PDA

View Full Version : Once again, ad space trumps Sox


ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 10:08 AM
The Cub Times has once again dissed the Sox. Last week, the Cubs got a full wrap-around cover of the team celebrating after the clinch. Today, we wake up to find a half-page picture of Ozzie on the front, with stories about the Cubs next to it. On the back page? An advertisement. Sound familiar?

chisoxmike
10-01-2008, 10:12 AM
Yeah, I thought the Sun-Times really dropped the ball with it.

soltrain21
10-01-2008, 10:12 AM
The Cub Times has once again dissed the Sox. Last week, the Cubs got a full wrap-around cover of the team celebrating after the clinch. Today, we wake up to find a half-page picture of Ozzie on the front, with stories about the Cubs next to it. On the back page? An advertisement. Sound familiar?

Does that mean our division title doesn't exist? Oh, you mean we still won it this year? Well then, who gives a ****! We just won a sweet game last night. Enjoy it.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 10:15 AM
:threadsucks

And if there was a tage for "This Thread Sucks More Than Anything Has Ever Sucked," it would also be appropriate.

Jesus Christ, you people...we just made the playoffs in one of the most exciting stretches of baseball we've seen. Give the ****ing Cubbie crap a rest (but silently root for the Dodgers tonight!).

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 10:16 AM
Does that mean our division title doesn't exist? Oh, you mean we still won it this year? Well then, who gives a ****! We just won a sweet game last night. Enjoy it.

Oh believe me, it doesn't take any of the joy out of it. It just kinda proves the point that the paper looks at the Cubs as ad space. I don't need the newspaper to validate what the Sox did, but it would be nice if we got equal billing. After all, we're playing the same sport in the same town.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 10:17 AM
:threadsucks

And if there was a tage for "This Thread Sucks More Than Anything Has Ever Sucked," it would also be appropriate.

Jesus Christ, you people...we just made the playoffs in one of the most exciting stretches of baseball we've seen. Give the ****ing Cubbie crap a rest (but silently root for the Dodgers tonight!).

Hey, genius, this is What's The Score? This is where these threads go. Head back to the clubhouse and party on!!!

kittle42
10-01-2008, 10:18 AM
Hey, genius, this is What's The Score? This is where these threads go. Head back to the clubhouse and party on!!!

I've never been a huge fan of this retort.

I know this is where those threads go. It shouldn't stop me from coming here to rag on people starting them. All this stuff, as I've said in the past, just makes Sox fans seem like second-rate whiners and validates the bull**** Cubs fans throw out there about Sox fans.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 10:23 AM
I've never been a huge fan of this retort.

I know this is where those threads go. It shouldn't stop me from coming here to rag on people starting them. All this stuff, as I've said in the past, just makes Sox fans seem like second-rate whiners and validates the bull**** Cubs fans throw out there about Sox fans.

Awesome. You have an opinion. Sadly, not everyone shares it.

munchman33
10-01-2008, 10:29 AM
I'm not big on complaining about media coverage, but anyone calling it a non-issue with these kind of huge descrepencies in coverage simply doesn't want things to change.

Rocky Soprano
10-01-2008, 10:37 AM
I'm not big on complaining about media coverage, but anyone calling it a non-issue with these kind of huge descrepencies in coverage simply doesn't want things to change.

Is bitching about it going to change a damn thing?
No, it only makes you look like a whiner and obsessed with everything Cubs.

I'm with kittle42 on this.

Yeah this is where these posts go, doesn't mean we have to fill the place up with Cub garbage.

itsnotrequired
10-01-2008, 10:40 AM
the trib website still has two sox photos and sox as major headlines.

grv1974
10-01-2008, 10:53 AM
I've never been a huge fan of this retort.

I know this is where those threads go. It shouldn't stop me from coming here to rag on people starting them. All this stuff, as I've said in the past, just makes Sox fans seem like second-rate whiners and validates the bull**** Cubs fans throw out there about Sox fans.

Your post is retorted.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 10:54 AM
Awesome. You have an opinion. Sadly, not everyone shares it.

And not everyone shares yours, so what is your point? That's why opinions are like *******s.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 10:59 AM
I'm not big on complaining about media coverage, but anyone calling it a non-issue with these kind of huge descrepencies in coverage simply doesn't want things to change.

Is bitching about it going to change a damn thing?
No, it only makes you look like a whiner and obsessed with everything Cubs.

I'm with kittle42 on this.

Yeah this is where these posts go, doesn't mean we have to fill the place up with Cub garbage.

Thanks, Rocky.

Munch, things will not change until there stops being a 70/30 or so split in Cubs v. Sox fans in this town (and it may be worse than that). Why is this so difficult for people to take? The Cubs have many more fans and thus bring in more money to media when they are featured. I could see complaining about "unfair" coversage of, say, political races, but sports? No. Newspapers and televison are undser no obligation to cover any teams equally. They instead cover the more popular teams more.

I'm a huge Northwestern football fan. They're 5-0. They're the closest team to the city fo Chicago. Am I whining because they don't get "better" coverage than ND, IL, etc.? No.

Same with the Sox.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:00 AM
And not everyone shares yours, so what is your point? That's why opinions are like *******s.

Seriously, do you go into a bar and scold everyone for drinking liquor? Do you go to a concert and tell everyone there that their band sucks? If this was posted in another arena, then chastise me all you want. This is where this discussion belongs. Deal with it.

areilly
10-01-2008, 11:02 AM
Did anyone here really expect the Sun-Times not to play it safe and pander to the largest audience possible?

I'm sure there's more to this than we can glean from a cover layout - value of ad space on a weekday versus a Sunday, lead time to design, time to press, time to delivery, and so on - but hey, you know, whatever.

