PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Under Siege


Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 09:13 AM
Throughout the years of WSI's existence, we have had countless discussions about media bias ─ local and national ─ against our White Sox franchise as well as us the White Sox fandom. We have made case after case of the media portraying the Chicago National League Ballclub, Inc., is a cute and cuddly light while at the same time being harsh and judgmental in their portrayal of us. This latest media-fueled controversy in the wake of Ozzie Guillen's postgame comments on Sunday is a perfect example of how I think we are under siege by the local and national media.

Sometimes, per the way we are portrayed by the media, I wonder if we are actually the most hated team in all of professional sports. Yesterday, ESPN came after us and our manager like never before. Jay Mariotti must have a lot more influence there than conventional wisdom suggests, but I think there are many more plants of anti-White Sox bias at ESPN besides him. Just about every single ESPN program yesterday addressed Guillen's comments and either speculated about the possibility of Guillen getting fired or suggested outright that he should be fired. As much as we decry ESPN for this and their East Coast bias, it cannot be denied that ESPN is the most influential source of sports thought in the United States. That is why I am angry at their smear campaign against Guillen and, hence, us as members of the White Sox faithful. This smear campaign will only serve to refine increased hatred of us throughout the country.

The Chicago Sun-Times today is coming after us in similar fashion, like they did when the blow up doll controversy took place. And the No-So-Bright-One-Anymore's harsh and judgmental treatment of us has gone beyond Jay Mariotti, who today called for Guillen to be fired and argued that he is the lone voice in the Chicago sports media who challenges Guillen. Mariotti also implied that Guillen and, for that matter, the White Sox pose the greatest threat to Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. He is certainly Guillen's loudest local critic, but the rest of the local media hardly sucks up to Guillen. It's not as if Guillen (and the White Sox, for that matter) has the media in his hip pocket. Joe Cowley generally does a good job covering us, but he exploits situations like this to fuel controversy (and sell newspapers, let us not forget). Despite the sagging fortunes of the STNG, it does remain an influential sports voice in this area.

For those of you going to tonight's game, you will notice a larger media presence than usual. That is because in the wake of this controversry they themselves fueled, media beyond the beat reporters will decend upon U.S. Cellular Field like vultures looking for blood. I distinctly remember this way back in 1996. At the time, we were in first place in the AL Wild Card standings, yet we hardly got any attention from the local media from that. But when Frank Thomas and Robin Ventura got into a confrontation in the dugout at Yankee Stadium, that got the media's attention. I attended the first home game after that incident. By golly, there were a ton of media people there including Mariotti. After the White Sox finished BP, Frank was coming off the field and was surrounded by these media vultures. Thomas told them to get away and said something like "You guys made me look like a national *******."

And I would be remiss if I did not couple all of this with how the Chicago National League Ballclub, Inc., has been performing. We have concluded that the Cubs are having an outstanding regular season despite all the cupcakes they have played. This, of course, fuels notions from their fans and the media that the fiirst place Cubs are going all the way or "It's gonna happen," if you will. Of course, we all hope and believe that "It's NOT gonna happen," but the media would love nothing better than Cubs going all the way. To a number of media, a Cubs World Series championship would be a "reversal" of the World Series championship we won in 2005. Or they would view such a thing as a "legitimate" or "bigger" World Series championship as opposed to ours. Despite the fact that we are in first place ourselves (and, IMO, have a legitimate shot of being in first place when the regular season ends), the media is far more enfatuated with the North Siders than us.

And I am sick of this garbage that the Chicago National League Ballclub, Inc., is "entitled" to more favorable media coverage becasue their fan base is bigger. That is complete crap and is used by people like Dan Bernstein to justify discriminatory coverage of us. We are one of five major league franchises in Chicago, and we deserve our fair share of fair treatment.

Our franchise and we the fans of the franchise have had this media bias problem since almost the beginning of time. I do not know what we can really do about it, but whatever we have been doing is not making things any better. Ignoring it will not make it go away. In fact, I think ignorance of media bias against us effectively issues the media a license to keep treating us the way they have been treating us. Even ranting about it here like I am will not make it go away. We have all done plenty of that already. What creative way can we come up with to stem the tide of media smear campaigns against us? Of course, winning is a big help. We cannot complain about how the media treated us in October 2005 and the months that followed. Yet, such moments have been rare. We deserve to be treated fairly but respectfully all the time, not just when we're in the midst of a World Series championship run.

Gammons Peter
06-03-2008, 09:32 AM
And I am sick of this garbage that the Chicago National League Ballclub, Inc., is "entitled" to more favorable media coverage becasue their fan base is bigger. That is complete crap and is used by people like Dan Bernstein to justify discriminatory coverage of us. We are one of five major league franchises in Chicago, and we deserve our fair share of fair treatment.


Not more favorable, just more. That's the way it is and will always be. Cater to the masses

doublem23
06-03-2008, 09:39 AM
Chicago 30-26 .536 -
Minnesota 30-27 .526
Cleveland 26-31 .456 4
Detroit 24-33 .421 6
Kansas City 23-34 .404 7

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 09:44 AM
Chicago 30-26 .536 -
Minnesota 30-27 .526
Cleveland 26-31 .456 4
Detroit 24-33 .421 6
Kansas City 23-34 .404 7


This is not about us on the field.

spawn
06-03-2008, 09:47 AM
This is not about us on the field.
The on the field results are all that really matter to me. I relly don't give a flying **** what the media thinks or prints anymore, especially the journalists at the Scum-Times.

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 09:50 AM
The on the field results are all that really matter to me. I relly don't give a flying **** what the media thinks or prints anymore, especially the journalists at the Scum-Times.

I am insulted as a White Sox fan when it is treated like **** by the media.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 09:51 AM
I feel the same as you do, to the point where I now no longer read either paper, or watch the local sports shows.

The constant barrage of the Cubbie Love on sports radio also has my ipod on at all times in the truck.

I just tune it out and enjoy what my team is doing.

The fact of the matter is, I honestly do not think anything we do is going to change it.

I will state that I think the White Sox missed a golden chance to reel in alot of the media and casual fans had they been able to make the playoffs again in 2006. Instead we fizzled out down the stretch and have the "fluke" tab slapped on us.

soxpride724
06-03-2008, 09:55 AM
I feel the same as you do, to the point where I now no longer read either paper, or watch the local sports shows.

The constant barrage of the Cubbie Love on sports radio also has my ipod on at all times in the truck.

I just tune it out and enjoy what my team is doing.

The fact of the matter is, I honestly do not think anything we do is going to change it.

I will state that I think the White Sox missed a golden chance to reel in alot of the media and casual fans had they been able to make the playoffs again in 2006. Instead we fizzled out down the stretch and have the "fluke" tab slapped on us.


I couldn't have said it better. We were getting alot of love after the WS title, and for most of the 2006 campaign, but we all know what happened after the All-Star break. We had our 15 minutes and then things went back to the way they always were. Do you guys remember the tribune columnist who wrote "The White Sox are no longer the second team in the second city " after the WS? That was true for about six months.

cheezheadsoxfan
06-03-2008, 09:58 AM
I feel the same as you do, to the point where I now no longer read either paper, or watch the local sports shows.

The constant barrage of the Cubbie Love on sports radio also has my ipod on at all times in the truck.

I just tune it out and enjoy what my team is doing.

The fact of the matter is, I honestly do not think anything we do is going to change it.

