PDA

View Full Version : Sun-Times: Everybody Loves the Cubs


Fenway
05-12-2008, 11:20 AM
The Sun-Times has come up with yet another reason on why the Cubs seem to be more popular than the White Sox.

PEARL HARBOR ( you can't make this stuff up )

Ozzie can blame WGN, day games for support heaped on N. Siders (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/sundaydrive/943796,CST-SPT-drive11.article)

So I guess it was the fault of Germany then...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/john_belushi.jpg

spiffie
05-12-2008, 11:40 AM
I eagerly await the day the Sun-Times goes out of business.

Lip Man 1
05-12-2008, 11:45 AM
The comments about leaving WGN in the 60's and the events that happened in the 1980's are 100% correct in my opinion and are a very, very large reason the Cubs are in the position they are in today.

And let's not forget about SportsVision...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

russ99
05-12-2008, 11:46 AM
I eagerly await the day the Sun-Times goes out of business.

The way things are going, that won't be a very long wait.

Fenway
05-12-2008, 11:49 AM
The comments about leaving WGN in the 60's and the events that happened in the 1980's are 100% correct in my opinion and are a very, very large reason the Cubs are in the position they are in today.

And let's not forget about SportsVision...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

Leigh Montville wrote in the Boston Globe back in October of 1983 that he could not understand why Chicago was not excited about the White Sox.

Somebody in the press box said "Nobody can see the team on TV"

Then came 1984 and the Cubs run.

It really is that simple

spiffie
05-12-2008, 11:57 AM
Leigh Montville wrote in the Boston Globe back in October of 1983 that he could not understand why Chicago was not excited about the White Sox.

Somebody in the press box said "Nobody can see the team on TV"

Then came 1984 and the Cubs run.

It really is that simple
I would be interested in what the breakdown is for how younger fans (18-under) are breaking out, since really in the last decade and a half or so the two teams have been almost equally accessible with cable penetration getting ever larger, the Sox moving some games to WGN and WCIU, and the Cubs moving some games to cable. I know the Sox lost the generation born in the 70's in many ways, and that they will always get the transplants as long as Wrigleyville has booze, babes, and sunshine. But among the kids growing up around Chicago, I wonder how this generation is breaking.

bryPt
05-12-2008, 12:01 PM
Funny, I know a guy though another message board that always says this is the reason why the cub are better than the White Sox: "Because everyone loves the cubs!"

good reason!

Fenway
05-12-2008, 12:05 PM
I would be interested in what the breakdown is for how younger fans (18-under) are breaking out, since really in the last decade and a half or so the two teams have been almost equally accessible with cable penetration getting ever larger, the Sox moving some games to WGN and WCIU, and the Cubs moving some games to cable. I know the Sox lost the generation born in the 70's in many ways, and that they will always get the transplants as long as Wrigleyville has booze, babes, and sunshine. But among the kids growing up around Chicago, I wonder how this generation is breaking.

The Flubs fanbase today is made up of the children of the 1984 fans. How many lifetime Sox fans were developed in 2005? We won't see them buying tickets for another 10 years.

Many White Sox fans left after a series of blunders. The proposed move to Florida, White Flag, the 1994 strike all played a role.

What I sense is happening now that while fans of the old Comiskey never warmed to the Cell their children who don't remember the old park LOVE it.

I still think in the city the split isn't that big between the 2 teams but the Cubs are a regional power and the White Sox support is limited outside Chicagoland.

I want Mags back
05-12-2008, 12:20 PM
wow, that's actually a crazy story. I never knew they planned to put up lights in the 40's

Palehose Pete
05-12-2008, 12:22 PM
I eagerly await the day the Sun-Times goes out of business.

As do I. It will happen sooner than you think.

Lip Man 1
05-12-2008, 12:26 PM
Spiffie:

Brooks Boyer talks about the same thing that you mention in his interview with WSI. That he'll be interested to see how the kids who were watching the 05 World Series run break when they get older.

He feels the Sox fan base will grow a lot larger because of it. (Of course they have to put a good team out on the field to get those kids to remain fans...)

Lip

VeeckAsInWreck
05-12-2008, 12:35 PM
The comments about leaving WGN in the 60's and the events that happened in the 1980's are 100% correct in my opinion and are a very, very large reason the Cubs are in the position they are in today.

And let's not forget about SportsVision...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

Majority of the people I grew up with in the 80's are Cubs fan. The reason is that in my neighborhood not many people had cable. So if you wanted to see baseball on free TV then all you needed was WGN. I was happy when Sox games returned there in 1990 but the damage had been done.