Let's nevermind that the Sox clinched yesterday (which some people care about) and the Cubs start tomorrow (which more people care about). This is the biggest morning in Chicago baseball in a loooooong time.

So should the S-T ignore the Cubs in favor of the Sox? How about ignoring them both so we can stop with these knee-jerk reaction threads?

kittle42
10-01-2008, 11:08 AM
This is where this discussion belongs. Deal with it.

Yes, and I am discussing why anyone would want to discuss it. And I deal with it just fine.

kkappelk
10-01-2008, 11:09 AM
How can you not be at least a little bit angry over the way the Chicago media unequally handles these two teams? It's not whining, it's pointing out something that needs to be changed. This is a bad comparison, but were slaves a bunch of whiners before the 13th amendment? You make change by calling attention to the problem, then acting.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that ABC7 ran a ticker on the bottom of the screen immediately after the other team clinched the NL central. No such ticker ever appeared for the Sox last night, at least that I noticed.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:10 AM
Did anyone here really expect the Sun-Times not to play it safe and pander to the largest audience possible?

I'm sure there's more to this than we can glean from a cover layout - value of ad space on a weekday versus a Sunday, lead time to design, time to press, time to delivery, and so on - but hey, you know, whatever.

Let's nevermind that the Sox clinched yesterday (which some people care about) and the Cubs start tomorrow (which more people care about). This is the biggest morning in Chicago baseball in a loooooong time.

So should the S-T ignore the Cubs in favor of the Sox? How about ignoring them both so we can stop with these knee-jerk reaction threads?

All I want is an equal, UNBIASED (like any good journalist), treatment of the SUCCESSES of BOTH teams. If the Cubs get a nice little poster covering the paper, Sox should have the same. It wouldn't even have to be the real front page. Put the Cubs on the front page for all I care, just give us the same deal.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 11:12 AM
How can you not be at least a little bit angry over the way the Chicago media unequally handles these two teams? It's not whining, it's pointing out something that needs to be changed. This is a bad comparison, but were slaves a bunch of whiners before the 13th amendment? You make change by calling attention to the problem, then acting.

Holy ****. Slaves and the 13th Amendment? Comparing *that* to sports??? People have really gone bat**** insane today. This is much worse than the stuff Hangar got the boot for.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that ABC7 ran a ticker on the bottom of the screen immediately after the other team clinched the NL central. No such ticker ever appeared for the Sox last night, at least that I noticed.

Newspapers and television are a business. More people care about the Cubs. When more people start caring about the Sox, things will change. They are under no obligation to cover any sports team equally.

kkappelk
10-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Did anyone here really expect the Sun-Times not to play it safe and pander to the largest audience possible?

I'm sure there's more to this than we can glean from a cover layout - value of ad space on a weekday versus a Sunday, lead time to design, time to press, time to delivery, and so on - but hey, you know, whatever.

Let's nevermind that the Sox clinched yesterday (which some people care about) and the Cubs start tomorrow (which more people care about). This is the biggest morning in Chicago baseball in a loooooong time.

So should the S-T ignore the Cubs in favor of the Sox? How about ignoring them both so we can stop with these knee-jerk reaction threads?

Don't you ever wonder if the reason why they have a larger "audience" is because the media has been so biased over the last 15 years? Do you ever think that if all reporting was equal then perhaps the "audience" would be more equal?

kittle42
10-01-2008, 11:13 AM
All I want is an equal, UNBIASED (like any good journalist), treatment of the SUCCESSES of BOTH teams. If the Cubs get a nice little poster covering the paper, Sox should have the same. It wouldn't even have to be the real front page. Put the Cubs on the front page for all I care, just give us the same deal.

I take it you were not a big fan of the "W" inserts the last few days?

Do sports journalists really need to be unbiased? This isn't world politics.

kkappelk
10-01-2008, 11:14 AM
Holy ****. Slaves and the 13th Amendment? Comparing *that* to sports??? People have really gone bat**** insane today. This is much worse than the stuff Hangar got the boot for.



Newspapers and television are a business. More people care about the Cubs. When more people start caring about the Sox, things will change. They are under no obligation to cover any sports team equally.

Glad to see you conveniently omitted the "This is a bad comparison" part of my comment. Perhaps you should work for the paper.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 11:14 AM
Don't you ever wonder if the reason why they have a larger "audience" is because the media has been so biased over the last 15 years? Do you ever think that if all reporting was equal then perhaps the "audience" would be more equal?

I give the majority of the credit/blame to the Cubs marketing machine. They make themselves the popular story. Really, as crappy as the Cubs have generally been as a team, their marketing department since the Cub Fan, Bud Man days should get its own wing in the sports marketing hall of fame.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:15 AM
Yes, and I am discussing why anyone would want to discuss it. And I deal with it just fine.

But this isn't a thread to discuss why people would want to discuss such a thing. You can start that thread if you'd like. What is wrong about wanting to wake up and see a poster of your team clinching in the paper, and then not being happy when it isn't there? What's wrong with holding the CHICAGO media to higher standards? I want to read an see pictures about the game. I'm not going to get that in Sports Illustrated.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 11:15 AM
Glad to see you conveniently omitted the "This is a bad comparison" part of my comment. Perhaps you should work for the paper.

Or maybe a spin man for a political campaign.

Even with the disclaimer, the comparison was ludicrous.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:19 AM
Newspapers and television are a business. More people care about the Cubs. When more people start caring about the Sox, things will change. They are under no obligation to cover any sports team equally.