I will state that I think the White Sox missed a golden chance to reel in alot of the media and casual fans had they been able to make the playoffs again in 2006. Instead we fizzled out down the stretch and have the "fluke" tab slapped on us.

So the Cubs can suck for 100 years but one WS Championship isn't enough to get us some respect. I'm not jumping on you, but it's still BS.

Thome25
06-03-2008, 10:03 AM
I feel the same as you do, to the point where I now no longer read either paper, or watch the local sports shows.

The constant barrage of the Cubbie Love on sports radio also has my ipod on at all times in the truck.

I just tune it out and enjoy what my team is doing.

The fact of the matter is, I honestly do not think anything we do is going to change it.

I will state that I think the White Sox missed a golden chance to reel in alot of the media and casual fans had they been able to make the playoffs again in 2006. Instead we fizzled out down the stretch and have the "fluke" tab slapped on us.


It's not just about the Chicago media coverage anymore. It's not a matter of just ignoring the Chicago newspapers.

I live outside of Chicago and I have to ignore the EAST COAST media coverage of the White Sox because it has gotten so bad. That includes my local small town newspaper.

Part of the fun of sports is being able to follow your team....that includes watching games, reading the newspaper, the internet, and watching sports based shows.

I'm no longer in the heart of this bias but, I can see it and feel it in small-town Maryland.

We should be treated like the "big boys" in Chicago because we win far more often and have actually done the impossible in Chicago which is win the WS.

Yet, I think we get treated WORSE than we did before we won thw WS.....and the Cubs somehow get treated better since we won the WS because somehow they've gotten cuter and cuddlier compared to us.

Maybe this is because people feel even more sorry for them now that we won the WS or they now have this underdog mentality surrounding the Cubs. There's something about the underdog that alot of people love.

There's definitely this "chip on their shoulder" mentality surrounding the Cubs since we won the WS. I think the fans and media felt like the Cubs should've won it first and this is where all of the sense of entitlement and venom spewed at the White Sox comes from.

palehozenychicty
06-03-2008, 10:05 AM
So the Cubs can suck for 100 years but one WS Championship isn't enough to get us some respect. I'm not jumping on you, but it's still BS.


It's BS, but KW has stated several times in the press that the Sox need to win two WS titles to change the media culture. He's right, as we can see today. Winning consistently is the elixir, and that's all they have to do.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 10:05 AM
So the Cubs can suck for 100 years but one WS Championship isn't enough to get us some respect. I'm not jumping on you, but it's still BS.

I don't take it as jumping on me, don't worry. Trust me it pisses me off to no end, just ask my wife who has to put up with my ranting and raving.

What really puzzles me is everyone seems to forget that in 83 Wrigley was empty.......folks act as if the Cubs have been drawing 3 millions fans since 1908.

What really peaks my interest is if they actually ever win a World Series...will being a Cubbie fan still be "hip".....will the casual follower ( and in my opinion this type of fan makes up a HUGE portion of their fan base ) still cheer them on?

I will say this, not all Cub fans are tools.....some of them actually know their baseball. I can honestly say I've never had a bad run in with this type of fan. It's the casual fan that only offers up " Sox Suck " comment. This after they can't name the starting nine players on their beloved Cubs. Or rationalize that Ted Lilly rocks because he has such a cute ass:angry:

Palehose Pete
06-03-2008, 10:12 AM
OK, I'm a subscriber to the "just don't look" philosophy for approaching the Chicago media regarding the Sox. However, while riding the train to work this morning, I picked up a discarded Sun-Times and even I couldn't help but notice the biased Sox coverage. I tried to look away, but was drawn to it... Now I am pretty well pissed off because this is the worst I've seen from the Sun-Times in quite a while.

PatK
06-03-2008, 10:15 AM
What really puzzles me is everyone seems to forget that in 83 Wrigley was empty.......folks act as if the Cubs have been drawing 3 millions fans since 1908.



That's so true.

There is so much revisionist history with the Cubs that it is laughable.

The worst, IMO, is how they give a statue to Harry Caray, who spent more time with the Cards, and give Jack Brickhouse litterally nothing after 40 years with the Cubs.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 10:15 AM
OK, I'm a subscriber to the "just don't look" philosophy for approaching the Chicago media regarding the Sox. However, while riding the train to work this morning, I picked up a discarded Sun-Times and even I couldn't help but notice the biased Sox coverage. I tried to look away, but was drawn to it... Now I am pretty well pissed off because this is the worst I've seen from the Sun-Times in quite a while.

I dropped my Sun Times subscripition after the blow up doll incident.....Ms. Sleazak and myself also exchanged some emails that sealed the deal on that paper being "dead to me".

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 10:17 AM
There is so much revisionist history with the Cubs that it is laughable.


The one little bit of "history" that I love to remind them off is Lee Elia's rant...I play that often for the Cub lovers here at work. :D:

spawn
06-03-2008, 10:23 AM
I am insulted as a White Sox fan when it is treated like **** by the media.
They are treated like **** by the shock sports mediots like Mariotti and Slezak. I consider the source, so I don't get insulted as a fan. Like I said, I really don't care what the media thinks. If you want to be insulted, go right ahead. I'm not saying your feelings aren't important, but they don't bother me becuase I just don't read, watch, or listen to the idiots out there who don't even have the balls to even approach the team in the locker room and write thier negative pieces based on innuendo and heresay.

areilly
06-03-2008, 10:29 AM
Sometimes, per the way we are portrayed by the media, I wonder if we are actually the most hated team in all of professional sports. Yesterday, ESPN came after us and our manager like never before. Jay Mariotti must have a lot more influence there than conventional wisdom suggests, but I think there are many more plants of anti-White Sox bias at ESPN besides him. Just about every single ESPN program yesterday addressed Guillen's comments and either speculated about the possibility of Guillen getting fired or suggested outright that he should be fired. As much as we decry ESPN for this and their East Coast bias, it cannot be denied that ESPN is the most influential source of sports thought in the United States. That is why I am angry at their smear campaign against Guillen and, hence, us as members of the White Sox faithful. This smear campaign will only serve to refine increased hatred of us throughout the country.

Ozzie Guillen told the press that his boss better do something "or else," conceding to players, fans, owners, other teams and reporters alike that he's lost control of his team's performance at the plate. When a coach or manager gives up on his team and calls out the guys who sign his paychecks even after they've stood by him through very public feuds with Alex Rodriguez, Jay Mariotti, Buck Showalter, Nomar Garciaparra, Magglio Ordonez, the Chicago Cubs, Carlos Lee and the media as a whole, that is the very definition of headline-worthy and certainly a topic worth addressing. Generally speaking, habitually pissing off your bosses is a good way to get fired regardless of your job.

I don't take that personally. None of the talking heads went on the air yesterday saying "Andrew Reilly needs to re-evaluate his priorities in life" or "Andrew Reilly of Chicago is obviously a distrubed individual as evidenced by the man who manages the only sports team he truly cares about."

Just last week ESPN.com ran a feature on how the Sox may have the best pitching staff in the league, and the Sox are No. 3 in this week's Power Rankings. If there's some smear campaign going on, I just don't see it. I'd concede there's a lot of willful ignorance going on, since the Sox don't usually have national-level appeal - except when they win the World Series, or when their manager goes to the press to talk about how unhappy he is with their general manager.

cheezheadsoxfan
06-03-2008, 10:34 AM
OK, I'm a subscriber to the "just don't look" philosophy for approaching the Chicago media regarding the Sox. However, while riding the train to work this morning, I picked up a discarded Sun-Times and even I couldn't help but notice the biased Sox coverage. I tried to look away, but was drawn to it... Now I am pretty well pissed off because this is the worst I've seen from the Sun-Times in quite a while.