Fenway
05-12-2008, 12:53 PM
I found the Montville quote.

It was actually from March of 1984 when he was complaining about the Red Sox starting NESN

about Chicago he said


I went to Comiskey Park for those playoff games, expecting to find pandemonium from a crowd that hadn't had a winner in decades. The crowd reaction was reserved.

"Why's this?" I asked.

"Nobody knows this team," I was told. "If you don't buy the cable, you don't see the games. People can't develop a passion for a team of players they've never watched."

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/pqdweb?index=5&did=662768461&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210614550&clientId=3266

white sox bill
05-12-2008, 01:02 PM
There were soe good points to this story.

I'd love the Cubs too IF


They moved to Tehran Iran!

soxfan13
05-12-2008, 01:11 PM
From my experience in Joliet I have found that a majority of baseball fans here are Cub fans. The most popular response I have gotten, as of why, is because the Cubs were the team that you could watch on tv when they were growing up.

WhiteSox5187
05-12-2008, 01:19 PM
I think that with the rise of the internet and DirectTV the Sox are finally on equal ground with the Cubs in terms of exposure (meaning that you can just as easily find the Sox as the Cubs these days). The key for the Sox is to win, if they keep doing that then in the next ten years or so there will be a whole new generation of Sox fans who just moved to the city or have no prior connections to the team.

NADA SURF
05-12-2008, 02:07 PM
The comments about leaving WGN in the 60's and the events that happened in the 1980's are 100% correct in my opinion and are a very, very large reason the Cubs are in the position they are in today.

And let's not forget about SportsVision...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

LipThe Sox had their chance of taking over the city in the early 70s when they added Harry and then Dick Allen while the team was on the uprise...But they moved to pay TV and could have embraced WGN as the Cubs did...
I've honestly never felt badly about playing second fiddle to the Cubs...I kinda like it better this way, anyway.

NADA SURF
05-12-2008, 02:10 PM
As do I. It will happen sooner than you think.Why would you want Chicago down to one paper? Live in Phoenix for a while and see how you like one paper. IMO the Sun-Times has the best Sox and Bulls writers and the columnists that get everyone talking. The Trib's columnists are bland.

PatK
05-12-2008, 02:16 PM
I thought there were more Cubs fans because in general, there are more stupid people than smart people.

NADA SURF
05-12-2008, 02:46 PM
I thought there were more Cubs fans because in general, there are more stupid people than smart people.I think you nailed it right on the head. I always thought Sox fans were individual thinkers and the type that would think outside the box...After being on this site, I'm not always so sure anymore.

skottyj242
05-12-2008, 03:04 PM
The picture in the paper has dudes with different letters painted on thier chests that spells out WE LOVED A CUBBIES. At least that's how I read it.

cws05champ
05-12-2008, 03:23 PM
I think the ironic thing is by not putting up the lights, the same reason that they may be popular, is the same reason many baseball people think they haven't won in a long time. Too much day-time baseball.

KenBerryGrab
05-12-2008, 03:43 PM
I call bullcrap on the Bostonian '83 playoffs "analysis."

I was there for both games.

The Sox never had a lead at home in those two games. Eddie Murray went deep in the first inning of Game 3 en route to a blowout. The Sox didn't score in Game 4, the Britt Burns-Tito Landrum game. Kind of hard to build any excitement in the crowd (which was to the rafters for each).

'83 attendance:
Chicago White Sox 2,132,821
Chicago Cubs 1,479,717

Lip Man 1
05-12-2008, 04:04 PM
NADA SURF says: "The Sox had their chance of taking over the city in the early 70s when they added Harry and then Dick Allen while the team was on the uprise...But they moved to pay TV and could have embraced WGN as the Cubs did..."

You kind of lost me there. The Sox had contracts with WFLD and then WSNS in the early 1970's, they weren't going to break them to go back to second fiddle at WGN (which is partially why they left after 1967.) Also the Sox really only captured the cities imagination in 72 and 73... by 74 they were back to mediocrity and rumors were starting about Denver ect. Also pay TV didn't go into effect until May 1982 when SportsVision made its debut.

Read the story on SportsVision.

Lip

Daver
05-12-2008, 04:07 PM
I think you nailed it right on the head. I always thought Sox fans were individual thinkers and the type that would think outside the box...After being on this site, I'm not always so sure anymore.


