PDA

View Full Version : Somewhere Dave Wills Is Laughing


Lip Man 1
08-22-2009, 09:22 PM
I get the feeling this is going to generate some comments.

:D:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-23-mcgrath-cubs-chicago-aug23,0,7565681.story

Lip

Boondock Saint
08-22-2009, 09:28 PM
What a load of bull****.

WhiteSoxOnly
08-22-2009, 09:29 PM
What a load of bull****.

And then some.Unintentional comedy at it's finest.

Thatguyoverthere
08-22-2009, 09:30 PM
:rolling:, fair coverage from the Tribune, and he pulls out 2005 as an example where they were pro-Sox? The most ridiculous headline I ever saw was during that season, when the Sox were coming off an eight-game winning streak, and in the last game of that streak the Blue Jays catcher got injured. The headline? Somber Streak. :rolleyes: That is indefensible.

Boondock Saint
08-22-2009, 09:33 PM
He cries "equal coverage", but I bet if you were to count up the number of times the Cubs are mentioned in Sox articles and vice-versa, you'd find the ratio to be staggering.

34rancher
08-22-2009, 09:38 PM
I would love to see him pull the Cub-une on the day after Derrick Lee had 7 rbis after a 3 run home run and a grand slam. Then go pull the paper after Paulie had 3 hrs and 7 rbi or Thome had the exact same game as Lee and look at the coverage. Recent example? Uh, yeah.

The simple fact that they had to listen to McFail after being summoned shows that there was a bias. There was a bias, there is bias. Good luck Dan McGrath.

SoxGirl4Life
08-22-2009, 09:43 PM
lol Quite funny. Just another way for that rag to paint the Sox and Sox fans as the complaining red-headed step children.

Give me a break.

The Immigrant
08-22-2009, 09:51 PM
Frodo Baggins doth protest too much.

soxfanreggie
08-22-2009, 10:01 PM
To sit there and say, "We don't support the Cubs more than the Sox" because you printed off coverage of the World Series is a load. A team in the city you operate (the Cubs are the Trib's hometown team) made it to the grandest stage in the game. They would have sold a heck of a lot less papers if they didn't cover it. So, no Dan, you cannot talk 2005. The Trib didn't do the "Soxtober" piece of out the kindness of its heart. It did it to sell newspapers by the truckload.

As for covering the parade, it was the biggest news in Chicago. Of course you were going to be there.

To sit there and say you weren't biased because you covered major events in the city is laughable. There is a bias, we all know it.

chisoxfanatic
08-22-2009, 10:13 PM
:rolling:, fair coverage from the Tribune, and he pulls out 2005 as an example where they were pro-Sox? The most ridiculous headline I ever saw was during that season, when the Sox were coming off an eight-game winning streak, and in the last game of that streak the Blue Jays catcher got injured. The headline? Somber Streak. :rolleyes: That is indefensible.
Giving examples from a World Series championship-winning season is unacceptable! What about any other year? It shouldn't have taken a World Series title to get any fair coverage. The Cubune has treated the Cubs like they have the same history that the Yankees have.

skobabe8
08-22-2009, 10:19 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/6/medium/Hangar_Tinfoil_Small.jpg (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1256&size=big&cat=)

chisoxfanatic
08-22-2009, 10:20 PM
Funny thing you posted that picture, skobabe! I made that tin foil hat for Henry and presented it to him right at the beginning of that gathering.

skobabe8
08-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Funny thing you posted that picture, skobabe! I made that tin foil hat for Henry and presented it to him right at the beginning of that gathering.

I saw the pic from that night with you in it, but I didn't want to drag you into this. :cool:

southside rocks
08-22-2009, 10:25 PM
What a load of bull****.

Yep, that about sums it up! :D:

tebman
08-22-2009, 10:55 PM
If I thought it would do any damn good I'd add a comment to McGrath's essay. But it wouldn't and so I won't.

While I don't doubt McGrath's personal sincerity, the real issue that he chooses not to address is the why his company bought the team in the first place: it's a media company, in the advertising business, and they wanted the Cubs to build synergy among the newspapers, the TV & radio station, and then CLTV and the websites when they came along. Of course there was bias! If there wasn't, they wouldn't have bothered owning the ballclub.