Curiosity got the better of me and I went to their website. There are 4-5 links on this flap. No way I'd click on the Windsock but I did read Slezak.
Based on the ridiculous doll-gate stuff I was expecting Mariotti-lite. Was suprised that it was actually a rational column. She focused on first-place, outstanding pitching and said she understood Ozzie's frustration. I was very suprised. I still don't like her but at least see seemed to see this for what it is.

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 10:39 AM
They are treated like **** by the shock sports mediots like Mariotti and Slezak. I consider the source, so I don't get insulted as a fan. Like I said, I really don't care what the media thinks. If you want to be insulted, go right ahead. I'm not saying your feelings aren't important, but they don't bother me becuase I just don't read, watch, or listen to the idiots out there who don't even have the balls to even approach the team in the locker room and write thier negative pieces based on innuendo and heresay.

As a White Sox fan, I care about the institution of White Sox baseball and do not take it sitting down when it comes under attack. The underlying tone from the said mediots is that the very institution of Chicago White Sox baseball is an anathema on sports landscape. And I refuse to idly sit by and allow it to happen without calling them on it.

Palehose Pete
06-03-2008, 10:42 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that Slezak's column was a pleasant surprise. She actually had a valid point and backed it up with a rational argument.

chisoxfanatic
06-03-2008, 10:42 AM
There's definitely this "chip on their shoulder" mentality surrounding the Cubs since we won the WS. I think the fans and media felt like the Cubs should've won it first and this is where all of the sense of entitlement and venom spewed at the White Sox comes from.
I pretty much agree with all of this, as well as the rest of your post. I too believe the Cubune and Cubtimes were pissed that it was us winning the World Series instead of their beloved. We can just hope that the Cubs never win it in our lifetimes so that this won't increase exponentially.

I have never had a subscription to either paper (read all of my news online); but, what I have been doing is taking note of which companies sponsor the Cubs and don't buy from them, while I buy things from companies I know sponsor the Sox.

spawn
06-03-2008, 10:44 AM
As a White Sox fan, I care about the institution of White Sox baseball and do not take it sitting down when it comes under attack. The underlying tone from the said mediots is that the very institution of Chicago White Sox baseball is an anathema on sports landscape. And I refuse to idly sit by and allow it to happen without calling them on it.
Just curious as to what you plan to do to change this "landscape"? The Sox have been getting the raw end of the deal as far as the media goes for years. Winning a World Series obviously hasn't changed that. So what are you going to do about it?

Frater Perdurabo
06-03-2008, 10:45 AM
Stop buying their papers.

Stop watching those TV stations.

Stop using the products and services that advertise in those papers and on those stations.

Tell those businesses why you are not doing business with them.

Tell those media outlets what you are doing.

Tell all your friends and family to do the same.

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 10:46 AM
Just curious as to what you plan to do to change this "landscape"? The Sox have been getting the raw end of the deal as far as the media goes for years. Winning a World Series obviously hasn't changed that. So what are you going to do about it?

I already said I do not have the answer. Nevertheless, we must continue to be made aware of it and continue to call the media out on it because ignorning it will not make it go away.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-03-2008, 10:47 AM
**** ESPN - they're in a tizzy because Ortiz in on the DL. I expected to see black armbands with a Boston B on them on BBTN.

**** the Sun Times. The Ozzie/KW story will be the Moron's battle cry for the rest of his life. If the Sox do work all this out, and win the division, he'll say it took this to right the ship. In his little world, he's always right.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-03-2008, 10:48 AM
Just curious as to what you plan to do to change this "landscape"? The Sox have been getting the raw end of the deal as far as the media goes for years. Winning a World Series obviously hasn't changed that. So what are you going to do about it?

We, as fans, have to ignore it. Only the Sox, by winning, can change it.

Thome25
06-03-2008, 10:54 AM
We, as fans, have to ignore it. Only the Sox, by winning, can change it.

Winning isn't going to change it. We win more often than the Cubs do which was capped off by a WS victory in 2005. Yet we get treated WORSE than we did before the WS championship. This is in our own city mind you.

We might as well face it, we're not the darlings of Chicago baseball nor will we ever be. (not anytime soon at least.)

Alot of us were hoping the 2005 WS would change the Chicago baseball landscape. It has only gotten worse.

We might not feel the effects of the 2005 WS until years from now when all of the youngsters who were watching baseball for the first time and hadn't decided which baseball team to support, cut their teeth on the 2005 White Sox.

spawn
06-03-2008, 10:55 AM
We, as fans, have to ignore it. Only the Sox, by winning, can change it.
I agree 100%. That's why i'm not upset at what's being printed or said. It's really not worth the time or the effort in getting upset over.

spawn
06-03-2008, 10:56 AM
**** ESPN - they're in a tizzy because Ortiz in on the DL. I expected to see black armbands with a Boston B on them on BBTN.

**** the Sun Times. The Ozzie/KW story will be the Moron's battle cry for the rest of his life. If the Sox do work all this out, and win the division, he'll say it took this to right the ship. In his little world, he's always right.
Has he ever been wrong?:redneck

It's Time
06-03-2008, 11:10 AM
Viva:

What is so shocking here? The Cubs got the Lions share of coverage when they were bad, now that they have the best record in Baseball, what do you think is going to happen?

Of course the Cubs are a big deal now. The 100 years without a title story was going to be a story for all the media outlets, not just Chicago.

The Cubs are THE STORY in Baseball right now and the fact they are blitzing the league is only going to make the story into a snowball rolling down hill.

This has nothing to do with the White Sox.

kittle42
06-03-2008, 11:14 AM
Stop buying their papers.

Stop watching those TV stations.

Stop using the products and services that advertise in those papers and on those stations.

Tell those businesses why you are not doing business with them.

Tell those media outlets what you are doing.

Tell all your friends and family to do the same.

Or, ignore it, because sports are supposed to be fun and an escape from real life.

PatK
06-03-2008, 11:21 AM
I get as much of my baseball info from XM that I can.

Flight #24
06-03-2008, 11:48 AM
As much as I'd agree that there's a general bias as discussed in the opening post, IMO Ozzie brings most of the heat on him on himself. He knows exactly how it will be discussed/written but he either does it anyway (calculatedly as Rozner believes) or because he can't help himself.

white sox bill
06-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Would love if the Sox came back from the dead, whilst Media team squandered a huge lead and missed playoffs, the ignored Sox on the day that celebrated Division title, rudley closed doors on the Media and partied in private. Wasn't it Jim Parque back in 2000 that jumped all over reporters for ignoring them during season then coming around when they got hot and won Division? I know this would only aleinated them even more but what sweet revenge then to tell the TV,Radio,Print guys where to shove it?

kittle42
06-03-2008, 12:41 PM
Would love if the Sox came back from the dead, whilst Media team squandered a huge lead and missed playoffs, the ignored Sox on the day that celebrated Division title, rudley closed doors on the Media and partied in private. Wasn't it Jim Parque back in 2000 that jumped all over reporters for ignoring them during season then coming around when they got hot and won Division? I know this would only aleinated them even more but what sweet revenge then to tell the TV,Radio,Print guys where to shove it?

