PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Tribune, please, stop,enough already


SOXPHILE
01-16-2011, 10:33 PM
Ron Santo passed away on December 3. As would be expected when any public figure who was beloved by a segment of society dies, there was a lot of coverage, and a lot of tributes in the electronic and print media, including this site, and the Tribune.( I myself did not comment anywhere here because I had made my opinions on him known many times, and did not think it was appropriate to do so when he died).

The Tribune published letters to the editor from people paying tribute to him, seemingly almost wall to wall for the first week, and then continued to do so 2 weeks afterword. Wasn't really surprised, and didn't really have a problem with that. Then, they continued to do so up to, through, and past Christmas. I began thinking OK, now it's getting a little ridiculous. As we moved into January, they continued to publish a couple of letters each week. I saw another one just this past week. And now, today, a month and a half after he passed on, they run yet another letter. I'm sorry, but this has now become embarrassing. The Tribune does not own the Cubs anymore. I don't understand why they still feel the need to be the Cubs marketing machine, even with something as maudlin as this. Ron Santo was a very good 3rd baseman for the Cubs 40 years ago. After he retired, he then became a color commentator for them on the radio for about 20 years. A very bad one. A cartoon character. The Cubs even admitted that he was hired for that very purpose. That's what he was. I honestly cannot think of or remember a public figure who the Tribune continued to publish tributes to in the letters to the editor section a full month and a half after they passed, and counting, as they are now.

I'm not meaning for this to come across as bitter or mean spirited. I'm just trying to grasp why a publication like the Tribune would continue to do this. If some beloved person from the White Sox, be it a player, ex-player, announcer, etc., had been the one who died, I would think it was just as strange if they continued to publish letters like this a month, 2 months, 3 months later. When does it end ?

Brian26
01-16-2011, 10:40 PM
Seriously?

Write a letter to the Tribune if this bothers you so much.

Or stop reading the Letters to the Editor, which have always been a joke.

TornLabrum
01-16-2011, 10:50 PM
Well, Santo was an employee of the Tribune Co. A highly visible one.

StillMissOzzie
01-17-2011, 02:40 AM
I think that the Tribune still owns 5% of the Cubs, and what with their ongoing bankruptcy issues, they might as well do what they can to pump up their investment. It doesn't cost them a dime, either.

SMO
:gulp:

tebman
01-18-2011, 08:28 AM
This probably has more to do with the Tribune marketing to its customer base. For generations the Tribune has been more congenial to the city's north side and its suburbs and its association with the Cubs was a natural extension of that. Especially now that the company is still bankrupt the paper will do whatever it thinks it needs to do to shore up its base.

I agree that Santo was an iconic figure in Chicago sports, but it's clear that the Tribune has been milking the news of his death.

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-18-2011, 08:35 AM
The Trib still owns WGN.

WGN still televises (and pushes) the Cubs.

The Cubs will wear a patch this season honoring Santo, and will be putting a statue outside Wrigley for Santo as well.

Expect this to continue all season.

Don't read the Trib.

SephClone89
01-18-2011, 09:26 AM
Don't read the Trib.

I've been reading the Trib all my life. It's the paper my family has been getting since I was born. I read it when I'm at home. It doesn't really bother me.

To be honest it's the NFL/Bears domination in the sports section that bothers me more than any Cubs bias. I'd rather read any baseball talk than be subjected to nothing but football.

doublem23
01-18-2011, 09:32 AM
To be honest it's the NFL/Bears domination in the sports section that bothers me more than any Cubs bias. I'd rather read any baseball talk than be subjected to nothing but football.

Seriously, give me a break, football is the runaway most popular sport in America, the Bears are the runaway most popular team in Chicago, and they're 5 days away from arguably the biggest game in the past 25 years.

Though, I do agree with your other point. Gotta read the Trib in Chicago. What alternative is there? The Sun-Times? I made it to high school, so uh, no need for that.

ernie14
01-18-2011, 09:39 AM
I agree. Please stop Tribune.

Let the man REST in PEACE.

SephClone89
01-18-2011, 09:50 AM
Seriously, give me a break, football is the runaway most popular sport in America, the Bears are the runaway most popular team in Chicago, and they're 5 days away from arguably the biggest game in the past 25 years.