This is the attitude that has led to this inequity. If it was just the Cubs selling themselves, it's one thing. But when BIASED media favors one team over another without any real reason to (100 years of losing vs. 88), it needs to be called out. Even though it's wrong, I can understand the Cubune, seeing how the owned the team. But the Sun-Times? Unacceptable.

areilly
10-01-2008, 11:20 AM
Don't you ever wonder if the reason why they have a larger "audience" is because the media has been so biased over the last 15 years? Do you ever think that if all reporting was equal then perhaps the "audience" would be more equal?

I don't wonder about that, I know that for a fact. I also know sports journalism is generally a very passive endeavor, where the reporting follows the crowd rather than the other way around as with, say, investigative reporting. In a nutshell:

1) The Cubs are more popular than the Sox.
2) The two major Chicago dailies are getting desperate to stay afloat financially.
3) Cubs-related content will sell more ad space than Sox-related because of #1.

That's it. That's your 2008 baseball coverage right there.

areilly
10-01-2008, 11:21 AM
All I want is an equal, UNBIASED (like any good journalist), treatment of the SUCCESSES of BOTH teams. If the Cubs get a nice little poster covering the paper, Sox should have the same. It wouldn't even have to be the real front page. Put the Cubs on the front page for all I care, just give us the same deal.

See my previous post. In business terms, both papers are well past the point of righting the ship.

Eddo144
10-01-2008, 11:22 AM
Glad to see you conveniently omitted the "This is a bad comparison" part of my comment. Perhaps you should work for the paper.
Here's a tip to make your arguments more convincing. If you find yourself saying "this is a bad comparison", don't use that comparison!

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:24 AM
I take it you were not a big fan of the "W" inserts the last few days?

Do sports journalists really need to be unbiased? This isn't world politics.

Those were a bit annoying, but I can't really complain. They were already in the playoffs.

Whatever subject a journalist is covering, the goal is to be unbiased. If people can keep their personal politics out of their writing, it should be 1000 times easier to keep it out of sports. Why do you think Moronotti was so hated? He basically wrote op-ed disguised as journalism.

Why do you think it is that 25 years ago, no one wanted to go to Wrigley, said it was a dump, but now, it's a "shrine"? That's media spin, baby. It wasn't all the Cubs' doing. And you seem to be fine with this.

munchman33
10-01-2008, 11:25 AM
Thanks, Rocky.

Munch, things will not change until there stops being a 70/30 or so split in Cubs v. Sox fans in this town (and it may be worse than that). Why is this so difficult for people to take? The Cubs have many more fans and thus bring in more money to media when they are featured. I could see complaining about "unfair" coversage of, say, political races, but sports? No. Newspapers and televison are undser no obligation to cover any teams equally. They instead cover the more popular teams more.

I'm a huge Northwestern football fan. They're 5-0. They're the closest team to the city fo Chicago. Am I whining because they don't get "better" coverage than ND, IL, etc.? No.

Same with the Sox.

Is bitching about it going to change a damn thing?
No, it only makes you look like a whiner and obsessed with everything Cubs.

I'm with kittle42 on this.

Yeah this is where these posts go, doesn't mean we have to fill the place up with Cub garbage.

When things aren't fair and we should just lie down and die.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:30 AM
When things aren't fair and we should just lie down and die.

Isn't that what those rebels across the pond did a few centuries back?

areilly
10-01-2008, 11:34 AM
Whatever subject a journalist is covering, the goal is to be unbiased. If people can keep their personal politics out of their writing, it should be 1000 times easier to keep it out of sports. Why do you think Moronotti was so hated? He basically wrote op-ed disguised as journalism.

I think you're confusing the aesthetics with the craft. Cover photo selection, layouts, ad:content ratios and the like aren't really journalism at all. Publishing, yes. Journalism, no.

Also, Marriotti still sucks even in his state of unemployment.


Why do you think it is that 25 years ago, no one wanted to go to Wrigley, said it was a dump, but now, it's a "shrine"? That's media spin, baby. It wasn't all the Cubs' doing. And you seem to be fine with this.

Not just media spin, but also player spin, front-office spin, merchandising spin, marketing spin, PR spin, fan spin, city of Chicago spin and travel guide spin. The Cubs did this better than anyone, ever, in the history of the sports business.

If you have ideas for how to undo 25 years of brilliant marketing and pure evil, I'd really like to hear it. Until then, I'm going to go stake out a good seat at the bar for Thursday's Sox-Rays game.

SoxGirl4Life
10-01-2008, 11:42 AM
Who really cares???

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:43 AM
I think you're confusing the aesthetics with the craft. Cover photo selection, layouts, ad:content ratios and the like aren't really journalism at all. Publishing, yes. Journalism, no.

Also, Marriotti still sucks even in his state of unemployment.




Not just media spin, but also player spin, front-office spin, merchandising spin, marketing spin, PR spin, fan spin, city of Chicago spin and travel guide spin. The Cubs did this better than anyone, ever, in the history of the sports business.

If you have ideas for how to undo 25 years of brilliant marketing and pure evil, I'd really like to hear it. Until then, I'm going to go stake out a good seat at the bar for Thursday's Sox-Rays game.


I do realize that the columns are separate from the front page decisions and such, but bias is certainly evident in the columns, plus I was just backing my assertion of being unbiased in journalism period. But like I said, if this was the Trib, that's one thing. But the Sun-Times should have given the Sox the same deal, unless some huge news story was the lead. They'd probably sell more papers if they gave the Sox a big cover today. Their loss.

I'm really not interested in undoing what the Cubs have done with their marketing. Nor am I jealous of them. I'm glad I can get a ticket to a Sox game pretty much whenever I want, including last night.

areilly
10-01-2008, 11:52 AM
[quote=ChiSoxFan81;2068525]I do realize that the columns are separate from the front page decisions and such, but bias is certainly evident in the columns, plus I was just backing my assertion of being unbiased in journalism period. But like I said, if this was the Trib, that's one thing. But the Sun-Times should have given the Sox the same deal, unless some huge news story was the lead. They'd probably sell more papers if they gave the Sox a big cover today. Their loss.[quote]

But you're assuming The Sun-Times is in business to be unbiased. They're not. They're in it to make money, and a paper will make more off of guaranteed ad space (Sox clinch edition) than it would trading ad space for a slight boost in newsstand sales (Cubs clinch edition).