Counting column-inches and boasting about World Series coverage are all red herrings. The company made sure that the Cubs were identified with the Tribune, WGN radio, WGN-TV, RedEye, CLTV, Chicago Magazine, Hoy, and wherever else their tentacles extended because it was a marketing strategy. The TV and radio station were guaranteed hundreds of hours of profitable programming and the other parts of the company benefited from the association. Economies of scale and all that.

Every time I think I'm finished with this argument something riles me up again. It shouldn't matter but it does because in order to create this product they had to contrast it with something, and that something was all of us. We were the "other" that could be referred to when they manufactured the mythology of the Wrigley Field experience. We were Brand X, and I have always found that offensive.

If McGrath truly has South Side roots then he knows what I'm talking about. The fact that he seems to have deluded himself into thinking it's not true just makes me feel sorry for him. Maybe Hallmark makes a get-well-from-your-bankruptcy-soon card I could send.

Bah.

jabrch
08-22-2009, 11:02 PM
I wonder why McGrath thinks his own personal credibility is worth so little that he'd waste time/space on this crap? I don't think a single person out there is buying it.

Hitmen77
08-22-2009, 11:48 PM
Ironic that he cites the Sox 2000 season (when we won 95 games and the division title) as an example of when they had pro-Sox coverage. From what I remember, the Trib spent most of that season ripping on the Sox as pretenders with poor attendance. To McGrath, I have a two word response to their 2000 coverage: SKIP BAYLESS. That jackass mercilessly ripping on the Sox all season long in the Tribune sports pages. By comparison, there simply isn't any negative coverage of the Cubs in the rare seasons that they're racking up 90+ wins.

As far as the 2005 coverage, I agree that the "Soxtober" coverage was great....but how soon we forget the Trib's front page story on the opening day of the 2005 playoffs. It was titled "U.S. Insular Field" and ripped on the Sox for being poor neighbors and implied that the area just outside the Cell wreaked of pot smoke.:rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
08-23-2009, 12:02 AM
There are some solid points being made. I suggest you e-mail McGrath with them.

Lip

hawkjt
08-23-2009, 12:45 AM
I do not doubt that McGrath heard about this issue a lot in his years in his job. I am sure it got very old hearing about it. Boo Hoo. I do have to point out that there was never a columnist who had it in for the Sox like Mariotti of the Sun Times. Bayless was a contra guy who did rip on everyone. It is unconscious for a Sox fan to notice the plethora of stories on the Cubs over the Sox some days. I did like Soxtober sections,still have them packed away,of course.
Does anyone think it will change now with the sale of the Cubs? Trib still will own 5%...no change.

kittle42
08-23-2009, 12:45 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/6/medium/Hangar_Tinfoil_Small.jpg (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1256&size=big&cat=)

****ing genius.

JB98
08-23-2009, 12:48 AM
I always felt like the Tribune set up a dynamic to where the Cubs were the story in the city no matter what.

Cubs winning? People dancing in the streets and signing Go Cubs Go? The Cubs are the story.

Cubs losing? Hearts being broken on the North Side? Curse continued? The Cubs are the story.

Win or lose, they've always made sure that Cubbie team is in the spotlight.

doublem23
08-23-2009, 12:50 AM
The very fact they feel the need to defend their objectivity should tell you all you need to know about the Tribune's sports section.

JB98
08-23-2009, 12:55 AM
One other thing on this topic, being a newspaper man myself. If there is no bias, you shouldn't feel the need to defend yourself. I've been accused of bias many times in my career, but I've never put pen to paper to defend my actions. I've never needed to.

When I was a reporter out in Sterling, there were three core high schools we covered: Sterling, Rock Falls and Newman. I routinely fielded calls from fans of ALL THREE high schools, accusing me of being biased toward the two others. I figure that means I was covering everything fairly. Obviously, all three schools were getting coverage, since the fans of the other teams thought we were showing favoritism.

Much the same dynamic exists here in Aurora. We have rivalries like East and West High. Aurora Central Catholic and Marmion Academy. Waubonsie Valley and Neuqua Valley. We get people on both sides of these rivalries squawking and saying we're biased. Obviously, I can't be biased toward BOTH East and West High. But I've fielded calls saying I am, sometimes about the same story. Go figure.