Makes no sense if your team wants to make money.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-03-2008, 12:41 PM
We might as well face it, we're not the darlings of Chicago baseball nor will we ever be. (not anytime soon at least.)

This might be true. But you know what? I don't give a ****. If this is what being a fan has come to, always worrying about what another team's fan base feels about you, then I want no part of it. If Sox fans have to feel vindicated by what the media thinks about us vs. Cub fans, then we're no better than Boston prior to 2004.

DILLIGAF? Nope. I will be at Friday's game to see the team I love, the White Sox. **** the Cubs and the media for creating (and buying into) this false positive.

jonred
06-03-2008, 12:53 PM
Kind of ironic that you're complaining about the quantity of media coverage, but then when you get it you're also not happy about what they are saying, is that right?

Regarding this latest Ozzie blow up, how often do you hear a manager/coach publicly throw their GM/boss and other coaches under the bus? The answer is not often at all, which makes the story very newsworthy.

And in a time when newspapers are fighting for their very existance, it's naive to think that they won't cover the stories that will sell more papers. The Cubs have a larger fan base, so they logically get more attention, but I do think it's been pretty balanced in town with the Sox also in first place.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 12:58 PM
Kind of ironic that you're complaining about the quantity of media coverage, but then when you get it you're also not happy about what they are saying, is that right?

Regarding this latest Ozzie blow up, how often do you hear a manager/coach publicly throw their GM/boss and other coaches under the bus? The answer is not often at all, which makes the story very newsworthy.

And in a time when newspapers are fighting for their very existance, it's naive to think that they won't cover the stories that will sell more papers. The Cubs have a larger fan base, so they logically get more attention, but I do think it's been pretty balanced in town with the Sox also in first place.

You should not be in this thread and statements like the one that is highlighted will get you banned for trolling.

slavko
06-03-2008, 12:59 PM
My fading memory tells me that in Ozzie's playing days, when a certain columnist still entered the Sox clubhouse, a naked Ozzie came up behind him and did pelvic thrusts (or so the columnist once wrote). Do you think that this could influence his reporting? Or cause him to fear the Sox clubhouse?

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall.

Hitmen77
06-03-2008, 01:11 PM
Welcome to the Hangar18 nostalgia thread.

hose
06-03-2008, 01:21 PM
If the national media didn't jump all over Ozzie's comments would you be upset with them ignoring the Sox?

JB98
06-03-2008, 01:28 PM
It is my hope that one day the entire world will hate the Chicago White Sox. When everyone hates you, that means you've beaten them, that you've done something to them.

The world hates the New York Yankees because they always win. No one hates the last-place Kansas City Royals.

I'd much rather be hated and despised like the Yankees than irrelevant like the Royals or Pirates.

All the disrespect the White Sox get just might serve as a rallying point for the team. I hope the players get a big chip on their shoulders in the wake of all this.

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 01:35 PM
If the national media didn't jump all over Ozzie's comments would you be upset with them ignoring the Sox?

Kind of ironic that you're complaining about the quantity of media coverage, but then when you get it you're also not happy about what they are saying, is that right?

The main problem is that it takes negative controversy like this for us to get attention. We have gotten far more attention for this and the blow up doll affair than we did for our eight game winning streak or the fact that we are in first place. Something is not right.

guillen4life13
06-03-2008, 01:36 PM
You should not be in this thread and statements like the one that is highlighted will get you banned for trolling.

Voodoo: no disrespect intended by this, but regardless of whether you agree with him or not, I don't see this as trolling since there's nothing disrespectful or blatantly slanted in favor of the Cubs. He's just stating his view on the media bias. From a business standpoint, if you can adequately cater to a larger target market, then it's generally a good idea to do so. These news and media outlets are businesses and, for better or for worse, they want to increase their profit margins.

All that said, I still do believe there is a media bias in Chicago, and it's not just in the articles specifically pertaining to either team. It's also in other articles where the neighborhoods or team are mentioned, even if they aren't the focus.

I think Mark Gonzales has done a decent job covering the Sox--much better than Greenstein, though I thought Sullivan was decent a few years ago. Haugh was nothing special. I don't like Joe Cowley at all and I believe that he may have misrepresented Ozzie's comments to KW to elicit the response that he got. KW's statement to Gonzales seemed a lot more balanced, which supports that theory.

I think the problem right now in major media outlets is that they're trying hard to create or be the story when the goal of journalism is to take an objective, passive stance. Columnists give their opinions, but often we find that a certain number of them do not equip themselves with the necessary facts and interactions to formulate qualified opinions. The other problem is that these columnists, like everyone on these boards (myself included) seems to believe that they know more about the game than the execs and managers that run the team. That would be the Moron, among others. And this does NOT limit itself to baseball coverage. I'd bet a slice of cheesecake that Jerry Reinsdorf knows more than his share of **** when it comes to basketball. The way the Moron blasted JR for interviewing D'Antoni about his playing philosophies was downright stupid. I myself, while not opposed to hiring D'Antoni, was very worried about his teams' defensive performance.

The problem exacerbates itself when national outlets like ESPN take the local feed from the Trib/ST and develop their story on what is likely already biased.

I do think there are a few decent columnists here and there. I like Rick Morrissey. Even though he sometimes says things I don't agree with, his views often seem to be the most level-headed, and he sometimes has some pretty profound observations. Downey's columns seem more like a waste of space. Tell me something I don't know.

Ozzie has brought a lot of this upon himself, and again, I tend to think he has other motives. If he really had a problem with the way he is skewered every time he opens his mouth, he would have stopped a while ago. This situation has, again, brought media attention towards "Fire Ozzie" than it has towards the meaning behind his words. I personally don't think Ozzie threw KW under the bus. In fact, I took the meaning to be more along the lines of, "Kenny isn't going to take this ****! Expect him to make some changes!" To me, that's more of a compliment of KW's standards--and the team's offense is below those standards.

IMHO, the media bias will not disappear until Bridgeport/Bronzeville are able to shed their current image and can become a cultural center of sorts in the city. 2005 has already bred its share of Sox fans, but it's not just the team that gets them fans. Walk up crowds increase when there's something fun to do right after the game on any given night in close vicinity to the park. Establish more eateries and bars/clubs and an atmosphere that can support a business even when the Sox aren't playing. That's how it happened for the Cubs with Wrigleyville and Lincoln Park gentrifying and becoming the hip places that they are today.

Lip Man 1
06-03-2008, 01:39 PM
Viva:

You must have missed this the first time around when I posted this is another thread about a month ago.
----------

I could do a full length feature story based on this thread title (and I just may do that for PHG) but basically their are a number of reasons the Sox are where they are at regarding media coverage. Some of them were because of things outside their control, some were the results of their own short sighted decisions.

In a nutshell, here are the reasons in no particular order or timetable:

1. As Rich Lindberg said in his WSI interview, many of the "local" media aren't from Chicago. Many in fact grew up watching the Cubs on Superstation WGN and when they do arrive in Chicago, fall right into the mentally of seeing all things good on the North Side.

2. Making some serious mistakes in television coverage. Leaving WGN before 1968 and SportsVision in 1982 which took a majority of their games off "free TV," losing a generation of fans who watched the Cubs because they were on "free TV."

3. Right or wrong, media (and public) interpretation over events such as threatening to move to Tampa, the White Flag Trade and the 1994 labor impasse. In fact you could go back to the racial unrest in Chicago in the mid 60's which first showed themselves directly involving the White Sox by drastically damaging their attendance.