Just out of curiosity, is there any paper - anywhere - you would consider completely unbiased?

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 11:58 AM
[quote=ChiSoxFan81;2068525]I do realize that the columns are separate from the front page decisions and such, but bias is certainly evident in the columns, plus I was just backing my assertion of being unbiased in journalism period. But like I said, if this was the Trib, that's one thing. But the Sun-Times should have given the Sox the same deal, unless some huge news story was the lead. They'd probably sell more papers if they gave the Sox a big cover today. Their loss.[quote]

But you're assuming The Sun-Times is in business to be unbiased. They're not. They're in it to make money, and a paper will make more off of guaranteed ad space (Sox clinch edition) than it would trading ad space for a slight boost in newsstand sales (Cubs clinch edition).

Just out of curiosity, is there any paper - anywhere - you would consider completely unbiased?


And here's your problem. The media is not supposed to be in it just to make money. They are supposed to report the facts, and in an unbiased manner. Obviously they need to turn a profit. However, that's what ad space is for. If they need the $$ so bad, they should have had an ad on the back of the Cubs edition too. And it's not just newspapers either. Cable TV news and even local news are now covering topics that amount to gossip just to pull in ratings. So no, there probably isn't a paper or any corporate media outlet anywhere that is unbiased. That doesn't mean it is right.

Rocky Soprano
10-01-2008, 12:04 PM
Seriously, do you go into a bar and scold everyone for drinking liquor? Do you go to a concert and tell everyone there that their band sucks? If this was posted in another arena, then chastise me all you want. This is where this discussion belongs. Deal with it.

Then complain to the freaking paper. Email them and tell them what you believe.

Or better yet, if you are upset about their coverage, DON'T BUY THE PAPER!

I rather lose the label that Sox fans would rather see the Cubs lose than the Sox win, than seeing equal and fair coverage in the media for both teams.

If I want to read great Sox coverage, I come to WSI not the Tribune or the Sun Times.

TDog
10-01-2008, 12:05 PM
Those were a bit annoying, but I can't really complain. They were already in the playoffs.

Whatever subject a journalist is covering, the goal is to be unbiased. If people can keep their personal politics out of their writing, it should be 1000 times easier to keep it out of sports. Why do you think Moronotti was so hated? He basically wrote op-ed disguised as journalism.

Why do you think it is that 25 years ago, no one wanted to go to Wrigley, said it was a dump, but now, it's a "shrine"? That's media spin, baby. It wasn't all the Cubs' doing. And you seem to be fine with this.

Objectivity has never been a standard for sports journalists any more than sports fans should be expected to decide which team to follow based on the available objective facts. It has never worked that way. Even the staunchest advocates for objective media exclude sports journalism from their goals.

The objectivity standard for American journalism was an invention of the 20th century. The founding fathers advocated the right for people with bias to criticize the government, for two biased sides to debate in the public forum. John Paine's pamphlets were biased. After the American government was established, one of the reasons George Washington retired after two terms as president was that he couldn't handle the heat from newspapers such as the Philadelphia Aurora. When John Adams because president, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, and an Aurora editor was jailed for criticizing the administration, essentially not having a pro-government bias. After the acts were repealed, you still had newspapers establishing their bias. That lasted into the 20th century. You can still see the one-time proud bias buried in many newspaper names. For example, with no intent to be political, the biggest newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, used to be called the Arizona Republican.

Regardless, I haven't seen the Sun-Times, and I don't know anything about the ad people are complaining about. If it is a house ad, that is, an ad promoting the newspaper producing no revenue for the newspaper, I can see where people have a reason to complain about the coverage. If it is a back-page revenue producing ad, I'm sure the sports designers were upset with the circumstances.

Back page ads are huge revenue producers for the newspaper. They are sold well in advance. I don't know what the Sun-Times ad deadlines are, but unless this was a house ad, I would guess it was sold more than a couple of weeks out. Someone would have paid for that space, probably when the chance of a playoff game against the Twins seemed remote. Advertising, not papers sold, is where newspapers get their money. Circulation, mostly subscripitons, determine how much a newspaper can charge for their ad. Circulation numbers are certified independently and one-day spikes have little effect.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the motivation for the invention of an unbiased journalistic standard was the hope of making more money.

Iwritecode
10-01-2008, 12:08 PM
I give the majority of the credit/blame to the Cubs marketing machine. They make themselves the popular story. Really, as crappy as the Cubs have generally been as a team, their marketing department since the Cub Fan, Bud Man days should get its own wing in the sports marketing hall of fame.

The Chicago Tribune IS their marketing department. The Cubs are the only team in baseball who's marketing can reach a nationwide audience.

If you have ideas for how to undo 25 years of brilliant marketing and pure evil, I'd really like to hear it.

Get bought by a major newspaper company?

twsoxfan5
10-01-2008, 12:22 PM
Let me just say that I am with everyone on this subject. I don't like that the Cubs get more coverage than the Sox, but I also get annoyed by people constantly complaining about it. I also wish it would change, but I know that no amount of complaining will change it.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 01:24 PM
Then complain to the freaking paper. Email them and tell them what you believe.

Or better yet, if you are upset about their coverage, DON'T BUY THE PAPER!

I rather lose the label that Sox fans would rather see the Cubs lose than the Sox win, than seeing equal and fair coverage in the media for both teams.