The Trib gets phone calls from angry Sox fans, accusing them of bias. I wonder if any Cubbie faithful have ever called to accuse them of being pro-Sox and anti-Cub. :scratch:

cards press box
08-23-2009, 01:19 AM
I always felt like the Tribune set up a dynamic to where the Cubs were the story in the city no matter what.

Cubs winning? People dancing in the streets and signing Go Cubs Go? The Cubs are the story.

Cubs losing? Hearts being broken on the North Side? Curse continued? The Cubs are the story.

Win or lose, they've always made sure that Cubbie team is in the spotlight.

That is exactly the dynamic at play with regard to press coverage of the Cubs, particularly in the Trib's various media outlets. Anyone seriously think that over the last forty or so years, WGN radio has ever come anywhere close to fair treatment of the Sox?

Coolpapa
08-23-2009, 04:55 AM
Bias journalism is the number 2 reason for the death of the newspaper. The story sells advertising. What happened to the truth?

WSox597
08-23-2009, 05:40 AM
Bias journalism is the number 2 reason for the death of the newspaper. The story sells advertising. What happened to the truth?

William Randolph Hearst made millions doing the same thing. (Yellow journalism)

Maybe the formula is finally breaking down. Good riddance to it if it is.

SOXSINCE'70
08-23-2009, 06:42 AM
What happened to the truth?

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" :

They (Cub-Une) want the truth ?? THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!:angry:

soxinem1
08-23-2009, 06:49 AM
I'm just glad they noted that 'mouthpiece' Dave Wills, a White Sox fan, as the originator of the term 'Cubune'!:bandance::bandance:

southside rocks
08-23-2009, 08:04 AM
Another thing: the "column inches are equal" way of comparing coverage is bull****.

Endless stories with the theme that the Cubs are America's team, the Cubs fans are faithful and knowledgeable about the game, Ron Santo is a saint who should be canonized, Wrigley Field is the last real ballfield in the world; versus stories with the theme that the White Sox are a team full of rifts and bickering, led by a manager who is known more for his blue language than his baseball acumen, Sox fans are psychopaths who attack team personnel at will, and the Cell is in the middle of some vast ghetto -- don't bother to measure out the column inches, I think we're all pretty clear on where the Cubune's preferences lie!

34rancher
08-23-2009, 08:12 AM
I would love to hear real questions answered.
Does the cubune still own the ticket brokerage across the street? Why did the cubune never cover that story until judge stupidly said no conflict of interest? Or did ricketts get that too?

cws05champ
08-23-2009, 08:16 AM
My God...what revisionist history!! I commented on the article quoting the cubune website on some of it. This is sure to set off a fire storm. They really just don't get it.

dickallen15
08-23-2009, 08:29 AM
Another thing: the "column inches are equal" way of comparing coverage is bull****.

Endless stories with the theme that the Cubs are America's team, the Cubs fans are faithful and knowledgeable about the game, Ron Santo is a saint who should be canonized, Wrigley Field is the last real ballfield in the world; versus stories with the theme that the White Sox are a team full of rifts and bickering, led by a manager who is known more for his blue language than his baseball acumen, Sox fans are psychopaths who attack team personnel at will, and the Cell is in the middle of some vast ghetto -- don't bother to measure out the column inches, I think we're all pretty clear on where the Cubune's preferences lie!

I'll never forget the Tribune piece the day the playoffs began in 2005. A big article how the Sox have blown off their neighbors. The scent of marijuana only a block away from USCF...............I guess that hackjob qualified as inches of column space to the White Sox side. Yet when something happened at Wrigley Field like the guy getting murdered right across the street, Wrigleyville became North Lakeview in the Tribune.


Another thing that he didn't address would be the placement of the inches. The Cubs would be on the front, the Sox on page 3 or 4 some days.

Brian26
08-23-2009, 08:54 AM
If I thought it would do any damn good I'd add a comment to McGrath's essay. But it wouldn't and so I won't.

While I don't doubt McGrath's personal sincerity, the real issue that he chooses not to address is the why his company bought the team in the first place: it's a media company, in the advertising business, and they wanted the Cubs to build synergy among the newspapers, the TV & radio station, and then CLTV and the websites when they came along. Of course there was bias! If there wasn't, they wouldn't have bothered owning the ballclub.