Yeah, you are bringing the collective intelligence level down several notches just by posting here.

rocky biddle
05-12-2008, 05:18 PM
Why would you want Chicago down to one paper? Live in Phoenix for a while and see how you like one paper. IMO the Sun-Times has the best Sox and Bulls writers and the columnists that get everyone talking. The Trib's columnists are bland.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

white sox bill
05-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Since I don't live in the City, its of no consequence of mine should the ST close but are you sure you want only ONE major paper?

Tragg
05-12-2008, 06:11 PM
That article was just a tired rendition of the same talking points...nothing new, a lot of cliche, no creativity.

spiffie
05-12-2008, 06:22 PM
Since I don't live in the City, its of no consequence of mine should the ST close but are you sure you want only ONE major paper?
We have one major paper now. We also have a sad tabloid that exists only to throw bombs at the local sports teams.

The Immigrant
05-12-2008, 06:52 PM
We have one major paper now. We also have a sad tabloid that exists only to throw bombs at the local sports teams.

The Tribune used to be a major paper. It is now a sad shell of its former self. Your assessment of the ST is spot on, however.

NADA SURF
05-14-2008, 09:44 PM
NADA SURF says: "The Sox had their chance of taking over the city in the early 70s when they added Harry and then Dick Allen while the team was on the uprise...But they moved to pay TV and could have embraced WGN as the Cubs did..."

You kind of lost me there. The Sox had contracts with WFLD and then WSNS in the early 1970's, they weren't going to break them to go back to second fiddle at WGN (which is partially why they left after 1967.) Also the Sox really only captured the cities imagination in 72 and 73... by 74 they were back to mediocrity and rumors were starting about Denver ect. Also pay TV didn't go into effect until May 1982 when SportsVision made its debut.

Read the story on SportsVision.

LipHad the Sox stayed on WGN when Allen was there, they'd have pulled even or above the Cubs at that time as they were fading...They also had their games on FM radio in '72 with was another mistake...They had a great team in '72, the kind that would have been good enough to win it all other seasons, but it was hard to see them and harder to hear them.

NADA SURF
05-14-2008, 09:45 PM
Yeah, you are bringing the collective intelligence level down several notches just by posting here.
Thanks...if you'd agreed with me, I'd have been worried.

NADA SURF
05-14-2008, 09:47 PM
We have one major paper now. We also have a sad tabloid that exists only to throw bombs at the local sports teams.I hear nothing but great things about the Chicago papers around the country, especially the sports sections...The only place I see criticism is on this site.

NADA SURF
05-14-2008, 09:48 PM
Yeah, you are bringing the collective intelligence level down several notches just by posting here.Isn't that a personal attack on your part?

the1tab
05-14-2008, 09:57 PM
I hear nothing but great things about the Chicago papers around the country, especially the sports sections...The only place I see criticism is on this site.

People respect Phil Rogers and that's it. Please don't tell me that because ESPN was dumb enough to put a camera in front of Mariotti's face he's respected. This is as much a homer town of Cubs writers as there is in the country.

But, I will give Chicago papers credit for not printed made-up stories about a home town, undefeated team just days before the Super Bowl. Way to go, Boston Herald... way to trash your entire industry!

areilly
05-14-2008, 10:34 PM
I hear nothing but great things about the Chicago papers around the country, especially the sports sections...The only place I see criticism is on this site.

From who did you hear these great things? Poynter, OJR and CJR, three places that would seem to know what they're talking about, have been brutal on both of the major dailies - especially the Trib's sports section - for years.

Daver
05-14-2008, 10:45 PM
Thanks...if you'd agreed with me, I'd have been worried.

Yeah I know, the learning impaired strive for small victories.

Can you make your next goal actually learning something about the game of baseball?

cards press box
05-14-2008, 10:55 PM
Why would you want Chicago down to one paper? Live in Phoenix for a while and see how you like one paper. IMO the Sun-Times has the best Sox and Bulls writers and the columnists that get everyone talking. The Trib's columnists are bland.

Columnists that get everyone talking? About what -- how awful they are? The current crop of Sun-Times columnists include doofus Mariotti, Carol Slezak and Greg Couch. Those three are just awful. If we were grading, Mariotti is a consistent F; he has no business writing anything other than a highly biased blog unencumbered by either facts or objectivity. Slezak is somewhere between a C-/D+ (on her best days) to F (when she retreats into her clueless Cubbie bubble). Couch is somewhere between a D and an F; he is junior Mariotti, not as biased but not exactly Ring Lardner, either.