If I want to read great Sox coverage, I come to WSI not the Tribune or the Sun Times.

Excuse me for utilizing an appropriate public forum for opinion to express mine. I shouldn't have to start a blog to discuss such things when the designated forum already exists here. You don't have to agree with me, but complaining that anyone out there would possibly feel this way is ridiculous. I'm not even complaining that the Cubs are in the playoffs. Great for them. It becomes an issue when they receive preferential treatment for accomplishing the same feat as the Sox. I would rather see the Sox win than the Cubs lose any day. But I won't begrudge those who differ from me that sentiment. It's their right to like or dislike whoever they choose. If their dislike of one team outweighs the like of their chosen team, so be it.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 01:25 PM
I also stand by something I've posted previously - if the coverage were exactly reversed and Cubs fans were complaining about their historic lack of coverage and media bias, almost all of you complaining would say they were whiners and cared more about the Sox than they do about their own team.

There is little objectivity in sports fandom.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 01:27 PM
Excuse me for utilizing an appropriate public forum for opinion to express mine. I shouldn't have to start a blog to discuss such things when the designated forum already exists here. You don't have to agree with me, but complaining that anyone out there would possibly feel this way is ridiculous. I'm not even complaining that the Cubs are in the playoffs. Great for them. It becomes an issue when they receive preferential treatment for accomplishing the same feat as the Sox. I would rather see the Sox win than the Cubs lose any day. But I won't begrudge those who differ from me that sentiment. It's their right to like or dislike whoever they choose. If their dislike of one team outweighs the like of their chosen team, so be it.

I agree. I'm not saying anyone doesn't have a right to express his opinion, but that doesn't mean I can't say I think it's silly.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 01:28 PM
Objectivity has never been a standard for sports journalists any more than sports fans should be expected to decide which team to follow based on the available objective facts. It has never worked that way. Even the staunchest advocates for objective media exclude sports journalism from their goals.

The objectivity standard for American journalism was an invention of the 20th century. The founding fathers advocated the right for people with bias to criticize the government, for two biased sides to debate in the public forum. John Paine's pamphlets were biased. After the American government was established, one of the reasons George Washington retired after two terms as president was that he couldn't handle the heat from newspapers such as the Philadelphia Aurora. When John Adams because president, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, and an Aurora editor was jailed for criticizing the administration, essentially not having a pro-government bias. After the acts were repealed, you still had newspapers establishing their bias. That lasted into the 20th century. You can still see the one-time proud bias buried in many newspaper names. For example, with no intent to be political, the biggest newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, used to be called the Arizona Republican.

Regardless, I haven't seen the Sun-Times, and I don't know anything about the ad people are complaining about. If it is a house ad, that is, an ad promoting the newspaper producing no revenue for the newspaper, I can see where people have a reason to complain about the coverage. If it is a back-page revenue producing ad, I'm sure the sports designers were upset with the circumstances.

Back page ads are huge revenue producers for the newspaper. They are sold well in advance. I don't know what the Sun-Times ad deadlines are, but unless this was a house ad, I would guess it was sold more than a couple of weeks out. Someone would have paid for that space, probably when the chance of a playoff game against the Twins seemed remote. Advertising, not papers sold, is where newspapers get their money. Circulation, mostly subscripitons, determine how much a newspaper can charge for their ad. Circulation numbers are certified independently and one-day spikes have little effect.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the motivation for the invention of an unbiased journalistic standard was the hope of making more money.

T-Dog:

Per your example of the Arizona Republican: If I wanted to read biased Cub coverage, I'd get a subscription to Vine Line. However, considering that we have 2 major newspapers in Chicago, I should reasonably expect to get equal coverage of both teams. I can forgive the Cubune for their ways, considering they own the Cubs. The Sun-Times should be a little better. Unfortunately, it is not.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 01:34 PM
I also stand by something I've posted previously - if the coverage were exactly reversed and Cubs fans were complaining about their historic lack of coverage and media bias, almost all of you complaining would say they were whiners and cared more about the Sox than they do about their own team.

There is little objectivity in sports fandom.

I don't know that this is necessarily true. If people can throw out their preconceptions and be objective about it, then there is no reason to call those calling for change whiners. For example, Barack Obama has gotten way more exposure on the front page of the Sun-Times, although the columns inside the paper have been probably 70-30 pro-Obama. But if you go by the Cover, you'd think they were 100% in favor. Hence why I'm not really complaining about the columns here, just the treatment with the cover. I will likely vote for Obama, but can see why McCain supporters would be upset with the cover issue. I would not consider them whiners. And this is a subject far more important than sports.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 01:35 PM
T-Dog:

Per your example of the Arizona Republican: If I wanted to read biased Cub coverage, I'd get a subscription to Vine Line. However, considering that we have 2 major newspapers in Chicago, I should reasonably expect to get equal coverage of both teams. I can forgive the Cubune for their ways, considering they own the Cubs. The Sun-Times should be a little better. Unfortunately, it is not.

Yes, but why? Why should the Sun-Times not cover the Cubs more when they are more popular, sell more ad space, and while they are fightingw ith the Trib for readership? Your answer might be "Well, do the opposite of the Trib and see if that gets you more readers." Fair point, but that's also an extremely risky move in an industry that has been down the drain for years.

Again, this is sports, not politics - I agree that the media should not be biased in actual news - you know, stuff that really matters and isn't entertainment. I also know that the media cannot even be bothered to do that, however. So why should we think they should remain objective when it comes to diversions such as sports?

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Yes, but why? Why should the Sun-Times not cover the Cubs more when they are more popular, sell more ad space, and while they are fightingw ith the Trib for readership? Your answer might be "Well, do the opposite of the Trib and see if that gets you more readers." Fair point, but that's also an extremely risky move in an industry that has been down the drain for years.