Counting column-inches and boasting about World Series coverage are all red herrings. The company made sure that the Cubs were identified with the Tribune, WGN radio, WGN-TV, RedEye, CLTV, Chicago Magazine, Hoy, and wherever else their tentacles extended because it was a marketing strategy. The TV and radio station were guaranteed hundreds of hours of profitable programming and the other parts of the company benefited from the association. Economies of scale and all that.

Every time I think I'm finished with this argument something riles me up again. It shouldn't matter but it does because in order to create this product they had to contrast it with something, and that something was all of us. We were the "other" that could be referred to when they manufactured the mythology of the Wrigley Field experience. We were Brand X, and I have always found that offensive.

If McGrath truly has South Side roots then he knows what I'm talking about. The fact that he seems to have deluded himself into thinking it's not true just makes me feel sorry for him. Maybe Hallmark makes a get-well-from-your-bankruptcy-soon card I could send.

Bah.

Phenomenal.

:thumbsup:

PatK
08-23-2009, 09:08 AM
No bias?

Today on the front page of the Trib website as I type this at 9:05 a.m., there are links to three Cubs articles, and none to anything about the Sox.

southside rocks
08-23-2009, 09:10 AM
No bias?

Today on the front page of the Trib website as I type this at 9:05 a.m., there are links to three Cubs articles, and none to anything about the Sox.

But that's because the Cubs are 8 games in front in the NLC and the Sox are fighting KC for last in the ALC.

rocky biddle
08-23-2009, 09:13 AM
House organ. Enough said.

Cuck the Fubs
08-23-2009, 09:14 AM
No bias?

Today on the front page of the Trib website as I type this at 9:05 a.m., there are links to three Cubs articles, and none to anything about the Sox.

* Waves hand for Jedi mind trick *
These aren't the articles you're looking for :cool:

SI1020
08-23-2009, 09:22 AM
Phenomenal.

:thumbsup: I agree. Tebman at the top of his game again.

Hitmen77
08-23-2009, 10:02 AM
* Waves hand for Jedi mind trick *
These aren't the articles you're looking for :cool:

:lol:

PatK
08-23-2009, 10:37 AM
* Waves hand for Jedi mind trick *
These aren't the articles you're looking for :cool:

*** eyes glaze over ***

These aren't there articles I'm looking for

Fenway
08-23-2009, 11:16 AM
No bias?

Today on the front page of the Trib website as I type this at 9:05 a.m., there are links to three Cubs articles, and none to anything about the Sox.

I don't believe JR sold the White Sox on Friday :tongue:

Honestly the Tribune IMHO has always treated the White Sox well.

Compare it to how one sided coverage is in New York between Yankees and Mets or in the Bay Area between Giants and A's. White Sox are not slighted.

I didn't include Los Angeles as even if the Angels call themselves Los Angeles I wouldn't want to try and walk between the 2 parks.

SoxGirl4Life
08-23-2009, 11:34 AM
I don't believe JR sold the White Sox on Friday :tongue:

Honestly the Tribune IMHO has always treated the White Sox well.

Compare it to how one sided coverage is in New York between Yankees and Mets or in the Bay Area between Giants and A's. White Sox are not slighted.

I didn't include Los Angeles as even if the Angels call themselves Los Angeles I wouldn't want to try and walk between the 2 parks.

The difference, Fenway, is that the NY Times hasn't owned one of the teams for the past 30 years. IMO, growing up, there were equal number of Sox fans and Cub fans. When the Tribune started marketing their investment by giving the bias coverage, that's when the disparity became so lopsided. We've had this discussion before. And yes, the Cubs being on free TV and the Sox moving to SportsVision at the same time Harry Caray defected up north had something to do with it. But back in the 70's, both teams sucked and had the fan support that each warranted.

jabrch
08-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Honestly the Tribune IMHO has always treated the White Sox well.

That's purely an opinion - and one that (in my opinion) is untrue.

The Cubs were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tribune. And the coverage showed it - maybe not in "column inches" but in tone and message for sure.