By the way, if the Sun-Times stopped publishing, Chicago would still have three papers, the also overrated Trib, the Daily Southtown and the Daily Herald. The Daily Herald probably has the best sports section. And Barry Rozner is better than any columnist the Sun-Times has.

kittle42
05-14-2008, 11:37 PM
By the way, if the Sun-Times stopped publishing, Chicago would still have three papers, the also overrated Trib, the Daily Southtown and the Daily Herald.

Nothing happens south of Division.

aryzner
05-15-2008, 08:16 AM
And Barry Rozner is better than any columnist the Sun-Times has.
Amen to that, sir. I love reading Rozner's stuff.

Lip Man 1
05-15-2008, 10:37 AM
Nada:

I'm sure it was just an over site on your part since we appear to be about the same age and you are also in the media, but the Sox had no choice in 1971 and 1972 about having their games on two low powered FM radio stations based in LaGrange and Evanston.

The Sox were turned down by EVERY single mainstream media radio outlet in Chicago because of their disastrous seasons in 1968, 1969 and 1970.

NO radio station would touch them. They drew less then 500,000 for the ENTIRE 1970 season for example and no radio station (particularly with the Cubs having a very good team) wanted anything to do with the Sox.

They returned to mainstream media in 1973 thanks to the amazing 1972 season.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
05-15-2008, 10:46 AM
Nothing happens south of Division.

Except for 81 Sox games each year:rolleyes:.

kittle42
05-15-2008, 12:23 PM
Except for 81 Sox games each year:rolleyes:.

Who?

Optipessimism
05-15-2008, 12:38 PM
There were soe good points to this story.

I'd love the Cubs too IF


They moved to Tehran Iran!
That wouldn't be a bad idea, but the Flub fans might have a problem with all the Iranians leading herds of goats across the field.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 01:35 PM
Yeah I know, the learning impaired strive for small victories.

Can you make your next goal actually learning something about the game of baseball?
There seems to be a lot of jealousy oozing out of ya on here. As a player, coach, baseball writer and long-time Sox fan that used to live and die for the Sox, I'm quite sure I'm well beyond you and where you think I am...
But don't be jealous. This site is supposed to be about fun, I would think.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 01:39 PM
Nada:

I'm sure it was just an over site on your part since we appear to be about the same age and you are also in the media, but the Sox had no choice in 1971 and 1972 about having their games on two low powered FM radio stations based in LaGrange and Evanston.

The Sox were turned down by EVERY single mainstream media radio outlet in Chicago because of their disastrous seasons in 1968, 1969 and 1970.

NO radio station would touch them. They drew less then 500,000 for the ENTIRE 1970 season for example and no radio station (particularly with the Cubs having a very good team) wanted anything to do with the Sox.

They returned to mainstream media in 1973 thanks to the amazing 1972 season.

LipI was pretty young and had no interest in the broadcasting end of things as I do now, but the point I was trying to make was that had the Sox been able to keep on WGN and later the Superstation they would have taken their share of Chicago...
Pay TV was a mistake years later and turned a lot of fans to Cub fans...
You certainly are the guy on here to turn to on TV-Radio back in the day and I enjoy reading what you post and I wasn't competing with you..I totally defer.
Heck, I like the Sox being the No.2 team in Chicago anyway.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 01:44 PM
Columnists that get everyone talking? About what -- how awful they are? The current crop of Sun-Times columnists include doofus Mariotti, Carol Slezak and Greg Couch. Those three are just awful. If we were grading, Mariotti is a consistent F; he has no business writing anything other than a highly biased blog unencumbered by either facts or objectivity. Slezak is somewhere between a C-/D+ (on her best days) to F (when she retreats into her clueless Cubbie bubble). Couch is somewhere between a D and an F; he is junior Mariotti, not as biased but not exactly Ring Lardner, either.

By the way, if the Sun-Times stopped publishing, Chicago would still have three papers, the also overrated Trib, the Daily Southtown and the Daily Herald. The Daily Herald probably has the best sports section. And Barry Rozner is better than any columnist the Sun-Times has.
Rozner is a HUUuuuuuuuge Cub fan and a great writer, I agree...
The way you guys attack Mariotti shows how good he is at what he's being paid to do...
Slesak I don't know much about, but Couch is probably one of the best columnists around, even though he's a pain in the butt once in a while...
Head on over to the Sun-Times and try and take one of their jobs.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 01:48 PM
We have one major paper now. We also have a sad tabloid that exists only to throw bombs at the local sports teams.If ever there is a city whose sports teams deserve to have bombs tossed at it, it's Chicago.
The Bulls are ridiculous.
The Sox have been quite disappointing since '05.
The Cubs and the Bears are jokes.
I wouldn't throw flowers and candy at these teams, either.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 01:53 PM
People respect Phil Rogers and that's it. Please don't tell me that because ESPN was dumb enough to put a camera in front of Mariotti's face he's respected. This is as much a homer town of Cubs writers as there is in the country.