Again, this is sports, not politics - I agree that the media should not be biased in actual news - you know, stuff that really matters and isn't entertainment. I also know that the media cannot even be bothered to do that, however. So why should we think they should remain objective when it comes to diversions such as sports?

I understand that the financial health of the newspapers today are not well. But you act like this bias has not existed before recently. This crap has been going on for a long time. It is the CHICAGO Sun-Times, not the North Side Times. Sure, we have the Daily Southtown, which is obviously biased towards the Sox. But just like with the Arizona Republican, you know what you're getting just by the name of the paper. The amount of fans or support for one side shouldn't be justification for bias in that direction, unless it is explicitly known to readers that this will be the case.

areilly
10-01-2008, 02:02 PM
Per your example of the Arizona Republican: If I wanted to read biased Cub coverage, I'd get a subscription to Vine Line. However, considering that we have 2 major newspapers in Chicago, I should reasonably expect to get equal coverage of both teams. I can forgive the Cubune for their ways, considering they own the Cubs. The Sun-Times should be a little better. Unfortunately, it is not.

Should a fender-bender get the same amount of coverage as a 30-car pileup? A gust of wind the same as a blizzard? A blown fuse the same word counts as a 100,000-home power outage? The 1st Ward the same number of beat reporters as the 44th? The Buena Park Neighbors Association as much coverage as City Hall?

You're confusing objectivity with newsworthiness. The Cubs are a bigger story than the Sox and, as TDog pointed out, were probably better-timed where the S-T's news budget was concerned.

If this were 1981 and there weren't the countless factors at work against this impartiality the Tribune and Sun-Times supposedly ever had, your idealized version of what these papers should be might hold more water.

TDog
10-01-2008, 02:05 PM
I understand that the financial health of the newspapers today are not well. But you act like this bias has not existed before recently. This crap has been going on for a long time. It is the CHICAGO Sun-Times, not the North Side Times. Sure, we have the Daily Southtown, which is obviously biased towards the Sox. But just like with the Arizona Republican, you know what you're getting just by the name of the paper. The amount of fans or support for one side shouldn't be justification for bias in that direction, unless it is explicitly known to readers that this will be the case.

The ad you are complaining about had to be sold at a time when it was anticipated that it would cut into coverage on the day that the Cubs, possibly the Cubs and Sox, would be heading into the postseason. The ad could not have been a snub on the Sox. It was a revenue generator that had a possibility of reducing Cubs coverage when it was sold.

Obviously, when it was sold, the chances of it pre-emping White Sox division-winning coverage was considered remote. If you question otherwise, call the paper and ask for display-ad deadlines for the back page.

Rocky Soprano
10-01-2008, 02:13 PM
Excuse me for utilizing an appropriate public forum for opinion to express mine. I shouldn't have to start a blog to discuss such things when the designated forum already exists here. You don't have to agree with me, but complaining that anyone out there would possibly feel this way is ridiculous. I'm not even complaining that the Cubs are in the playoffs. Great for them. It becomes an issue when they receive preferential treatment for accomplishing the same feat as the Sox. I would rather see the Sox win than the Cubs lose any day. But I won't begrudge those who differ from me that sentiment. It's their right to like or dislike whoever they choose. If their dislike of one team outweighs the like of their chosen team, so be it.

I never said you were not welcome to post your opinion, you have the right to express what you feel, just like I have a right to disagree with it.

Complain all you want, I'm sure that's the way to get it resolved. :rolleyes:

champagne030
10-01-2008, 02:37 PM
I rather lose the label that Sox fans would rather see the Cubs lose than the Sox win, than seeing equal and fair coverage in the media for both teams.



You cannot really be serious about losing a "label" that some ****ing douchenozzle flub fans have created? I would prefer equal and fair coverage and continue to tell any flub fan, accusing me of wanting them to lose more than the Sox win, to go **** themselves.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 03:00 PM
Should a fender-bender get the same amount of coverage as a 30-car pileup? A gust of wind the same as a blizzard? A blown fuse the same word counts as a 100,000-home power outage? The 1st Ward the same number of beat reporters as the 44th? The Buena Park Neighbors Association as much coverage as City Hall?

You're confusing objectivity with newsworthiness. The Cubs are a bigger story than the Sox and, as TDog pointed out, were probably better-timed where the S-T's news budget was concerned.

If this were 1981 and there weren't the countless factors at work against this impartiality the Tribune and Sun-Times supposedly ever had, your idealized version of what these papers should be might hold more water.

And how are the Cubs a bigger story? They play major league baseball. They won their division championship. They play in Chicago. The same can be said for the Sox on all counts. Well, that to me sounds like equal stories.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 03:05 PM
The ad you are complaining about had to be sold at a time when it was anticipated that it would cut into coverage on the day that the Cubs, possibly the Cubs and Sox, would be heading into the postseason. The ad could not have been a snub on the Sox. It was a revenue generator that had a possibility of reducing Cubs coverage when it was sold.

Obviously, when it was sold, the chances of it pre-emping White Sox division-winning coverage was considered remote. If you question otherwise, call the paper and ask for display-ad deadlines for the back page.

The ad that I'm talking about was also on the back of the playoff preview section of the paper, which enveloped the "regular" paper. They still could have done a wrap-around with the "regular" paper, or at the very, very least, stuck a poster in the middle of the paper. Oh, my bad, that space is reserved for Cubs W flag posters. Instead, you get the Bears on the sports page on a Wednesday.