The worst example of it in my eyes is the comparison of how "dangerous" the neighborhood is by USCF and how safe it is in Wrigleyville, but slanting coverage of any crime in the Wrigleyville area. Conveniently, when a shooting happens right at the corner of Clark and Addison, that is Lakeview. When there is a rapist in that area, is is Lakeview. But when they take about the Cubs and the nightlife in the area, it is Wrigleyville. Meanwhile, they never actually discuss the crime statistics...which would show that the area within a 10 block radius of the parks would not show the neighborhoods as the Tribune portrays them.

With all due respect Fens, I dont think you get it.

Fenway
08-23-2009, 12:13 PM
My perception is around 1981 there were probably more Sox fans in Chicagoland.

There were so many little things that added together caused the shift.

When MLB split the divisions in 1969 and the White Sox were moved to the west that started it. MLB was certain Chicago was moving to Milwaukee so they put the WS with the Twins and KC and destroyed their old rivalries the eastern and other lake franchises. Then when Washington moved to Texas they put Milwaukee in the east and not Chicago. Meanwhile they kept the Cubs in the east and had Cincinnati and ATLANTA in the west. Huh?

This hurt game stories being complete for the White Sox because of deadline pressures while the Cubs didn't have that problem playing day games at home and many road games in the east one hour ahead.

WFLD, Sportsvision, WCFL also all played into it.

Harry moving to the Flubs and WGN becoming a superstation also played in to it.

However who had the last laugh in 2005?

I would like to see Lip's response to this



The difference, Fenway, is that the NY Times hasn't owned one of the teams for the past 30 years. IMO, growing up, there were equal number of Sox fans and Cub fans. When the Tribune started marketing their investment by giving the bias coverage, that's when the disparity became so lopsided. We've had this discussion before. And yes, the Cubs being on free TV and the Sox moving to SportsVision at the same time Harry Caray defected up north had something to do with it. But back in the 70's, both teams sucked and had the fan support that each warranted.

Bump34
08-23-2009, 12:36 PM
Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!!!!

C'mon it's been 5 years!!!:gulp::gulp::gulp:

dickallen15
08-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!!!!

C'mon it's been 5 years!!!:gulp::gulp::gulp:

Dan McGrath is a drillrod.

voodoochile
08-23-2009, 12:43 PM
My perception is around 1981 there were probably more Sox fans in Chicagoland.

There were so many little things that added together caused the shift.

When MLB split the divisions in 1969 and the White Sox were moved to the west that started it. MLB was certain Chicago was moving to Milwaukee so they put the WS with the Twins and KC and destroyed their old rivalries the eastern and other lake franchises. Then when Washington moved to Texas they put Milwaukee in the east and not Chicago. Meanwhile they kept the Cubs in the east and had Cincinnati and ATLANTA in the west. Huh?

This hurt game stories being complete for the White Sox because of deadline pressures while the Cubs didn't have that problem playing day games at home and many road games in the east one hour ahead.

WFLD, Sportsvision, WCFL also all played into it.

Harry moving to the Flubs and WGN becoming a superstation also played in to it.

However who had the last laugh in 2005?

I would like to see Lip's response to this

I agree that most of the fanbase problems the Sox have faced have been self-induced. They simply gave away the city to the flubbies in the late 80's at a time when the flubbies were making inroads back to respectability with playoff appearances in 84 and 89. Then came the disterous double hits of JR playing warhawk during the 94 strike and the White Flag Trade of 1997 (again with the flubbies reaping tons of positive press with the HR race and Wild Card appearance in 1998 and another HR chase in 1999 when the Sox were failing to draw 1.5M).

But, at least part of the problem has been from the negative perception the press has piled on the Sox from the pre-opening stories about bullet holes in the seats in the upper deck to the stories about how disliked the stadium was to stories in the 2000's about pot smoke filling the air around the ballpark and constant references to Lique every time any fan incident occurs. The Cubune has created the perception they are biased, not because the Sox are perfect, but because they tend to minimize the issues around Wrigley and over report perceived issues around UCSF. Part of that is as simple as referring to the neighborhood as Wrigleyville when they've got something happy to report and Lakeview when it's a negative story. That single act is so common as to be ridiculous.

Maybe it has been simply a case of culture inside the newsroom dissuading reporters from looking too deeply or too closely at the myriad issues. I think that's mostly the case - you don't kill the golden goose so you tend to ignore it when it ****s in the living room or dismiss it as a one time incident.

