Lip Man 1 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Folks: Back in 2010 I took a month to research, conduct interviews both by phone and in person and tried to put into context the relationship the White Sox have had with the media in general and specifically to the point in Chicago. It was a lot of work but I'm really proud of the way these stories turned out. Given how it appears the relationship is going to change again (and not for the good of the Sox) I thought some of you may want to read these to get a historical sense of what has happened in the past. Again these were written and published in September 2010. I hope you'll enjoy reading them but keep in mind these are LONG stories. http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/in...y=2&id=4060 http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/in...y=2&id=4066 Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) Folks: Back in 2010 I took a month to research, conduct interviews both by phone and in person and tried to put into context the relationship the White Sox have had with the media in general and specifically to the point in Chicago. It was a lot of work but I'm really proud of the way these stories turned out. Given how it appears the relationship is going to change again (and not for the good of the Sox) I thought some of you may want to read these to get a historical sense of what has happened in the past. Again these were written and published in September 2010. I hope you'll enjoy reading them but keep in mind these are LONG stories. http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/in...y=2&id=4060 http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/in...y=2&id=4066 Mark i am sorry and i am sure they are great articles, but i will not go to the other sox sport site. it is on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Read and bump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Good read. The Chicago media is basically acts as a free marketing department for the Cubs. I listen to podcasts at work, and I had to stop listening to the local Chicago ESPN ones because it was the summer of Cubs. I looked at one twenty day stretch in July, and Jesse Rodgers or a Cub guest was on C&J 15 out of 20 shows. In the same period, Doug Padilla (their Sox beat guy) was on 5 times. At the time, the records of both teams were pretty close. The media disparity is a huge factor in the difference in fan bases. I know some people don't believe that, but I look at it like any advertising. Have a message and repeat it. The Chicago media is largely pro-Cubs, so they are covered in a positive manner. I recently heard Bruce Levine on WSCR, and they asked him a question about the Sox going forward. He gave a sarcastic reply about the new video boards solving their problems. He could hardly contain his joy when the Cubs added theirs. I'd love to see someone like Mark Cuban own the Sox. Bat the very least, they need a Rocky Wirtz like situation to revitalize the Sox. I appreciate JR, but he's exceedingly arrogant, and that's a problem for the organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 06:14 PM) Good read. The Chicago media is basically acts as a free marketing department for the Cubs. I listen to podcasts at work, and I had to stop listening to the local Chicago ESPN ones because it was the summer of Cubs. I looked at one twenty day stretch in July, and Jesse Rodgers or a Cub guest was on C&J 15 out of 20 shows. In the same period, Doug Padilla (their Sox beat guy) was on 5 times. At the time, the records of both teams were pretty close. The media disparity is a huge factor in the difference in fan bases. I know some people don't believe that, but I look at it like any advertising. Have a message and repeat it. The Chicago media is largely pro-Cubs, so they are covered in a positive manner. I recently heard Bruce Levine on WSCR, and they asked him a question about the Sox going forward. He gave a sarcastic reply about the new video boards solving their problems. He could hardly contain his joy when the Cubs added theirs. I'd love to see someone like Mark Cuban own the Sox. Bat the very least, they need a Rocky Wirtz like situation to revitalize the Sox. I appreciate JR, but he's exceedingly arrogant, and that's a problem for the organization. I think it's pretty clear especially now how many pro Cub supporters are in the Chicago media. Gonzales and Cowley both confirmed this in part II of the original story. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't spill over into the way those people cover things but unfortunately it does and that violates every journalistic / broadcasting rule out there. "Back in the Day" newspapers in particular used to either hire people from out of town or they'd rotate the beat writers at the All Star Break. The guy who started the season with the Cubs would be switched to the Sox beat and visa versa. They don't do that anymore. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 08:20 PM) I think it's pretty clear especially now how many pro Cub supporters are in the Chicago media. Gonzales and Cowley both confirmed this in part II of the original story. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't spill over into the way those people cover things but unfortunately it does and that violates every journalistic / broadcasting rule out there. "Back in the Day" newspapers in particular used to either hire people from out of town or they'd rotate the beat writers at the All Star Break. The guy who started the season with the Cubs would be switched to the Sox beat and visa versa. They don't do that anymore. Mark They tailor the news to those who are buying it. That is what media is these days. Look no further than Fox News and MCNBC. People find the news they want to hear. Sports are no different. It is why you always hear about the Cubs in Chicago, and teams like New York and Boston on the national sports channels. The rules of journalistic integrity have been gone for a generation now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 07:25 PM) They tailor the news to those who are buying it. That is what media