I understand that, but it seems like during the season they build up to the weekend game every day of the goddamn week. We don't need to have a cover page massive Bears story during the week when you could be talking about other sports going on. Like the Bulls, considering the season they're having.

Though, I do agree with your other point. Gotta read the Trib in Chicago. What alternative is there? The Sun-Times? I made it to high school, so uh, no need for that.

Exactly. I've never really read the Sun-Times much, but it just seems like a lower-grade paper.

doublem23
01-18-2011, 09:55 AM
I understand that, but it seems like during the season they build up to the weekend game every day of the goddamn week. We don't need to have a cover page massive Bears story during the week when you could be talking about other sports going on. Like the Bulls, considering the season they're having.


Because that's what football's good for, with 1 game per week you can really concentrate on the game at hand. And again, the Bears have been playing at a high level almost all year long. The Hawks have been dissapointing this year so far and the Bulls have really only been playing well the last 5 or so weeks. Yeah they're closing in on the #2 spot in the East, but they were hovering around .500 as late as the 1st week of December.

Football is king in America. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you're just going to have to deal with it, especially from places like print media that are scrambling to make a buck.

SephClone89
01-18-2011, 10:15 AM
Football is king in America. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you're just going to have to deal with it, especially from places like print media that are scrambling to make a buck.

I think I've come to realise (and **** off, I've been doing it since I was 9 years old) that it isn't so much the sport itself that bothers me (pales in comparison to my love for baseball, but is probably about neck and neck with basketball), but rather the crazy media obsession with it. If it was covered a little more reasonably it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. If basketball had the popularity of football that would probably annoy me as well. (God forbid if hockey ever was...)

A large part of this may just because I sense my favourite game disappearing more and more from the national consciousness year after year. That depresses me.

russ99
01-18-2011, 10:26 AM
I understand that, but it seems like during the season they build up to the weekend game every day of the goddamn week. We don't need to have a cover page massive Bears story during the week when you could be talking about other sports going on. Like the Bulls, considering the season they're having.

Exactly. I've never really read the Sun-Times much, but it just seems like a lower-grade paper.

Speak for yourself. I love the Sun Times.

But lately they're becoming the Cub-Times. Other than Cowley's weekly Ozzie/Oney/Kenny rant, we're getting much less coverage than the Cubs.

Nellie_Fox
01-18-2011, 11:03 AM
A couple of weeks ago, I was back in the area visiting my mother. I stopped to pick up a Trib. I almost left the store before I realized that it wasn't two stacks of Sun Times, that the Trib looked more like the Times than the Times did. I couldn't believe what it has become.

doublem23
01-18-2011, 11:09 AM
A couple of weeks ago, I was back in the area visiting my mother. I stopped to pick up a Trib. I almost left the store before I realized that it wasn't two stacks of Sun Times, that the Trib looked more like the Times than the Times did. I couldn't believe what it has become.

That's only the newstand edition, I have home delivery and it's still the old style.

SephClone89
01-18-2011, 11:26 AM
A couple of weeks ago, I was back in the area visiting my mother. I stopped to pick up a Trib. I almost left the store before I realized that it wasn't two stacks of Sun Times, that the Trib looked more like the Times than the Times did. I couldn't believe what it has become.

That's only the newstand edition, I have home delivery and it's still the old style.

Correct. On newsstands the Trib has switched to to the tabloid format.

Which isn't an inherently bad thing, to be honest. A great deal of the major European papers are in tabloid format (The Times, The Independent, for example, both of which are among the "quality" papers in Britain")

A change in format does not necessitate a change in the paper itself.

Nellie_Fox
01-18-2011, 12:02 PM
Correct. On newsstands the Trib has switched to to the tabloid format.

Which isn't an inherently bad thing, to be honest. A great deal of the major European papers are in tabloid format (The Times, The Independent, for example, both of which are among the "quality" papers in Britain")

A change in format does not necessitate a change in the paper itself.I understand that. I worked in the press room of a paper when I was a kid, and know the difference between a broadsheet and a tab. However, the Trib I picked up had nothing on the front page but a headline and a huge photograph. No front page news at all. It looked more like the Enquirer than a serious newspaper.