4. Bad luck (or typical White Sox luck if you will...) The Sox have a terrific season in 1983...the Cubs make the post season for the first time since 1945, in 1984 WITH their games being on the Superstation. Before that, the Cubs were closing the upper deck because of lack of fans...afterwards they couldn't get more fans in with a shoehorn.

5. The Tribune Company buying the Cubs in 1981. As Chet Coppock said in his WSI interview, "never underestimate the marketing power of the Tribune Company."

6. The White Sox almost continuous "indifference" to the fact that, like it or not, they ARE in direct competition with the Cubs for the hearts and minds of Chicago sports fans and the areas fans. Yet all we ever hear or read are statements along the lines of (paraphrasing) "we don't care what they do." In my opinion you damn well BETTER care what they do because they are taking your potential customers. Perhaps the Sox feel that realistically they can't compete, with the Tribune Company so they attempt to take the "high road" with statements like these. If so that is a real shame on their part.

7. Harry Caray. As Noel Gimble said in his documentary on Harry from two years ago, the Sox actually offered Harry more money then he got from the Cubs in 1982 to stay on, but with SportsVision, Harry wanted no part of it. He left at, as Steve Stone said, just a few days ago, the perfect time as "the perfect storm" was brewing to put the Cubs in position to take over the city and dominate media coverage.

Finally let's not forget there are Sox fans in the media...Richard Roeper, John Kass, Bob Vanderberg, Rich Lindberg, Ed Sherman and Paul Sullivan that I personally know of but like it or not, the Cubs can win or lose and still get the majority of media coverage right now and they have since the mid 80's.

But let's also not forget it wasn't always this way...the Cubs couldn't get arrested in this town from 1951 through the mid 1960's. These things change, although, it is hard for me to see a scenario in the near future where things will swing back the Sox way. The Sox had a golden chance after the 2005 season but they couldn't keep it going because they couldn't return to the post season.

Lip

fquaye149
06-03-2008, 01:45 PM
You should not be in this thread and statements like the one that is highlighted will get you banned for trolling.

i don't mean to be a dick, but the highlighted statement is true.

Sports=entertainment. Entertainment coverage isn't dictated by the same standards as "real" news--i.e. "everything must be covered equally."

Entertainment news is covered by "what's the biggest market for a story"

:shrug:

It's still obnoxious to read the Chicago media, though.

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 01:48 PM
Viva:

You must have missed this the first time around when I posted this is another thread about a month ago.

What you said is all true, but it does not justify what is going on. It may explain it, but it does not justify it. I'm sticking to my guns on this issue. Regardless of what has happened in the past, we must continue to call out the media on their anti-White Sox bias.

jonred
06-03-2008, 01:53 PM
You should not be in this thread and statements like the one that is highlighted will get you banned for trolling.

My intent was not to stir the pot, I was just trying to provide an explanation for why the Cubs might be getting more media attention.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 01:54 PM
My intent was not to stir the pot, I was just trying to provide an explanation for why the Cubs might be getting more media attention.

You have to be ****ing kidding me with that statement right:rolleyes:

Dick Allen
06-03-2008, 01:58 PM
You should not be in this thread and statements like the one that is highlighted will get you banned for trolling.It's what he said right after that that should get him banned.

hose
06-03-2008, 01:59 PM
The national media could make Kenny and the Sox franchise look real bad if they went into detail about Dave Wilder. :redface:

You ain't seen nothing yet Viva.

PatK
06-03-2008, 02:03 PM
It's what he said right after that that should get him banned.

Well he is an admitted Cubs fan coming to a Sox forum.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 02:04 PM
Well he is an admitted Cubs fan coming to a Sox forum.

All his posts have been cubbie related..........he must be flubcessed!

SoxGirl4Life
06-03-2008, 02:08 PM
All his posts have been cubbie related..........he must be flubcessed!


I didn't think Cub fans cared about the Sox. Or even acknowledged their existence

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 02:11 PM
I didn't think Cub fans cared about the Sox. Or even acknowledged their existence

It's true it's true! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Viva Medias B's
06-03-2008, 02:13 PM
The national media could make Kenny and the Sox franchise look real bad if they went into detail about Dave Wilder. :redface:

You ain't seen nothing yet Viva.

Believe me. They cannot wait. I'll guess they are waiting for more **** to hit the fan first.

jonred
06-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Guys, look I'm REALLY not trying to stir the pot. As a Cubs fan, I could be as equally pissed about the universal references to (fill in the blank): the 100 year drought, goats, black cats, Bartman, June swoons, etc. that are part of each and every Cubs story.

Back in a previous life, I actually came from the jounalism field and outside of Jay Moronic's obvious dislike for the Sox, I don't see cases of direct bias towards the Cubs. In the Trib itself, both teams usually get a game story, sidebar and notes, which seems rather balanced to me. On a national scale, media will cover what will attract viewers, as an one of the previous posters mentioned, the Cubs had the advantage of broadcasting games across the country for years. That's why it seemed like there were more Cubs fans than Padres fans at the game the other night.

Honestly, I like having two teams in town and enjoy going to games on the southside, so I'd welcome equal coverage of the teams in the local media.

tebman
06-03-2008, 02:17 PM
I could do a full length feature story based on this thread title (and I just may do that for PHG) but basically their are a number of reasons the Sox are where they are at regarding media coverage. Some of them were because of things outside their control, some were the results of their own short sighted decisions.


Lip eloquently listed again the reasons we're where we are. Much of it is the Sox organization's own fault, to be sure, but there's also a perfect storm of converging trends that can be added to Lip's summary:

* demographic shifts in the last 20 years, making the Lakeview neighborhood highly marketable;
* the slow death of traditional newspapers, driving them to shout louder and gin up a good-guy/bad-guy storyline;
* the rise of sportstalk radio and TV, which needs conflict and contention to fuel its ratings in a crowded media world;
* the architectural trend toward old-building preservation and traditional motifs, which has made Wrigley Field into a celebrity building;
* the savvy marketing of WGN radio and WGN-TV, which have tied their identities to the Cubs for many years, even before the Tribune bought the team.

The papers, the cable-TV shouters, and the ravers & mumblers on the radio all need a narrative to give them something to talk about. The simplest narrative is conflict: you need Good Guys and Bad Guys, and the trendy Cubs and their fashionable fans fill the Good Guy role while the scrappy White Sox and their bluer-collared fans fill the Bad Guy role.

How do we change that? The best way would've been to win another World Series or two, but that hasn't happened yet. In the meantime I tell myself that every bubble has to burst eventually -- maybe not in an explosive and dramatic way, but it has to burst nonetheless. It's not self-sustaining over the long haul.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 02:25 PM
Guys, look I'm REALLY not trying to stir the pot. As a Cubs fan, I could be as equally pissed about the universal references to (fill in the blank): the 100 year drought, goats, black cats, Bartman, June swoons, etc. that are part of each and every Cubs story.

Back in a previous life, I actually came from the jounalism field and outside of Jay Moronic's obvious dislike for the Sox, I don't see cases of direct bias towards the Cubs. In the Trib itself, both teams usually get a game story, sidebar and notes, which seems rather balanced to me. On a national scale, media will cover what will attract viewers, as an one of the previous posters mentioned, the Cubs had the advantage of broadcasting games across the country for years. That's why it seemed like there were more Cubs fans than Padres fans at the game the other night.

