatels and Zachs of the world wouldve completely shot this down way back then with a study showing the complete opposite. Im totally surprised someone hasnt come up with an anti-conspiracy theory, where numbers show that the Tribune (and the copycat SunTimes) actually were Biased in Favor of the SOX, and wrote as many stories as they could about the SOX (positive and negative) to keep them in the public eye. How did I miss all of those Comiskey2 is best park ever stories?

I keep getting comments and questions from the Earth-is-Flat people around here, shooting down what ive kept track of, but never proving just the opposite.

 

I'll say this, its certainly sparked some debate around here huh?

[Guest JimH]

if you found my counts to have been wrong frequently as you say, did you mention it over at the other site?

Methinks you didnt. I also notice how you only bring up the shooting in "lakeview". How convenient.

For those of you who were paying attention, the murder happened right after the game, with a fan who was at the game, walking across the street, from the stadium. Shooting happened early Thursday evening. CLTV and WGN, who initially covered the incident, noticably pointed their cameras AWAY from the lovely wrigly marquee. They showed the spot where it happened, and one couldnt help but still note the ballpark right in the background. both stations initially reported it as a "shooting at cubby bear". completely wrong. It was in the street in front of the park, not at the bar. Other stations who had cameras there did point northwards (not south) getting part of the ballpark in the shot. SunTimes did have the incident on its front page. Tribune? Apparently wasnt as "newsworthy" as the fans running on the Cell Field to be put on the front page. Tribune relegated the story to a quick blurb, in its metro section.

 

Again, if anyone was paying attention, there was a firestorm of backlash towards the trib over on that other site. Everyone noticed the blatant way it was portrayed and it dominated sports talk radio the rest of the weekend. Online, the Trib used the word "lakeview" and "northside" in portraying the incident. Funny, because after the backlash within 48 hours, the word "wrigleyville" was sprinkled into the stories,

and the Trib finally made mention of this on its front page, DAYS after the incident. Someone from that newspaper came online and actually debated the thinking as to WHY they portrayed the incident as they did.

Muscatel isnt telling you the full story, as I dont expect him to. After all, everyone knows its not in the best interest of the Tribune to downplay bad news when it comes to the cubs right? Everyone knows that this never happened right? Hangar makes this stuff up as he goes along. Every poster of that other site knew he was full of it .................. His Media Watches werent from 2002 like he says. He just started it this past April and they told him to shove off, his information is fake and biased.

Nice job Muscatel, you really uncovered the anti-conspiracy didnt you?! WELL DONE! There never was a conspiracy after all !!! Hip HooraY!

 

But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span?

 

Sounds to me like he just looked it up Hangar.

 

Also sounds like what he just looked up portrays a different version than yours.

 

I don't quite understand the rest of your rant, but the guy just looked it up, presented what he found, and you respond with your recollections? And you paint your recollections as proof???

[zach61]

And to continue that line of questioning, if in that same time span from 2002 til now, why hasnt anyone DISPROVEN my theory? I wouldve thought the Muscatels and Zachs of the world wouldve completely shot this down way back then with a study showing the complete opposite. Im totally surprised someone hasnt come up with an anti-conspiracy theory, where numbers show that the Tribune (and the copycat SunTimes) actually were Biased in Favor of the SOX, and wrote as many stories as they could about the SOX (positive and negative) to keep them in the public eye. How did I miss all of those Comiskey2 is best park ever stories?

I keep getting comments and questions from the Earth-is-Flat people around here, shooting down what ive kept track of, but never proving just the opposite.

 

I'll say this, its certainly sparked some debate around here huh?

 

Because I'm not claiming to prove anything. If you proved something, show us why the story you are counting is biased against the Sox. I've been asking you to do that since you showed up here with this stupid watch. I didn't read your media witch hunt on the other site, so I don't care what numbers you posted there. Start posting the stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad and how many of them there are each day. Why is that so hard for you? Just putting a count up means nothing. Why are those stories proving your point?

[Muscatel]

Hangar, you really are obsessed with this. I can see that nothing is going to change your mind, even facts, so I'll leave you in your own little world.

[Hangar18]

I live in the city and it was on page 5 of the metro section the second half of a story from page 1 of the metro section, and there was no headline mentioning the murder at all. The story was buried and that burial was a big topic of conversation on sports radio.

 

 

How did some people not see that when it happened? I saw it, so did many others. Heck, I remember on saturday morning, am670 COMPLETELY LAMBASTED THE TRIBUNE for this blatant disregard for reporting news in favor of downplaying a negative incident involving the Cubs. Huge Story all Weekend.