So again, the Sox might be 90% responsible for the problems they face(d) with a diminished fanbase and lost season ticket holders, but the Cubune is an active participant in the other 10% of the equation. That's not how it's supposed to work...

Fenway
08-23-2009, 01:25 PM
The Sox being on WCFL hurt them outside of Chicagoland as well. While AM 1000 can be heard at night from Maine to Florida it has no signal beaming downstate or west into Iowa while WGN does.

This is why you can find a ton of White Sox fans in Buffalo but not in Rockford, Iowa or downstate.

Sure the team was later on WMAQ and WBBM but the damage had been done.

Sportsvision was a horrible blow but in fairness to Einhorn the team had no other options in 1982 if they wanted a complete slate of games. No station wanted them full time after WSNS went to pay tv.

Compared to the Mets plight the White Sox coverage is pretty good.

ewokpelts
08-23-2009, 02:00 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/6/medium/Hangar_Tinfoil_Small.jpg (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1256&size=big&cat=)Heh heh

TornLabrum
08-23-2009, 02:33 PM
Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!!!!

C'mon it's been 5 years!!!:gulp::gulp::gulp:

C'mon yourself Dave! You know that you're personally responsible for all the negative perception Sox fans have about the Cubune's coverage of the Sox!

Fenway
08-23-2009, 03:23 PM
The Tribune editorial on Sunday

One has to wonder had Charlie Finley bought the Cubs instead what things would be like today

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2009/08/our-cousins-the-cubs.html

1908<2005
08-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Just another way for that rag to paint the Sox and Sox fans as the complaining red-headed step children.

To be fair, all you have to do is look at this board (an entire forum dedicated to the Cubs on a White Sox board) to realize this. Also, there's a 108 page thread on Soxtalk fully dedicated to bashing the Cubs. You guys really need to stop caring about the Cubs. Buy MLBEI and watch our division rivals over them. That's what I do.

chisoxfanatic
08-23-2009, 06:30 PM
To be fair, all you have to do is look at this board (an entire forum dedicated to the Cubs on a White Sox board) to realize this. You guys really need to stop caring about the Cubs. Buy MLBEI and watch our division rivals over them. That's what I do.
With a screen name 1908<205, who are you to tell others to stop doing so? I think that's being quite hypocritical!

1908<2005
08-23-2009, 06:37 PM
With a screen name 1908<205, who are you to tell others to stop doing so? I think that's being quite hypocritical!
I made this name as a joke. I read this board for a few years before I joined and laughed at all the Cubs threads here. I just found it funny that a forum on the Cubs could have 100,000 posts in it. It just pisses me off that most of our fanbase cares more about how the Cubs do then the Tigers or Twins teams we should actually care about.

chisoxfanatic
08-23-2009, 06:43 PM
I made this name as a joke. I read this board for a few years before I joined and laughed at all the Cubs threads here. I just found it funny that a forum on the Cubs could have 100,000 posts in it. It just pisses me off that most of our fanbase cares more about how the Cubs do then the Tigers or Twins teams we should actually care about.
First of all, we are not caring more about the Cubs than how the Tigers or Twins do! Secondly, we actually have to deal with sharing a city with those fans, we need a place to vent! It's totally healthy!

1908<2005
08-23-2009, 06:45 PM
First of all, we are not caring more about the Cubs than how the Tigers or Twins do!
Soxtalk.com:
AL Central Thread: 52 pages, 770 posts
Cubs thread: 108 pages, 1,606 posts

dickallen15
08-23-2009, 06:50 PM
Soxtalk.com:
AL Central Thread: 52 pages, 770 posts
Cubs thread: 108 pages, 1,606 posts

Its the dynamic of a 2 team town. No matter what anyone tells you, if there was a cubsinteractive.com, it would be the same way. The Cubs fans aren't supposed to care at all about the Sox, but go to Wrigley Field even on days when they aren't playing the Sox and go to every souvenier shop outside, you'll find Sox Suck and SUX shirts everywhere.

SI1020
08-23-2009, 07:00 PM
My perception is around 1981 there were probably more Sox fans in Chicagoland.

There were so many little things that added together caused the shift.

When MLB split the divisions in 1969 and the White Sox were moved to the west that started it. MLB was certain Chicago was moving to Milwaukee so they put the WS with the Twins and KC and destroyed their old rivalries the eastern and other lake franchises. Then when Washington moved to Texas they put Milwaukee in the east and not Chicago. Meanwhile they kept the Cubs in the east and had Cincinnati and ATLANTA in the west. Huh?