is these days. Look no further than Fox News and MCNBC. People find the news they want to hear. Sports are no different. It is why you always hear about the Cubs in Chicago, and teams like New York and Boston on the national sports channels. The rules of journalistic integrity have been gone for a generation now. As someone who has been in the business professionally for almost 40 years my only reply is to paraphrase what Walter Cronkite said as the keynote speaker for the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in the mid 70's. He stunned the audience by systematically ripping apart the medium he helped create because he could see what was coming. Basically, 'tell the people what they want to hear instead of telling them what they need to know in an unbiased way..." He must be turning over in his grave at what goes on today. My business today is an embarrassment and that shames me to have to say that. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 09:40 PM) As someone who has been in the business professionally for almost 40 years my only reply is to paraphrase what Walter Cronkite said as the keynote speaker for the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in the mid 70's. He stunned the audience by systematically ripping apart the medium he helped create because he could see what was coming. Basically, 'tell the people what they want to hear instead of telling them what they need to know in an unbiased way..." He must be turning over in his grave at what goes on today. My business today is an embarrassment and that shames me to have to say that. Mark Part of that problem which is why I can't stomach the NFL is that too many former players are allowed to be journalists and analysts. The problem with the Sox though is they really are boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The Cubs fanbase is at least double the size of the Sox, if not more. And that doesn't count all the more Cubs fans outside of Chicago. Why would you expect the media to spend more time on the Sox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knackattack Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Excuse my ignorance but what the hell made Harry and Jimmy such bad guys in Reinsdorf's book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 11:14 PM) The Cubs fanbase is at least double the size of the Sox, if not more. And that doesn't count all the more Cubs fans outside of Chicago. Why would you expect the media to spend more time on the Sox? Actually, within the city itself the fanbases are a lot more equal in size than you think, I think there are actually more Sox fans in Cook county. It's when you go outside the city that the Cubs fans completely dwarf the Sox, we have no national presence at all. http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/...yikwywszwfs.jpg Edited October 16, 2015 by OmarComing25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooftop Shots Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Even though this article was taken from Hawk talk, it talks about The Sox and the media as well. A friend sent me this on my Facebook page. Thought I would pass it along. I thought it was well written and hit a lot of points right on the head. Sox/ Cubs media perspectives This was my reply to the article that he sent me Well my Cub fan friend....yes the article has a Lot of good points to it and was very well written. Hopefully your success will ignite the Sox front office and realize that our fan base will really take a hit to the North Siders that captures the heart and media of Chicago. Also front office has to realize that the honeymoon with 2005 is over by now. Making the playoffs 3 times in 20 years and having a wining record just 7 of those years just doesn't friggin cut it! Yes . the article was good , but this enclosed pic also describes how "some" Sox fans feel with the trend that that our side has been going on.now with your Cubbies winning on Top of our 3rd dismal season in a row, we have had enough. We wanna friggin winner . NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 11:14 PM) The Cubs fanbase is at least double the size of the Sox, if not more. And that doesn't count all the more Cubs fans outside of Chicago. Why would you expect the media to spend more time on the Sox? Totally this as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 10:14 PM) The Cubs fanbase is at least double the size of the Sox, if not more. And that doesn't count all the more Cubs fans outside of Chicago. Why would you expect the media to spend more time on the Sox? It is now thanks to the marketing genius of the Tribune Company and the fact that for whatever reason the Sox felt they couldn't take the Cubs on when they bought the club in January of 1981 BEFORE the Cubs had that advantage. Historically though that wasn't always the case, during the Golden Age (again as I point out in the stories) it was the Sox who got the lion's share of the coverage. I think Sox fans would be fine with an honest split in coverage but that's not going to happen even though journalistically and ethically it is supposed to be that way. Mark Edited October 16, 2015 by Lip Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 11:24 AM) It is now thanks to the marketing genius of the Tribune Company and the fact that for whatever reason the Sox felt they couldn't take the Cubs on when they bought the club in January of 1981 BEFORE the Cubs had that advantage. Historically though that wasn't always the case, during the Golden Age (again as I point out in the stories) it was the Sox who got the lion's share of the coverage. I think Sox fans would be fine with an honest split in coverage but that's not going to happen even though journalistically and ethically it is supposed to be that way. Mark No it shouldn't be that way. There are more Cubs fans than Sox fans. Why would media outlets spend the same amount of resources on each? That's a bad business model. The Cubs are more popular so more time should and will be spent talking about the Cubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 11:32 AM) No it shouldn't be that way. There