Nobody saw a thing apparently?

[Guest JimH]

And to continue that line of questioning, if in that same time span from 2002 til now, why hasnt anyone DISPROVEN my theory? I wouldve thought the Muscatels and Zachs of the world wouldve completely shot this down way back then with a study showing the complete opposite. Im totally surprised someone hasnt come up with an anti-conspiracy theory, where numbers show that the Tribune (and the copycat SunTimes) actually were Biased in Favor of the SOX, and wrote as many stories as they could about the SOX (positive and negative) to keep them in the public eye. How did I miss all of those Comiskey2 is best park ever stories?

I keep getting comments and questions from the Earth-is-Flat people around here, shooting down what ive kept track of, but never proving just the opposite.

 

I'll say this, its certainly sparked some debate around here huh?

 

The burden of proof is on YOU, Hangar.

 

YOU are the one who says you've proven something. It is not up to me or muscatel or zach or anyone else on this site to disprove you, although I think a damn fine job has been done in that regard.

 

We keep asking you for proof, and all you respond with are recollections, bitter WSI references, 1982 attendance figures, inaccurate story counts, double standards, and dare I say it borderline paranoia.

 

Your data has come into question multiple times this month, you don't keep track on a consistent basis, you don't keep track for a large portion of the year Hangar. That opens the door for doubt. Whenever there is reasonable doubt, proof (as you call it) goes bye bye. That simple concept has made the world go around for a long time. Who thinks the world is flat again?

 

P.S. - When are you going to answer the legitimate questions in the other thread?

[Hangar18]

Hangar, you really are obsessed with this. I can see that nothing is going to change your mind, even facts, so I'll leave you in your own little world.

 

 

hey, some people keep asking me for "proof", I offer points to consider, and its ignored. Just like the "there were always more cub fans" statement. I show attendance from 1981 and 1982, and its ignored.

Someone says show me proof the media is biased. Someone brings up a murder in front of wrigley,

people say it doesnt prove anything.

[chitownsportsfan]

Jesus man, The Trib owns the Cubs--even if they did try and "skew" the coverage to "distance" the murder from the ballclub, it's like, "gee, who could have seen that one coming"? THEY OWN THE TEAM.

 

You think cablevision doesn't hire pro Knick homers? Does the MFY's network do anything but hype the Yankees? Does Turner broadcasting hire Reds homers to do the Braves broadcasts? It's standard procedure if a media outlet owns a sports franchise to report favorably on that franchise.

 

Why are you so outraged?

Edited June 20, 2006 by chitownsportsfan

[Guest JimH]

How did some people not see that when it happened? I saw it, so did many others. Heck, I remember on saturday morning, am670 COMPLETELY LAMBASTED THE TRIBUNE for this blatant disregard for reporting news in favor of downplaying a negative incident involving the Cubs. Huge Story all Weekend.

Nobody saw a thing apparently?

 

Hangar, instead of honing in on this one little incident which is also in debate in terms of your recollection, how about getting started on that list of questions in the other thread?

 

The guy (Muscatel) went to the library TODAY. He JUST REPORTED on what he found out at the library.

 

It doesn't fit your MO so you are kicking and screaming about it. In addition, you chastize the guy for not responding to you on some other website. That was then, this is now. You brought it up HERE, not WSI. He went and looked it up.

 

Also, what does TV have to do with your media watches? I thought you said the two papers, Tribune and Sun Times. Now you are pulling in TV because it suits your purposes.

 

Here is my recollection on that incident ... story on front page of Metro section, and when it was on Channel 9 I recall seeing the ballpark and numerous fans interviewed. In fact one of my neighbors was right there and was detained by the police as a witness, he saw it happen. He told me all of the TV stations were right there taking footage and interviewing people, Channel 9 included.

 

I don't think this guy Muscatel has any reason to fabricate what he just looked up.

[zach61]

hey, some people keep asking me for "proof", I offer points to consider, and its ignored. Just like the "there were always more cub fans" statement. I show attendance from 1981 and 1982, and its ignored.

Someone says show me proof the media is biased. Someone brings up a murder in front of wrigley,

people say it doesnt prove anything.

 

I don't want points to consider. I want you to show me the stories that you are claiming make the Sox look bad everyday instead of just some count that you throw out there. And if you are only going to count the times and trib, then it doesn't matter what TV coverage there was or wasn't for a story or what the score talked about. If thats the case, then you need to start looking at the stories in the southown, etc to prove your media bias against the Sox. So start showing us the stories on a daily basis that are making the Sox look bad and how many of them there are. Not just some random count that you put up here everyday that tells us nothing.