But, I will give Chicago papers credit for not printed made-up stories about a home town, undefeated team just days before the Super Bowl. Way to go, Boston Herald... way to trash your entire industry!I think I know what you mean about what you said about the Herald, but the Herald SHOULD have printed stories about the Patriots being unbeaten before the Super Bowl...
Are you another one that feels the city's paper should be the team's media representative?
Rogers isn't all that respected across the country, although I like him...
The most respected writer in Chicago is Bob Verdi.

areilly
05-15-2008, 01:58 PM
Head on over to the Sun-Times and try and take one of their jobs.

I would, but the S-T isn't hiring these days, save for CenterStage's ever-growing stable of freelance bar and restaurant reviewers.

Daver
05-15-2008, 02:21 PM
Isn't that a personal attack on your part?

I'll register your complaint with the management.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 03:48 PM
I would, but the S-T isn't hiring these days, save for CenterStage's ever-growing stable of freelance bar and restaurant reviewers.You should take one of those gigs. They aren't bad.

white sox bill
05-15-2008, 04:47 PM
I'm sure the Lovefest will continue as San Diego gets shutout by the Evil Empire today. Like it or not, they are the hottest team on the planet right now. I hope they cool before we play them or it could be a LONG summer.

How long before the ST starts the Magic Number?

kittle42
05-15-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm sure the Lovefest will continue as San Diego gets shutout by the Evil Empire today. Like it or not, they are the hottest team on the planet right now. I hope they cool before we play them or it could be a LONG summer.

How long before the ST starts the Magic Number?

I still think they're going to end up with a cakewalk to that division title.

Uh, oh - Pittsburgh is in town this weekend - put down another 2-3 wins guaranteed, as the Pirates' sole purpose seems to be to elevate the Cubs.

AZChiSoxFan
05-15-2008, 05:02 PM
The way you guys attack Mariotti shows how good he is at what he's being paid to do...


Well, I guess you're right. The guy is paid to do nothing but stir up controversy. If there aren't any real controversies, then he can just make one up. But I guess that's my point. The Sun-Times (along with a lot of media outlets in this country) is no longer about real journalism and has become nothing more than a two-bit tabloid.

AZChiSoxFan
05-15-2008, 05:03 PM
I hear nothing but great things about the Chicago papers around the country, especially the sports sections...The only place I see criticism is on this site.

:rolleyes: GMAB. Care to offer an explanation then for the Sun-Times' incredible shrinking list of subscribers?

white sox bill
05-15-2008, 05:04 PM
Well, I guess you're right. The guy is paid to do nothing but stir up controversy. If there aren't any real controversies, then he can just make one up. But I guess that's my point. The Sun-Times (along with a lot of media outlets in this country) is not longer about real journalism and has become nothing more than a two-bit tabloid.

Well put. I just wish the guy had the manhood to step foot at the Cell

AZChiSoxFan
05-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Well put. I just wish the guy had the manhood to step foot at the Cell

That's my real problem with all "journalists." Just sit back from afar and complain about everything and rip on everyone (some much more than others). Yeah, that adds a lot of value to society.

cards press box
05-15-2008, 05:41 PM
Rozner is a HUUuuuuuuuge Cub fan and a great writer, I agree...
The way you guys attack Mariotti shows how good he is at what he's being paid to do...
Slesak I don't know much about, but Couch is probably one of the best columnists around, even though he's a pain in the butt once in a while...
Head on over to the Sun-Times and try and take one of their jobs.

1. For all I know, Rozner may be a huge Cub fan but so what? In marked contrast to Greg Couch, Rozner's rooting interest does not infect his writing. He's fair and knowledgeable. What more could you want?

2. Mariotti is a disturbing and unfortunate joke, particularly when compared to the Sun-Times columnists that I read years ago, like Jack Griffin and Bill Gleason. The fact that any newspaper would hire this real-life "Max Mercy" gives me grave concern about the standards of quality in this society.

3. What is so great about Couch? In Phil Rogers' 2005 book, Say It's So, Rogers reported that at least one White Sox player, Aaron Rowand, kept a running track of inaccurate statements in Couch's columns during the 2005 season. I find that Couch's bias makes him virtually unreadable.