Chez
10-01-2008, 03:23 PM
The Cubs are more popular than the Sox. The Cubs get more media coverage than the Sox. Those propositions are beyond dispute. But isn't that why it's more fun to be a Sox fan? Isn't that why some of us are Sox fans?

areilly
10-01-2008, 03:34 PM
And how are the Cubs a bigger story? They play major league baseball. They won their division championship. They play in Chicago. The same can be said for the Sox on all counts. Well, that to me sounds like equal stories.

It's bigger for the same reason 100,000 homes losing power is a bigger story than just one home losing power. Or why the Mayor of Chicago getting re-elected is a bigger story than the mayor of Libertyville getting re-elected.

Impact.

The Cubs, for reasons we at once do and do not understand, have more fans - not just locally but nationally - and the same exact thing happening to both the Cubs and Sox has a larger impact when it happens to the Cubs by virtue of a larger pool of affected readers. This is one of the key components of newsworthiness, and also one of the fundamental principles of mass media.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 03:37 PM
And how are the Cubs a bigger story? They play major league baseball. They won their division championship. They play in Chicago. The same can be said for the Sox on all counts. Well, that to me sounds like equal stories.

Because they have more fans and have had more fans for the past 20+ years. Because they are ridiculously the most beloved baseball team in the City and, in fact, quite possibly the entire country. The papers and radio and TV stations have no incentive to give equal time because (1) they don't have to and (2) because it would likely be a poor business decision.

Your scenario of equality, while certainly correct in an ideal world, is only applicable in that ideal world. As silly as I may think it is to do this over sports coverage, write letters to the paper and other media outlets. Boycott them. Do something to cause them a slight financial hit. That's how you change things.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 03:40 PM
It's bigger for the same reason 100,000 homes losing power is a bigger story than just one home losing power. Or why the Mayor of Chicago getting re-elected is a bigger story than the mayor of Libertyville getting re-elected.

Impact.

The Cubs, for reasons we at once do and do not understand, have more fans - not just locally but nationally - and the same exact thing happening to both the Cubs and Sox has a larger impact when it happens to the Cubs by virtue of a larger pool of affected readers. This is one of the key components of newsworthiness, and also one of the fundamental principles of mass media.

Yup. It's the same reason why some missing girl in Aruba is a huge story while kids go missing every day in Chicago and not a word is said about them. For some reason, the former story has more appeal to the masses. Same goes for the Cubs.

Whoever said earlier that it's the media's fault the Cubs are popular may be at least partially correct. Yes, maybe if the media started telling everyone how great the Sox are, some people might become more interested in the Sox. But how does it help the media to elevate the importance of the less popular team and risk declining revenue in doing so?

Ex-Chicagoan
10-01-2008, 04:01 PM
Let's go one step further: if we're going to argue all about "journalism", sports shouldn't be on the front page. It's entertainment.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Let's go one step further: if we're going to argue all about "journalism", sports shouldn't be on the front page. It's entertainment.

It's technically on the back page.

ChiSoxFan81
10-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Yup. It's the same reason why some missing girl in Aruba is a huge story while kids go missing every day in Chicago and not a word is said about them. For some reason, the former story has more appeal to the masses. Same goes for the Cubs.

Whoever said earlier that it's the media's fault the Cubs are popular may be at least partially correct. Yes, maybe if the media started telling everyone how great the Sox are, some people might become more interested in the Sox. But how does it help the media to elevate the importance of the less popular team and risk declining revenue in doing so?

And do you see why spending so much time on one story has a detrimental effect? Everyone in the world knows about that girl, but there are thousands of others missing that no one has a clue about. Just because it has appeal doesn't mean it is the prudent thing to do.

kittle42
10-01-2008, 04:44 PM
And do you see why spending so much time on one story has a detrimental effect? Everyone in the world knows about that girl, but there are thousands of others missing that no one has a clue about. Just because it has appeal doesn't mean it is the prudent thing to do.

Prudent vs. Profitable. I agree it's not prudent. But for them, it makes a more sensational and attractive story, and is thus more profitable. Hey, I'm not saying any of this coverage is "right," but it makes sense financially.

jdm2662
10-01-2008, 04:51 PM
Meh, whatever. I'll be out of town the next 11 days. Not that I pay attention anyway.

Parrothead
10-01-2008, 08:15 PM
The Cub Times has once again dissed the Sox. Last week, the Cubs got a full wrap-around cover of the team celebrating after the clinch. Today, we wake up to find a half-page picture of Ozzie on the front, with stories about the Cubs next to it. On the back page? An advertisement. Sound familiar?

Hangar ? Who cares, the Sox are in. Enjoy it. The only way to change the tide is for the Sox to keep winning and get the younger fans.

cub killer
10-01-2008, 08:33 PM
The Scum-Times have absolutely slapped Sox fans in the face. Those of you who say we shouldn't complain, are wrong. We can't just sit here and take this ****. As was said before, the Sox are ALSO a Major League team. We won the damn World Series. 11-1 in the fricken playoffs.

Cmon guys, don't accept this ****. This is absolute bull****. The media should NOT be biased. The Sox deserve WAY more respect than this. The Sun-Times are ****ing *******s. I hope they go under.

Parrothead
10-01-2008, 09:30 PM
Cmon guys, don't accept this ****. This is absolute bull****. The media should NOT be biased. The Sox deserve WAY more respect than this. The Sun-Times are ****ing *******s. I hope they go under.

The media should not be bias but it is and always been. They are going to put what sells in the papers. Right now the Cubs are the bigger story just like Obama is a bigger local story than McCain. Right or wrong that is the way it is.

Eddo144
10-01-2008, 10:15 PM
Cmon guys, don't accept this ****. This is absolute bull****. The media should NOT be biased. The Sox deserve WAY more respect than this. The Sun-Times are ****ing *******s. I hope they go under.
Why? If the media in question is a private entity, they have every right to be as biased as you or I do. This country was founded partially on the press having freedom, after all.