[Guest JimH]

hey, some people keep asking me for "proof", I offer points to consider, and its ignored. Just like the "there were always more cub fans" statement. I show attendance from 1981 and 1982, and its ignored.

Someone says show me proof the media is biased. Someone brings up a murder in front of wrigley,

people say it doesnt prove anything.

 

You missed yet another pertinent post, I assume because it doesn't fit your argument.

 

I told you specifically I never said there "were always more Cub fans". And I quickly clarified that if somehow my words were unclear, I know quite well that there weren't "always more Cub fans".

 

Why do you misrepresent things and ignore things Hangar?

 

I discussed, at length, the 1981 and 1982 attendance figures, don't lie and say they were ignored. SS2K5 addressed them as well. They are not pertinent to your argument that there's a bias today. You were asked several questions about 1981 and 1982, you ignore them, and then you have the utter audacity to say your points were being ignored. I suggest you read through the threads before you make these completely incorrect claims.

 

Answer the questions Hangar.

 

Stop dodging the questions Hangar.

[chitownsportsfan]

Hanger18 is actually Scott McClellen, bored with life after his resignation...that is my only explanation for the "non answer" answers.

[Dick Allen]

Jesus man, The Trib owns the Cubs--even if they did try and "skew" the coverage to "distance" the murder from the ballclub, it's like, "gee, who could have seen that one coming"? THEY OWN THE TEAM.

You just made my point. That's why the coverage is always going to be uneven. How come the guy who murdered someone in front of that dump not as well known as Ligue? How come that girl who threw a ball at Jacques Jones was not prosecuted, and outed by the media? Even poor Bartman was outed, because he "screwed" the Cubs. People were threatening his life and news crews were outside his house, making it easier for some sicko to do something. Last week someone ran onto the field at Wrigley. No mention anywhere. If it happened at USCF, you could bet it would be on WGN news, radio and the Tribune. Even the Tribune's writers see the conflict of interest here and wouldn't mind the Tribune selling the Cubs. If they did, I'd bet my life you'd see a whole different looking sports section if these teams continued to perform as they are performing. The problem is, its not in the Tribune Co.'s best interests to be reporting the truth right now ie pro-Sox, anti-Cubs, due to all of their holdings. The other thing is that the Tribune would never acknowledge the conflict of interest, and will always stand by the line that they cover each team equally.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Dick Allen

[Guest JimH]

Personally I am glad Ligue got all the PR he did. Doesn't bother me one bit. It helps prevent other douchbags like him from doing the same thing.

 

I guess that's just me though, I happen to see the positive coming from it.

 

For all the stupid people who believe in the stereotypes, nothing is gonna change their mind anyways, they are never coming to U.S. Cellular Field, so they can have a nice life elsewhere as far as I'm concerned.

 

A gang bang murderer in the street in front of the ballpark is different than a douchebag running onto the field with his kid, throwing punches at an umpire. Of course the murder is more serious, but the curiousity factor of a scumbag tatoo laden drunk flashing his ugly mug at the cameras, it's a story.

 

Throwing a ball into the field of play ... not as interesting. People do it at ballparks every day, it happens at U.S. Cellular Field and the baseball community is damn lucky none of those have beaned an outfielder.

 

Bartman ... highly interesting, a cartoon-esque character, much like Ligue, without the scumbag edge.

 

Bartman and Ligue are compelling stories people want to read. Unfortunately murders happen every day.

 

The goof who yanked the hat from the Dodgers bullpen catcher got plenty of bad PR, I remember the cameras focused in on that incident, it got all kinds of play on ESPN, especially the tool who was standing up waving to the cameras in a drunken "hey dude, look at me, I'm on TV dude" pose.

 

I had a long talk once with Savini about all this crap, and his rationale made sense. They like to talk about stuff that's unique. Certainly the Barman episode and the Ligue stuff was unique.

[chitownsportsfan]

but the curiousity factor of a scumbag tatoo laden drunk flashing his ugly mug at the cameras, it's a story.

 

I agree Jim, this guy was, in so many words--the epitomy of "white trash". It was a "dog bites man" story for that reason alone. It's like the wasted girl that threw the ball and almost hit Jones--she's the Cub stereotype, and Ligue is the Sox stereotype. Both are grouned in tiny kernals of truth, but the media isn't interested (omg!!! gasp!!!) in always uncovering the truth.