4. I have no idea if the Sun-Times would hire me as a columnist or not. But I'll tell you this -- (a) I can write far better than the above 3 columnists (Mariotti, Couch and Slezak), (b) I know at least as much about sports as any of the three (and probably a lot more) and (c) I would be fair. Yeah, you're right, why would the tabloid Sun-Times want any of those qualities?

areilly
05-15-2008, 05:42 PM
That's my real problem with all "journalists." Just sit back from afar and complain about everything and rip on everyone (some much more than others). Yeah, that adds a lot of value to society.

I get your point, but that's not really journalism per se. Journalism involves gathering data, interviewing (or at least attempting to interview) sources, and piecing together the whole picture. I wouldn't consider Mariotti, Slezak et al to be committing acts of journalism any more than I would consider myself to be committing acts of journalism on my own equally useless blog. Commenting is not reporting, and merely writing for a newspaper does not make you any more of a journalist than the intern who's compiling the weekend theater listings.

In writing, it is the methods which determine the craft, not the other way around.

Over By There
05-15-2008, 06:58 PM
There seems to be a lot of jealousy oozing out of ya on here...

I'm quite sure I'm well beyond you and where you think I am...

But don't be jealous.

Head on over to the Sun-Times and try and take one of their jobs.

Buzz Bissinger called. He'd like his smug journalist elitism back.

NADA SURF
05-15-2008, 10:34 PM
:rolleyes: GMAB. Care to offer an explanation then for the Sun-Times' incredible shrinking list of subscribers?It's the same all over the country...
Newspapers are shrinking because content is being put out on the internet, often by the same papers...
The paper itself is shrinking but it's web site has gone up...
Working for a paper myself, I can tell you that the industry is in limbo at the moment and waiting to see how things shake out.

areilly
05-16-2008, 01:06 PM
It's the same all over the country...
Newspapers are shrinking because content is being put out on the internet, often by the same papers...
The paper itself is shrinking but it's web site has gone up...
Working for a paper myself, I can tell you that the industry is in limbo at the moment and waiting to see how things shake out.

This in and of itself is not going to keep the Sun-Times (or any newspaper) alive, considering the insane cheapness of advertising online compared to advertising in print. The New York Times, for example, would have to magnify their current site traffic to 500,000,000 visitors generating 6,112,500,000 monthly pageviews to match what it makes on its ever-declining 1.1MM daily and 1.7MM Sunday circulations. I don't know how your specific paper is doing these days, but I highly doubt they're in a "wait and see" mode (but if you work for who I think you work for, they're definitely not waiting around for anything).

It's not "in limbo," and anyone who told you otherwise is lying. Media as a whole is thriving; newspapers as a specific channel are simultaneously disintegrating and self-destructing. This is not subject to debate. They are not shrinking because they're cannibalizing their own news, they're shrinking because the wealth of news outlets available dilutes the novelty value of simply putting out the news. Be sure to tell us all about your awesome buyout package when (not if, when) your employer puts it on the table.

JB98
05-16-2008, 07:13 PM
This in and of itself is not going to keep the Sun-Times (or any newspaper) alive, considering the insane cheapness of advertising online compared to advertising in print. The New York Times, for example, would have to magnify their current site traffic to 500,000,000 visitors generating 6,112,500,000 monthly pageviews to match what it makes on its ever-declining 1.1MM daily and 1.7MM Sunday circulations. I don't know how your specific paper is doing these days, but I highly doubt they're in a "wait and see" mode (but if you work for who I think you work for, they're definitely not waiting around for anything).

It's not "in limbo," and anyone who told you otherwise is lying. Media as a whole is thriving; newspapers as a specific channel are simultaneously disintegrating and self-destructing. This is not subject to debate. They are not shrinking because they're cannibalizing their own news, they're shrinking because the wealth of news outlets available dilutes the novelty value of simply putting out the news. Be sure to tell us all about your awesome buyout package when (not if, when) your employer puts it on the table.

That last sentence is a cheap shot. There is no question that newspapers need to change to a more Web-oriented approach, but it's quite a reach to say all of us who work the in the field are destined to be canned. There is always a market for people who can write and edit.

MarySwiss
05-16-2008, 07:58 PM
That last sentence is a cheap shot. There is no question that newspapers need to change to a more Web-oriented approach, but it's quite a reach to say all of us who work the in the field are destined to be canned. There is always a market for people who can write and edit.

True. Maybe not in news press, but people who can write and edit can always find work.