This hurt game stories being complete for the White Sox because of deadline pressures while the Cubs didn't have that problem playing day games at home and many road games in the east one hour ahead.

WFLD, Sportsvision, WCFL also all played into it.

Harry moving to the Flubs and WGN becoming a superstation also played in to it.

However who had the last laugh in 2005?

I would like to see Lip's response to this I agree for the most part, but think the problems go back to 1967. It was the last year of the go go era for the Sox, coinciding with the beginnings of a mini resurgence for the Cubs under Leo Durocher. The Sox were in that thrilling 4 team pennant race but still the rumors were just beginning about a relocation of the franchise. I think that after the 67 season is when the Sox cut ties with WGN, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me. Fast forward to 69 and that famous Cub choke. Still they were in first place until early September, and if you were living in the Chicago area at the time and followed baseball, you'll never forget it. It was Cubs all the time everywhere on the airwaves, TV, and in the press. It was really tough being a Sox fan that year, but nice to see Al Weis, JC Martin and Tommie Agee help to derail that pennant train. Another thing. I grew up in various N and NW side neighborhoods, and it was not unusual to be a Sox fan as a kid back then. All of a sudden Durocher comes to town, and the Cubs are actually winning more games than losing and a lot of my neighbors rediscover their geographic loyalty. I remember attending a street fair in Rogers Park in July of 69 and all you saw were Cub hats and it seemed everyone was talking about their double header sweep earlier in the day. The Sox and their fans have had their ups and downs since then, but essentially I see the Sox fighting a rear guard action since that long ago era when Chicago switched back to being a Cub town.

The Sox being on WCFL hurt them outside of Chicagoland as well. While AM 1000 can be heard at night from Maine to Florida it has no signal beaming downstate or west into Iowa while WGN does.

This is why you can find a ton of White Sox fans in Buffalo but not in Rockford, Iowa or downstate.

Sure the team was later on WMAQ and WBBM but the damage had been done.

Sportsvision was a horrible blow but in fairness to Einhorn the team had no other options in 1982 if they wanted a complete slate of games. No station wanted them full time after WSNS went to pay tv.

Compared to the Mets plight the White Sox coverage is pretty good.


This is very true. When I was a kid and visited relatives back east I was always grateful to be able to pick up Sox games at night on my little transistor. I had no idea about the long term effects of building a fan base. While attending ISU in the early 70s I came face to face with the fact that their were virtually no Sox fans in downstate Illinois. It was all Cubs down to Peoria, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign, and when you got to about Decatur it was solidly Cardinal country.

SoxandtheCityTee
08-23-2009, 07:43 PM
I made this name as a joke. I read this board for a few years before I joined and laughed at all the Cubs threads here. I just found it funny that a forum on the Cubs could have 100,000 posts in it. It just pisses me off that most of our fanbase cares more about how the Cubs do then the Tigers or Twins teams we should actually care about.

Uh-huh. You stick to that story. But an increasing number of posters here have figured out the real deal.

DSpivack
08-23-2009, 08:36 PM
I read the article and for whatever reason wasn't as bothered by it's tired points but by McGrath patting himself on the back for doing a wonderful job.

SOXPHILE
08-24-2009, 01:19 PM
Well, Dan McGrath's whiskers were really a 'bristlin' in that crappy column, weren't they ?

No bias that you can recall, eh Daniel ? First off, as others have pointed out, referring to your SOXTOBER coverage in 2005 isn't something you can use as proof of no bias. A Chicago team was in the playoffs, and went all the way, winning the championship. You're SUPPOSED to cover that with special sections and headlines. Same is true for 2000. They went to the playoffs that year, of course you covered it. I would expect no less for any other team, in any other town, from any other newspaper.

No Cubs bias ? Just off the top of my head, after about 10 seconds of thought, I seem to recall:

-The aforementioned "U.S. Insular Field" /pot smoking headline the day before the 2005 ALDS began at U.S. "Insular" Field. I'm struggling to recall similar negative headlines prior to the Cubs playoff series in '98, '03, '07 or '08.