Honestly, I like having two teams in town and enjoy going to games on the southside, so I'd welcome equal coverage of the teams in the local media.

Let me explain something to you that annoys the living **** out me about Cubdome.

There is always refrence to "large cub fan base" look how many "Cubbie Fans" there are in all the opposing parks. " Cubbie nation" is the greatest fan base in all of pro sports.

Please explain to me why in the **** it matters if there are 100 or 1,000,000 fans of a team? Just because there may be more Cub fans than Sox fans does that mean we merit less attention?

The only time the Sox get major coverage is when there is a blow up or mishap.

The Cubs haven't won a damn thing since 1908 why all the hype & love over a century of futility.

I'm sick and tired of all this bull****. If you don't want to stir the pot try engaging in other areas of the forum that involve things not related to the Cubs.

Otherwise in my opinion you are trolling and you are trying to stir the pot.

Again, just my perception, not the fact.

Soxman219
06-03-2008, 02:28 PM
It is my hope that one day the entire world will hate the Chicago White Sox. When everyone hates you, that means you've beaten them, that you've done something to them.

The world hates the New York Yankees because they always win. No one hates the last-place Kansas City Royals.

I'd much rather be hated and despised like the Yankees than irrelevant like the Royals or Pirates.

All the disrespect the White Sox get just might serve as a rallying point for the team. I hope the players get a big chip on their shoulders in the wake of all this.

:bandance:

Exactly what I was thinking. The only reason the media hates us more is because we won first. I like that, when everyone envys you of your sucess. The more wins they get, the more haters they get, which means the more motivation they get to win. No one used to hate the Patriots until they started to win. People hate the Patriots not because of Spygate, but because they win all the time. Teams like the Yankees, Patriots, the Duke Basketball team are all hated because they are good. All this really does is add fuel to the fire. If they believe it, this could be a rally starter for the Sox to win consistently.

palehozenychicty
06-03-2008, 02:42 PM
:bandance:

Exactly what I was thinking. The only reason the media hates us more is because we won first. I like that, when everyone envys you of your sucess. The more wins they get, the more haters they get, which means the more motivation they get to win. No one used to hate the Patriots until they started to win. People hate the Patriots not because of Spygate, but because they win all the time. Teams like the Yankees, Patriots, the Duke Basketball team are all hated because they are good. All this really does is add fuel to the fire. If they believe it, this could be a rally starter for the Sox to win consistently.

Thank you. If you're getting a response, you have a pulse. Even Kenny wanted us to become the Raiders of baseball (when they were winning, of course). If we can get some more WS rings, he'll be right.

kittle42
06-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Please explain to me why in the **** it matters if there are 100 or 1,000,000 fans of a team? Just because there may be more Cub fans than Sox fans does that mean we merit less attention?

Actually, that's precisely why they merit more attention...more people = more $$$.

Now, if you want to argue about the 1,000,000 acting like their loser team has a Yankee-like legacy, I'll be with you on that one.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 02:51 PM
My intent was not to stir the pot, I was just trying to provide an explanation for why the Cubs might be getting more media attention.

No biggie, just wanted you to be aware of what you are up against. Comments like the two that follow this reply show you the depth some posters will go to hate on you and your team. My suggestion would be to stick to talking rationally about your team and other baseball teams and stay out of controversial threads like this one. You notice this thread isn't in the Clubhouse. It's guaranteed to attract the most volatile Sox fans - the ones who have no objective viewpoint about their team. You are walking in a minefield and if things start to blow, you catch the shrapnel, because it's easier to remove the fuse than to fight the effects of the bomb going off...

You have to be ****ing kidding me with that statement right:rolleyes:

It's what he said right after that that should get him banned.

russ99
06-03-2008, 02:52 PM
OK, I'm a subscriber to the "just don't look" philosophy for approaching the Chicago media regarding the Sox. However, while riding the train to work this morning, I picked up a discarded Sun-Times and even I couldn't help but notice the biased Sox coverage. I tried to look away, but was drawn to it... Now I am pretty well pissed off because this is the worst I've seen from the Sun-Times in quite a while.

Just ignore Moronatti. The rest is much less slanted and not so awful. Cowley's isn't so great, but he is just stating pre-written facts.

Both Slezak's and De Luca's articles are actually pretty decent today.

If you're expecting all flowery butt-kissing talk, we'll probably never see that, but I don't think today's Sun Times is so anti-Sox, as long as you ignore the moron.

If the Sun Times had one shred of journalistic decency, Moronatti would be barred from writing about the Sox and Bulls. It's so ridiculously obvious he's got an personal beef and an axe to grind against Reinsdorf.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 02:54 PM
Let me explain something to you that annoys the living **** out me about Cubdome.

There is always refrence to "large cub fan base" look how many "Cubbie Fans" there are in all the opposing parks. " Cubbie nation" is the greatest fan base in all of pro sports.

Please explain to me why in the **** it matters if there are 100 or 1,000,000 fans of a team? Just because there may be more Cub fans than Sox fans does that mean we merit less attention?

The only time the Sox get major coverage is when there is a blow up or mishap.

The Cubs haven't won a damn thing since 1908 why all the hype & love over a century of futility.

I'm sick and tired of all this bull****. If you don't want to stir the pot try engaging in other areas of the forum that involve things not related to the Cubs.

Otherwise in my opinion you are trolling and you are trying to stir the pot.

Again, just my perception, not the fact.

Please allow the moderators to do their job. Post or don't post, but let us decide who is trolling.

cards press box
06-03-2008, 02:58 PM
Kind of ironic that you're complaining about the quantity of media coverage, but then when you get it you're also not happy about what they are saying, is that right?

Regarding this latest Ozzie blow up, how often do you hear a manager/coach publicly throw their GM/boss and other coaches under the bus? The answer is not often at all, which makes the story very newsworthy.

And in a time when newspapers are fighting for their very existance, it's naive to think that they won't cover the stories that will sell more papers. The Cubs have a larger fan base, so they logically get more attention, but I do think it's been pretty balanced in town with the Sox also in first place.

Balanced? Well, there are some members of the local media who think that Jay Mariotti and his perpetual White Sox witch hunt is insane and asinine but, you know, that's not exactly "balance." Balance would be getting a fair shake all the way around. The Sox don't get that now and never have in my lifetime. What we have here is some members of the media (Mariotti, Greg Couch and others) who jam the Sox every way imaginable and never give them a fair shake. Then we have others (like Eric Zorn, Mark Giangreco and others) who admit that they prefer the Cubs to the Sox but at least are open about it. And then we have some (like Joe Cowley, Scot Gregor and others) who just cover the team. The fact that one member of the media called for Guillen's firing today is ignorant, cynical, twisted (and probably a bunch of others adjectives, too).

Toward the end of 2005, Tom Waddle, then on WGN radio, asked the hewscaster Andrea Darlas to name the biggest moment in Chicago sports in 2005. Darlas' reply: the Illini making the final game in the NCAA Men's basketball tournament. In a moment of frustration, Waddle gasped and replied "Wow, when it comes to the White Sox, this station has all the objectivity of Fox News covering the Iraq war." Yeah, it's hard for me to imagine how Darlas could not have named the Sox winning the World Series but, you know, we have a balanced media here -- half covering the teams fairly and half journalistic hacks pushing their virulently anti-Sox agenda.

bryPt
06-03-2008, 03:45 PM
I think it is spelled cubDUMB, not cubdom.