Quite frankly, JB; you might do better outside the newsprint medium. Online publishing is thriving.

areilly
05-17-2008, 12:36 PM
That last sentence is a cheap shot. There is no question that newspapers need to change to a more Web-oriented approach, but it's quite a reach to say all of us who work the in the field are destined to be canned. There is always a market for people who can write and edit.

I meant more if Nada is really the hardcore, in-demand, high-priced old-timer he claims to be, as these are the people first in line for the parachute packages - see what happened with the Reader staff, the Baltimore Sun, Miami Herald, and on and on, up to this week's moves at the Washington Post.

Side note: I entirely agree with the last sentence of your post (and as what amounts to a small-time hack, will be eternally grateful for that fact too :redneck).

JB98
05-17-2008, 01:55 PM
True. Maybe not in news press, but people who can write and edit can always find work.

Quite frankly, JB; you might do better outside the newsprint medium. Online publishing is thriving.

Oh, I realize that. However, right now I'm working at my hometown newspaper. I take pride in doing my best to provide a good sports section every day for the people in this community and the surrounding area. This is important to me personally.

I could do better financially elsewhere, I'm certain. And it's definitely true that I'm not pleased with a lot of the goings-on within the Sun-Times News Group.

Still, I have the job that I wanted to have when I came out of college. For that reason, I'm going to try to see it through until it reaches a point where I just can't do it anymore, or they force me out.

I like the idea of settling in and staying at one place for 20-plus years. I'm not sure yet whether that will happen here, but we'll see how the current plan to "reorganize" works out. I'm still only 31 years old. If it doesn't look good three years from now, I'll still be young enough to change gears.

JB98
05-17-2008, 02:02 PM
I meant more if Nada is really the hardcore, in-demand, high-priced old-timer he claims to be, as these are the people first in line for the parachute packages - see what happened with the Reader staff, the Baltimore Sun, Miami Herald, and on and on, up to this week's moves at the Washington Post.

Side note: I entirely agree with the last sentence of your post (and as what amounts to a small-time hack, will be eternally grateful for that fact too :redneck).

The old-timers definitely are the ones on the chopping block. Perhaps I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make.

The thing that's kind of disturbing to me is the ones who are being entrusted to lead the change in the industry are old-timers themselves. I'm amazed that these 50- and 55-year-old men think they know how young people consume news.

In my place of employment, we have a lot of folks that are my age (31) and younger. However, their involvement in the process is minimal. Their opinions are never consulted. That's absurd to me because people in their 20s are exactly the group that we're trying to reach. Things have changed mightily in the 10 years since I've been out of college. I learn new stuff from the young people on our staff all the time. The higher-ups lecture about change, but they are set in their ways themselves. That leads to nothing but reactive thinking, and it's a shame.

George Harrison
05-17-2008, 06:26 PM
That last sentence is a cheap shot. There is no question that newspapers need to change to a more Web-oriented approach, but it's quite a reach to say all of us who work the in the field are destined to be canned. There is always a market for people who can write and edit.
That was a cheap shot.
He came off as though he sounded as though he knew what he was talking about, but he doesn't.
Every other writer in America, except him, are wondering how this is all going to play out.
Personally, I think it's going to play out well for the writers. More jobs.

johnr1note
05-19-2008, 11:18 AM
Rozner is a HUUuuuuuuuge Cub fan and a great writer, I agree...
The way you guys attack Mariotti shows how good he is at what he's being paid to do...
Slesak I don't know much about, but Couch is probably one of the best columnists around, even though he's a pain in the butt once in a while...
Head on over to the Sun-Times and try and take one of their jobs.

Yeah, well, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, was good at what he did too. Marriotti has a similar standard for the truth.

rocky biddle
05-19-2008, 11:42 AM
When I was in journalism school I don't recall them ever saying, "If all else fails, just abandon all the ethics and rules we've taught you and try to create news through controversy. Hopefully that'll keep people reading, sell a few more papers, and maybe make you rich and famous."

Then again, maybe I went to a ****ty school. Who knows?

This whole quantity over quality argument just strikes me as wrong. Like it doesn't matter what you say as long as a ton of people listen and you're being paid well. And then the numbers somehow excuse the tactics.

From what I've heard KKK rallies draw huge crowds. Does that somehow justify the message?

AZChiSoxFan
05-19-2008, 01:30 PM
When I was in journalism school I don't recall them ever saying, "If all else fails, just abandon all the ethics and rules we've taught you and try to create news through controversy. Hopefully that'll keep people reading, sell a few more papers, and maybe make you rich and famous."