-Rick Morrisey informing us that a Cubs World Series parade would make the Sox parade of 10/28/05 look like an Oak Lawn 4th of July parade.

-Yes Dan, the point is you and Frodo Sullivan were called into the principals' office in '06, when this should NEVER happen. Since when does a baseball GM dictate what's written about the team in a newspaper. Oh, that's right, when when they're both owned by the same conglomerate.

-Let's bring up the Ligues at every opportunity when anyone at any other baseball stadium runs on the field, and lets also continue to report on them as major news in the sports section every time any of those idiots gets pinched for shoplifting or public drunkeness.

-One fine day in 2006, the day after a big Sox win and a Cubs off day, the front page story in the sports section was a Kerry Wood re-hab start in A ball, complete with a full color picture. The Sox game ? Page 3.

-The aforementionedd "Somber Sweep".

-During the 2005 run, continuing to bring up and compare the Sox to other famous or infamous choke jobs -1964 Phillies, 1995 Angels, etc. Then of course, once they were up 3-1 in the ALCS against the Angels, lets bring up the fact that the Cubs were in the same position in '03, but didn't make it, and talk about that possibility. Un-biased reporting, or wishful thinking ?

-NON STOP pimping of Ron Santo for the HOF.

longshot7
08-24-2009, 04:21 PM
Soxtalk.com:
AL Central Thread: 52 pages, 770 posts
Cubs thread: 108 pages, 1,606 posts

To be fair, that Al Central thread is pretty new. Before that, all Det & Minn posts were in their own threads.

slavko
08-24-2009, 08:28 PM
-Yes Dan, the point is you and Fodo Sullivan were called into the principals' office in '06, when this should NEVER happen. Since when does a baseball GM dictate what's written about the team in a newspaper. Oh, that's right, when when they're both owned by the same conglomerate.


-The aforementionedd "Somber Sweep".



I had to google that one. Funny origin, LOL. Great post.

Hitmen77
08-24-2009, 08:37 PM
One of the funniest examples of the Trib's ridiculous pro-Cubs bias was after this game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260716116

The next day, the Trib ran an article talking about how this game just added to the "mystique" of Wrigley Field because you can see historical games like this at the Shrine and this is why Wrigley is one Chicago's top attractions. :rolleyes: Seriously, it was better than any fake "Cubune" headline we could have made up on WSI.

Boondock Saint
08-24-2009, 08:46 PM
One of the funniest examples of the Trib's ridiculous pro-Cubs bias was after this game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260716116

The next day, the Trib ran an article talking about how this game just added to the "mystique" of Wrigley Field because you can see historical games like this at the Shrine and this is why Wrigley is one Chicago's top attractions. :rolleyes: Seriously, it was better than any fake "Cubune" headline we could have made up on WSI.

Whatever happened to those threads? Some of that stuff was genius.

TommyJohn
08-24-2009, 09:53 PM
One of the funniest examples of the Trib's ridiculous pro-Cubs bias was after this game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260716116

The next day, the Trib ran an article talking about how this game just added to the "mystique" of Wrigley Field because you can see historical games like this at the Shrine and this is why Wrigley is one Chicago's top attractions. :rolleyes: Seriously, it was better than any fake "Cubune" headline we could have made up on WSI.

I remember that one!

I also remember you pretty much having your finger on the pulse of the "Cubune," predicting a few headlines before they actually happened. And with the way they were going in 2005, many correctly predicted that the Trib would invoke the 1964 Phillies. We weren't disappointed.

Fenway
08-25-2009, 11:43 PM
I think one has to seperate the sports and news side when it comes to bias.

The Tower certainly would and could supress ugly news of things that happened in Wrigleyville but reports problems around 35th St.

Obviously WGN radio-TV will talk up the Cubs. WGN-TV will put the Sox on WCIU far more often than the Cubs which becomes an issue outside of Chicago itself.

Hitmen77
08-26-2009, 09:43 AM
I remember that one!

I also remember you pretty much having your finger on the pulse of the "Cubune," predicting a few headlines before they actually happened. And with the way they were going in 2005, many correctly predicted that the Trib would invoke the 1964 Phillies. We weren't disappointed.

It's like saying ahead of time that this year's Sox will be shut down by a crappy pitcher or that they'll throw away games due to errors......it's just so damn predictable!