Block ESPN on your DirecTV, don't watch television (it is just making the country moronic anyway), don't listen to WGN radio, or radio in general, and just listen to the score during the Sox games. I do it and I am much happier. Ignoring the media stupidity makes my life much more pleasant.

kittle42
06-03-2008, 03:57 PM
I think it is spelled cubDUMB, not cubdom.

Block ESPN on your DirecTV, don't watch television (it is just making the country moronic anyway), don't listen to WGN radio, or radio in general, and just listen to the score during the Sox games. I do it and I am much happier. Ignoring the media stupidity makes my life much more pleasant.

Lost is a good show.

spawn
06-03-2008, 03:59 PM
Lost is a good show.
It's the best show on television IMO.

Cuck the Fubs
06-03-2008, 04:26 PM
Please allow the moderators to do their job. Post or don't post, but let us decide who is trolling.


Fair enough....I did express it was only my opinion.

This topic hits a nerve with me...next time before I post a reply I'll count to 1,908!

guillen4life13
06-03-2008, 04:26 PM
Let me explain something to you that annoys the living **** out me about Cubdome.

There is always refrence to "large cub fan base" look how many "Cubbie Fans" there are in all the opposing parks. " Cubbie nation" is the greatest fan base in all of pro sports.

Please explain to me why in the **** it matters if there are 100 or 1,000,000 fans of a team? Just because there may be more Cub fans than Sox fans does that mean we merit less attention?

The only time the Sox get major coverage is when there is a blow up or mishap.

The Cubs haven't won a damn thing since 1908 why all the hype & love over a century of futility.

I'm sick and tired of all this bull****. If you don't want to stir the pot try engaging in other areas of the forum that involve things not related to the Cubs.

Otherwise in my opinion you are trolling and you are trying to stir the pot.

Again, just my perception, not the fact.

Dude... chill! He has just as much of a right as you to post on these boards, and if you're so sensitive to what he has written in this thread, then you have a different problem altogether.

So far, while I may not agree with him on everything, jonred has made some valid points.

As for the answers to your questions, please read Lip's posts in the thread. They answer most of your questions.

As for why the Cubs "merit" more attention than the Sox, it's not that they have actually earned the attention by their play on the field. Their marketing over the past 25 years has been extraordinary, while the Sox have made some decisions that blew up in their faces (like cable boxes). Lip talked about this.

This all comes down to a fundamental question: what need does sports fill for its consumers? Answer: entertainment.

Entertainment news has never been objective, and entertainment media is not necessarily held to the same level of integrity as more substantial media. Nowadays, even real "news" media outlets have changed their MO's to that of profit seeking. In the past, especially with print media, this was not the case.

So now, in the pursuit of greater profits, is it a better idea to target a smaller market segment (Sox fans) or a larger market segment (Cubs fans)? Obviously, there's more money in reporting on the Cubs--advertisers are more likely to advertise in that newspaper, magazine, or on that website. Therefore, that media outlet is more likely to report on the Cubs. They have a financial interest in doing so.

It's the same reason the murder of an 8-year old Caucasian in Naperville is more likely to be a front page headline when compared to the murder of an 8-year old Latino or African American in an impoverished neighborhood in the city. Surely all scenarios are tragic, but people are more likely to be interested in the murder of the Caucasian, and therefore more likely to buy the newspaper. It's the same reason Anna Nicole Smith's death was front page news. It's what people buy and pay attention to.

BTW that last paragraph has no political motive. I'm trying to draw an analogy to further explain the main point: the media is in pursuit of profits and their reporting further illustrates this.

DSpivack
06-03-2008, 04:34 PM
Actually, that's precisely why they merit more attention...more people = more $$$.

Now, if you want to argue about the 1,000,000 acting like their loser team has a Yankee-like legacy, I'll be with you on that one.

I can understand how the Cubs and Yankees are somewhat similar. Historically, both are the best at what they do. The Yankees at winning, the Cubs at losing. The White Sox are just a mediocre to slightly-above-average franchise who consistently has winning seasons and have a recent World Series trophy, while the Yankees have 26 titles and the Cubs haven't won anything in 100 years.

Red Barchetta
06-03-2008, 04:50 PM
There would be no story if the SOX were able to further capitalize on their WS win in 2005. 2006 was a good season even though the Central Division was too tough with both Detroit and Minnesota making the playoffs. However, we collapsed in 2007 and I think Guillen at this point is lashing out at anyone who will listen.

The speed and station-to-station offensive approach that worked so well in 2005 was again abandoned due to the types of players we have on the roster. I know KW and Ozzie discuss strategy, however what can Ozzie really do with Thome/Konerko/Swisher collectively batting .210?! It's like the Manuel "all or nothing" offense of a few years ago.

I really like the personalities on our team this year, I just wish some players would step up and get back to their career averages.

Mariotti will never change his tone, especially after Ozzie's (MOd Edit: We have language filters for a reason. Just type the word and let the filter do it's job.) comment. However, I think Ozzie just wants to win and as he mentioned earlier in the year, he is going back to being outspoken. KW/JR gambled when the signed Ozzie.

ws05champs
06-03-2008, 07:27 PM
News Flash!

Does anybody here really think the general news media deserves our attention and respect? I don't care if it's sports, politics, technology, economics . . . It doesn't matter if it's newspapers, radio, TV or the Internet. All of it is crap. You should know by now that if you really want truth and information you are not going to get it from the Sun Times, Tribune, Score, ESPN, chicagosports.com . . . You have to dig for it and experience it yourself.

**** the media. **** public opinion. And most of all **** popularity.

We should embrace the fact that the Chicago White Sox are the outlaws, the renegades and we are their rebel fans. We will never gain the attention of the media the way the Cubs do. So quit whining about it like if they're your older brother/sister that gets all the attention from mommy/daddy. We will never get the attention and love the Cubs get. Shut the **** up and deal with it.

Let the Cubs have the attention. We have a World Series ring and the chance this year to get another one this year - just like the Cubs do. I know it, you know it, the team knows it and **** the media if they don't know it too.

Frontman
06-03-2008, 07:45 PM
Guys, look I'm REALLY not trying to stir the pot. As a Cubs fan, I could be as equally pissed about the universal references to (fill in the blank): the 100 year drought, goats, black cats, Bartman, June swoons, etc. that are part of each and every Cubs story.

Back in a previous life, I actually came from the jounalism field and outside of Jay Moronic's obvious dislike for the Sox, I don't see cases of direct bias towards the Cubs. In the Trib itself, both teams usually get a game story, sidebar and notes, which seems rather balanced to me. On a national scale, media will cover what will attract viewers, as an one of the previous posters mentioned, the Cubs had the advantage of broadcasting games across the country for years. That's why it seemed like there were more Cubs fans than Padres fans at the game the other night.

Honestly, I like having two teams in town and enjoy going to games on the southside, so I'd welcome equal coverage of the teams in the local media.

"We talk Cubs, from Noon to Two; only on WSCR 670 the Score!"

http://www.theheckler.com/news/articlefiles/215-Murph.JPG

This town always has a bias towards the Cubs. The national media has a bias towards the Cubs. Heck, if the NHL wanted to have the most attendance at Chicago's first outdoors Hockey game; it would be at Soldier Field of Toyota Park, not "Historic Wrigley Field."