Then again, maybe I went to a ****ty school. Who knows?

This whole quantity over quality argument just strikes me as wrong. Like it doesn't matter what you say as long as a ton of people listen and you're being paid well. And then the numbers somehow excuse the tactics.

From what I've heard KKK rallies draw huge crowds. Does that somehow justify the message?

Yeah, what he said!!!

russ99
05-19-2008, 02:33 PM
To get back on topic, did anyone see the god-awful puff piece by Greg Couch yesterday??

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/956631,CST-SPT-couch18.article

Nice one Greg. It really is high journalism to hoist one team above another using poor arguments. FYI - the answers to your Sox questions that anyone that ever watches the team can answer are:

A) If Uribe is out we have Ramirez, Ozuna and eventually Richar to replace him. BTW: Ronny Cedeno sucks.

B) If Bobby Jenks gets hurt we have Scott Linebrink (and his 1.47 ERA) and Octavio Dotel, both can be solid closers ready to step in.

Reality is, you're a bad writer Greg.

russ99
05-19-2008, 02:39 PM
In my place of employment, we have a lot of folks that are my age (31) and younger. However, their involvement in the process is minimal. Their opinions are never consulted. That's absurd to me because people in their 20s are exactly the group that we're trying to reach. Things have changed mightily in the 10 years since I've been out of college. I learn new stuff from the young people on our staff all the time. The higher-ups lecture about change, but they are set in their ways themselves. That leads to nothing but reactive thinking, and it's a shame.

Actually, the biggest shame is that a decent paper that I enjoy daily (despite if certain columnists are good or bad) is being forced out of the market because the competition somehow can manage to put out a daily fluff-rag out for free.

I think the Red Eye is a much bigger reason than the internet as to why the Sun-Times is struggling. Why pay 50 cents for something when you can get something, that's similar and adequate enough for most people, for free.

areilly
05-19-2008, 02:59 PM
I think the Red Eye is a much bigger reason than the internet as to why the Sun-Times is struggling. Why pay 50 cents for something when you can get something, that's similar and adequate enough for most people, for free.

Good point, although for a while the Sun-Times had the Red Streak, which was essentially the same paper as the Red Eye. What they didn't have was the same muscle in the entertainment section as the Trib could exploit through Metromix, and thus the Tower once again triumphed through cross-media synergy rather than journalistic excellence.

Not that the Red Streak was really all that excellent. Or journalistic.

cards press box
05-20-2008, 12:02 AM
To get back on topic, did anyone see the god-awful puff piece by Greg Couch yesterday??

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/956631,CST-SPT-couch18.article

Nice one Greg. It really is high journalism to hoist one team above another using poor arguments. FYI - the answers to your Sox questions that anyone that ever watches the team can answer are:

A) If Uribe is out we have Ramirez, Ozuna and eventually Richar to replace him. BTW: Ronny Cedeno sucks.

B) If Bobby Jenks gets hurt we have Scott Linebrink (and his 1.47 ERA) and Octavio Dotel, both can be solid closers ready to step in.

Reality is, you're a bad writer Greg.

I'll add (C): if the Sox need further depth in the starting rotation, they have a capable spot starter in Nick Masset (0-0, 1 save, 3.86 ERA) and one of the top starters in Triple-A in Lance Broadway (5-1, 1.67 ERA at Charlotte).

Like Mariotti, Couch is a blogger who displays no in-depth knowledge of sports. Mariotti doesn't even bother with rudimentary journalistic practices such as, oh I don't know, maybe talking to the players and coaches once in a while.

Many posters here could provide far more insightful and un-biased opinion pieces than either Couch or Mariotti. Come to think of it, WSI already provides many such columns and interviews.

gobears1987
05-20-2008, 12:50 AM
I eagerly await the day the Sun-Times goes out of business.

Industry analysts say it can occur in as soon as 18 months from now.

gobears1987
05-20-2008, 01:03 AM
:rolleyes: GMAB. Care to offer an explanation then for the Sun-Times' incredible shrinking list of subscribers?And even then the numbers they do release are doctored and illegally inflated. Rumors I've heard are that the real number just went below 200,000.

While the entire industry may have issues with the Internet age, the issues the Sun Times has faced are far worse than any paper I can think of. They have been censured for inflating numbers, are getting killed by Red Eye, and then you can look at the Internet side and the fact that the Tribune is just a better paper.

The Tribune sports section isn't that great, but when I read a Tribune, I'm getting NEWS. Not the tabloid bull**** I get from the Sun Times.