Now, if they guarantee absolutely equal time to both teams, and then renege on that promise, you might have something. However, I don't believe any Chicago paper has made such a claim.

LoveYourSuit
10-02-2008, 12:15 AM
These threads remind of little school children bitching about why Tommy got 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream and Bobby only gets 2.


Grow the **** up and enjoy the fact that the last 3 nights we received an injection of life to continue playing. This team was a walking corpse and yet here we are.

But please Continue with your cry baby bitching about the coverage.

Go pull out your school rulers from your backpacks and get ready to measure tomorrow's column inches and headlines. And make sure to come back and give a report on all the negative press the loosers from the North Side will get for there crappy performance tonight.

I bet you will not be here to report on that, right?

This is sad and pathetic.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2008, 07:12 AM
The Scum-Times have absolutely slapped Sox fans in the face. Those of you who say we shouldn't complain, are wrong. We can't just sit here and take this ****. As was said before, the Sox are ALSO a Major League team. We won the damn World Series. 11-1 in the fricken playoffs.

Cmon guys, don't accept this ****. This is absolute bull****. The media should NOT be biased. The Sox deserve WAY more respect than this. The Sun-Times are ****ing *******s. I hope they go under.

I remember you bitching about this before and I clearly recall an alliance we formed, one where the pair of us would scale the Sun Times building (rip) and set it to the torch. What ever happened to that plan? I mean, it isn't like anything is stopping us.

FoulTerritory
10-02-2008, 07:49 AM
I'm not big on complaining about media coverage, but anyone calling it a non-issue with these kind of huge descrepencies in coverage simply doesn't want things to change.

I agree with your sentiment. And I also wish that some people on here would stop spending so much time telling us which threads they don't like. I don't understand. If you don't like the thread . . . just go read and post at another one.

I think its important that Sox fans have a place to voice displeasure about the media bias if they want -- even if its merely cathartic.

SoxandtheCityTee
10-02-2008, 09:01 AM
You know, we are consumers: of baseball, of newspapers -- in whatever format, and maybe less and less these days -- and of the goods and services that newspaper advertisers and ad agencies want us to buy. There are thousands of registered users here and many people who visit, and we know that includes media, marketing and ad types.

If I choose to let a business and its advertisers know what my preferences as a customer are, and that I can and will act on them, that does not mean that I'm insecure, whiny, or have low self-esteem. It's not about injustice or my inner child, it's about my using my power as a consumer in this society. Maybe some people laugh and say that this is a waste of time, or maybe musings on the media is just not your cup of tea. I'm cool with that. And I concede that not every comment made here about media coverage is a thoughtful or funny one, but what thread topic can lay claim to such purity?

Attacking everyone who notes, complains or laughs about Sox coverage on the basis that they all have damaged psyches, and the only way to be one of the cool kids is to ignore it all, is insulting, needlessly divisive and (just between us) hints more at an underlying self-consciousness than self-confidence. Maybe give some thought to letting one go by now and then?

sox102
10-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Is bitching about it going to change a damn thing?
No, it only makes you look like a whiner and obsessed with everything Cubs.

I'm with kittle42 on this.

Yeah this is where these posts go, doesn't mean we have to fill the place up with Cub garbage.

Then why do you guys spend your time responding to these threads? Just don't even bother reading them then.

ChiSoxFan81
10-02-2008, 09:52 AM
These threads remind of little school children bitching about why Tommy got 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream and Bobby only gets 2.


Grow the **** up and enjoy the fact that the last 3 nights we received an injection of life to continue playing. This team was a walking corpse and yet here we are.

But please Continue with your cry baby bitching about the coverage.

Go pull out your school rulers from your backpacks and get ready to measure tomorrow's column inches and headlines. And make sure to come back and give a report on all the negative press the loosers from the North Side will get for there crappy performance tonight.

I bet you will not be here to report on that, right?

This is sad and pathetic.

Yes, the last 3 games for the Sox have been exhilirating. I was there on Tuesday. I'm psyched! At the same time, I can focus my attention both on rooting for the Sox and railing against the Cubbie media machine. It does not take any of the joy out of what the Sox are doing. But it is an injustice nevertheless. I know, if the Sox continue to win and the Scrubs lose the 1st round, we'll have all the coverage, and that's how you take care of it. But I'm not going to sit back and pretend I enjoy being downplayed by the papers.

Iwritecode
10-02-2008, 10:44 AM
Now, if they guarantee absolutely equal time to both teams, and then renege on that promise, you might have something. However, I don't believe any Chicago paper has made such a claim.

I think George Knue came on here and tried to make that claim once...

kittle42
10-02-2008, 11:53 AM
I agree with your sentiment. And I also wish that some people on here would stop spending so much time telling us which threads they don't like. I don't understand. If you don't like the thread . . . just go read and post at another one.

I think its important that Sox fans have a place to voice displeasure about the media bias if they want -- even if its merely cathartic.

I don't like this thread.

kittle42
10-02-2008, 11:55 AM
Then why do you guys spend your time responding to these threads? Just don't even bother reading them then.

Because it's fun.

ChiSoxFan81
10-03-2008, 09:34 AM
...very well may have vindicated itself today. THE CHICAGO FLUBS. Greatest headline ever!! I will frame it and show it to all the Cubs fans forever. That's tantamount to printing "Chicago White Sux". Hilarious.

cub killer
10-04-2008, 08:49 PM
I remember you bitching about this before and I clearly recall an alliance we formed, one where the pair of us would scale the Sun Times building (rip) and set it to the torch. What ever happened to that plan? I mean, it isn't like anything is stopping us.

Hahahahahahahaha. Like that guy who used to scale the Sears Tower dressed as SpiderMan? Hahahhaha.