MarySwiss
06-03-2008, 07:55 PM
Guys, look I'm REALLY not trying to stir the pot. As a Cubs fan, I could be as equally pissed about the universal references to (fill in the blank): the 100 year drought, goats, black cats, Bartman, June swoons, etc. that are part of each and every Cubs story.

Nice try! And I'd buy it if the Cubs organization didn't try to market all those things as part of the whole "lovable losers" mystique.

That's why it seemed like there were more Cubs fans than Padres fans at the game the other night.

Right! And there were more Cub fans than D'Backs fans at last year's Chase Field first round playoff games, if you believe the media. Well I was at the "Lilly channels Tanner Boyle game," and believe me, although there were Cub fans there and they were vocal, IN NO WAY did they outnumber the D'Backs fans.

Honestly, I like having two teams in town and enjoy going to games on the southside, so I'd welcome equal coverage of the teams in the local media.

Honestly? Well, if true; good for you.

fquaye149
06-03-2008, 08:11 PM
Let me explain something to you that annoys the living **** out me about Cubdome.

There is always refrence to "large cub fan base" look how many "Cubbie Fans" there are in all the opposing parks. " Cubbie nation" is the greatest fan base in all of pro sports.

Please explain to me why in the **** it matters if there are 100 or 1,000,000 fans of a team? Just because there may be more Cub fans than Sox fans does that mean we merit less attention?

The only time the Sox get major coverage is when there is a blow up or mishap.

The Cubs haven't won a damn thing since 1908 why all the hype & love over a century of futility.

I'm sick and tired of all this bull****. If you don't want to stir the pot try engaging in other areas of the forum that involve things not related to the Cubs.

Otherwise in my opinion you are trolling and you are trying to stir the pot.

Again, just my perception, not the fact.

Actually, yes it does. Sports are entertainment, and therefore the more popular teams will get more coverage. Now, if the Sox are in the world series, for instance, or if Ozzie does something controversial they will get more coverage than the Cubs. Newspaper are trying to "sell" sports stories. The White Sox are less interesting than the Cubs to the majority of readers, therefore unless there is an angle to sell the Sox on, most of their readers would rather read about the Cubs. I wouldn't, personally, but I'm a Sox fan...a member of a minority among Chicago readers (though I don't live in Chicago)

It's like saying "How come Kevin Spacey's never in the news? He's a much better actor than Ben Affleck, but they give Affleck so much more coverage" Ben Affleck may have zero talent and Spacey may have lots of talent, but Affleck is much more popular. If Spacey does something remarkable, like get nominated for an Oscar, he might have more coverage than Affleck, briefly, but soon it will go back to the way it was. It's just the way "entertainment" in the media works

You really ought to calm down about this. It's not good for you. This is not an injustice (except for when the Tribune distorts the truth to promote their product over the White Sox by lying about things like "weed smoke around comiskey" or pretending that the shooting outside Wrigley never happened). It's not an injustice--it's the way entertainment works....and if you remember that sports are really no different from, say, movies or tv in terms of how the news treats it, maybe you can put the media bias (and there certainly is one) in the proper perspective

:shrug:

Vernam
06-03-2008, 09:10 PM
Honestly, I like having two teams in town and enjoy going to games on the southside, so I'd welcome equal coverage of the teams in the local media.Them's fightin' words.

I used to be a media basher -- and still reserve the right -- but somehow it's hard for me to work up a lather over it anymore. The Sox are and probably always will be underdogs, and it's part of what I love about them. When Kenny talks about needing to win two championships, he's right, but only until the Cubs win one, because to the local and national media, theirs will count way more than twice. Then we'll need three or four. :shrug:

When I saw the BBTN guys sitting solemnly on couches last night to discuss Ozzie's latest blow-up, I could only laugh. Yes, he brought it on himself, but it's a shame that his genuine anger (and genuinely reckless expression of it) reinforces the media stereotype of him (and us) as vulgar and buffoonish. Let's be honest, it's not the media's fault that he keeps playing into their hands.

But let's face it, he could be the biggest buffoon in history, and it wouldn't be national news if we hadn't won the '05 Series. So . . . this is progress. :cool:

I work with some smart (I almost said "hip") young people, most of whom relocated to Chicago from other cities. They tend to live in the city, various neighborhoods north of Congress Parkway but definitely not in Wrigleyville. To the extent that they follow baseball, they all tend to identify more strongly with the Sox than with the Cubs. One of them said to me yesterday that he can't stand the frat boy mentality at Wrigley. Another said he doesn't know why anyone not born into rooting for the Cubs would ever choose to do it. These aren't bitter, diehard South Siders, but they really get what makes the Sox cool. When they come to the park, some Sox fans might consider them bandwagon jumpers. But those kind of casual fans show some of the real progress that's been made in recent years. Maybe eventually they'll even move south . . .

Vernam

AZChiSoxFan
06-03-2008, 11:36 PM
There's also lot of paranoia regarding the media here at WSI. Is there a bias? Yes. Is the ultimate goal of the worldwide media to trash the Sox like many here believe? No.

Look, Ozzie's act has grown tiring. I simply can't undertand a lof of folks here at WSI. Paul Konerko made one comment about a teammate after a game at Wrigley a few years back and for the next year, all I read here was how PK had diarhea (sp?) of the mouth. Ozzie Guillen virtually never has a thought that he doesn't verbalize and everyone here defends him to the death. Can anyone explain that to me?

Try to be a tiny bit objective for a moment and realize that Ozzie runs his mouth constantly. KW has has his back the entire time he's been the manager and for that, OG throws him under the bus. Plain and simple, OG has become an embarrasment to the Sox as well as to the city of Chicago. That's not bias, that's an opinion held by a large number of people, many of them not members of the media.

rdivaldi
06-03-2008, 11:36 PM
When I saw the BBTN guys sitting solemnly on couches last night to discuss Ozzie's latest blow-up, I could only laugh. Yes, he brought it on himself, but it's a shame that his genuine anger (and genuinely reckless expression of it) reinforces the media stereotype of him (and us) as vulgar and buffoonish. Let's be honest, it's not the media's fault that he keeps playing into their hands.

But let's face it, he could be the biggest buffoon in history, and it wouldn't be national news if we hadn't won the '05 Series. So . . . this is progress. :cool:

Plain and simple, OG has become an embarrasment to the Sox as well as to the city of Chicago. That's not bias, that's an opinion held by a large number of people, many of them not members of the media.

That's where I disagree. The way the media covers Ozzie is their own creation. They choose to slant and portray him as a buffoon or bad guy who needs to be fired. On the opposite side ESPN drools and slobbers over Bobby Knight, talks about what a great coach and great man he is. He swore, threatened and insulted people 1000 times more than Ozzie ever will. Da Coach was a tough guy hero when he cussed out people. The media picks and chooses how they want to portray someone and if they want to make someone a villain, they can do it.

I don't appreciate the way the White Sox or Ozzie is portrayed in the media and I choose not to watch ESPN or spend money on either the Times or the Trib because of it. To say OG is an embarrassment is ridiculous. The guy speaks his mind and then the media spins it as negative as possible to get headlines and make $$$. Lou Pinella is an utter douchebag with his meandering interviews and temper tantrums. I doubt you'll ever see the kind of harassment OG receives directed towards Pinella unless you're listening to a Sox biased reporter or show. Just wait, the next explosion that Pinella has will be covered as "Pinella's overwhelming desire to win gets the better of him."

I tire of being made the underdog, it's become annoying.