are more Cubs fans than Sox fans. Why would media outlets spend the same amount of resources on each? That's a bad business model. The Cubs are more popular so more time should and will be spent talking about the Cubs. Of course if that same media owns the team they are writing about they are going to give them more coverage. Leading to a larger fan base over the course of 20 years or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetman Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 put them on a scrambled UHF station --- that way ownership can control their own message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Knackattack @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 01:31 PM) Excuse my ignorance but what the hell made Harry and Jimmy such bad guys in Reinsdorf's book? My dad at one point was a big wig with some of the chairman's investors/co-owners. He said Harry was a complete asshole (my assumption is when he got drunk he probably told the chairman and the others to go f*** themselves as he met his legions of female fans at the Rush Street bars). I'd assume Harry was too big for everybody including Mr. Reinsdorf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 10:35 AM) Of course if that same media owns the team they are writing about they are going to give them more coverage. Leading to a larger fan base over the course of 20 years or so... As I wrote in the piece it's the "which came first, the chicken or the egg debate." Are there more Cub fans because the Tribune Company force fed attention to them since it helped their overall bottom line business-wise or were they simply 'giving the fans what they wanted?' Again you can only go back to the historical record and before the Tribune Company bought the Cubs it was roughly a 50/50 split with the team that was doing better on the field getting a little (notice I said a little) more coverage and about roughly the same attendance wise..the team that played better drew better. After about 1983 (when the Cubs were still closing the upper deck late in the season for lack of fans) that dynamic changed dramatically. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 04:32 PM) No it shouldn't be that way. There are more Cubs fans than Sox fans. Why would media outlets spend the same amount of resources on each? That's a bad business model. The Cubs are more popular so more time should and will be spent talking about the Cubs. ethically the news, which the sports is, should be without favoritism and preferences. however at this time, when only one club is making news, esp news for the fans in competition, such as baseball, the sox will not see any mention what so every. outside that, both should be fairly equal. now is it??? it doesn't matter, the sox had their chance and oh well. Edited October 16, 2015 by LDF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 06:48 PM) As I wrote in the piece it's the "which came first, the chicken or the egg debate." Are there more Cub fans because the Tribune Company force fed attention to them since it helped their overall bottom line business-wise or were they simply 'giving the fans what they wanted?' Again you can only go back to the historical record and before the Tribune Company bought the Cubs it was roughly a 50/50 split with the team that was doing better on the field getting a little (notice I said a little) more coverage and about roughly the same attendance wise..the team that played better drew better. After about 1983 (when the Cubs were still closing the upper deck late in the season for lack of fans) that dynamic changed dramatically. Mark and that was the first time the sox had a chance to do something, which they did, they went to sport vision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 11:24 AM) It is now thanks to the marketing genius of the Tribune Company and the fact that for whatever reason the Sox felt they couldn't take the Cubs on when they bought the club in January of 1981 BEFORE the Cubs had that advantage. Historically though that wasn't always the case, during the Golden Age (again as I point out in the stories) it was the Sox who got the lion's share of the coverage. I think Sox fans would be fine with an honest split in coverage but that's not going to happen even though journalistically and ethically it is supposed to be that way. Mark Let me put it this way, should the Trib spend the same amount of time covering the Sky and the Fire, as they do the Bears and the Bulls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) Let me put it this way, should the Trib spend the same amount of time covering the Sky and the Fire, as they do the Bears and the Bulls? Let me put it this way, from a journalistically ethically standpoint ABSOLUTELY. But you and I know that's not how it works not with the way things are. But yes those professional teams should get a fair share of coverage regardless of if anybody cares or not. It's not the newspapers / broadcasters job to decide what coverage to give, the job they have is to cover everything as equally as possible without bias as much as possible. Period. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) Let me put it this way, from a journalistically ethically standpoint ABSOLUTELY. But you and I know that's not how it works not with the way things are. But yes those professional teams should get a fair share of coverage regardless of if anybody cares or not. It's not the newspapers / broadcasters job to decide what coverage to give, the job they have is to cover everything as equally as possible without bias as much as possible. Period. Mark lol, that is the most idealistic, unrealistic thing I have ever read. Even in one of my all time favorite books on historical editorials, there is no hint of that, and we are talking about editorials all of the way back to the Civil War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Yes, but still the editor's job to allocate or remove column inches. Reporter's job, treat every job/article the same, whether it's about the local little league or a world-famous athlete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.