And the content of the paper was practically nothing.

DumpJerry
01-18-2011, 12:25 PM
I understand that. I worked in the press room of a paper when I was a kid, and know the difference between a broadsheet and a tab. However, the Trib I picked up had nothing on the front page but a headline and a huge photograph. No front page news at all. It looked more like the Enquirer than a serious newspaper.

And the content of the paper was practically nothing.
They changed the format of the news stand edition to make it easier to read on the train.

Ex-Chicagoan
01-18-2011, 12:30 PM
I think I've come to realise (and **** off, I've been doing it since I was 9 years old) that it isn't so much the sport itself that bothers me (pales in comparison to my love for baseball, but is probably about neck and neck with basketball), but rather the crazy media obsession with it. If it was covered a little more reasonably it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. If basketball had the popularity of football that would probably annoy me as well. (God forbid if hockey ever was...)

A large part of this may just because I sense my favourite game disappearing more and more from the national consciousness year after year. That depresses me.

Media coverage of football in Chicago is much, much more intense than media coverage of football in other markets. It wasn't until I started moving around a bit that I realized that no, they don't typically set up to broadcast live from training camp every day in other cities, for example.

doublem23
01-18-2011, 12:45 PM
Media coverage of football in Chicago is much, much more intense than media coverage of football in other markets. It wasn't until I started moving around a bit that I realized that no, they don't typically set up to broadcast live from training camp every day in other cities, for example.

This is a football town

DumpJerry
01-18-2011, 12:56 PM
Complaining about football coverage in the Chicago media during football season reminds me of the WSIer who complained, when the Bears were in the Super Bowl a few years ago, that there were too many Bears fans in the Chicago area.

DumpJerry
01-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Media coverage of football in Chicago is much, much more intense than media coverage of football in other markets. It wasn't until I started moving around a bit that I realized that no, they don't typically set up to broadcast live from training camp every day in other cities, for example.
When I lived in Minneapolis/St. Paul, the football coverage, during the football season, was as intense as it is in Chicago. When I have visited other cities during the football season, the coverage is as intense as it is in Chicago. Training camps were covered elsewhere, too.

JB98
01-18-2011, 01:11 PM
Personally, I find the intense football coverage intolerable. Football is my fourth favorite sport, so I don't read much about football on my own time.

I recognize I'm in the minority on that. I'm not one of these guys who watches nine hours of football on fall Sundays. I've never played fantasy football in my life. This past weekend, I watched the Bears. That was it. I don't care about non-Chicago football teams at all.

I do, however, read about football when I'm at work -- because I'm a sports copy editor and it's my job to put news that people care about in the paper.

Woofer
01-18-2011, 08:45 PM
The problem with the football coverage is that the Bears only play one game a week, and that one game dominates sports radio and the sports section all week. Imagine if White Sox only played one game every seven days. It would get boring covering that one game, but this is how the Bears are covered in this town.

And to get sort of back on the original topic, just wait until the Cubs go on their first 5 game winning streak in 2011. It will all be because of Saint Ronnies loving guiding hands from heaven. :smile:

slavko
01-18-2011, 11:20 PM
I understand that. I worked in the press room of a paper when I was a kid, and know the difference between a broadsheet and a tab. However, the Trib I picked up had nothing on the front page but a headline and a huge photograph. No front page news at all. It looked more like the Enquirer than a serious newspaper.

And the content of the paper was practically nothing.

The front page these days can consist of a story about bedbugs with a huge picture and a color advertisement. News? You want news? Try a New York Times or a Wall Street Journal. They deliver here.

SephClone89
01-18-2011, 11:23 PM
The problem with the football coverage is that the Bears only play one game a week, and that one game dominates sports radio and the sports section all week. Imagine if White Sox only played one game every seven days. It would get boring covering that one game, but this is how the Bears are covered in this town.

Right. It's not like there's that much more to talk about. There is just as much to dissect and analyze and discuss in a baseball game as there is a football game. However, with football we get that same amount of game rehashed and regurgitated over the course of a week, with multiple articles each day...they spend a week covering what most every other sport covers in a day. There's not more "content" in the football game. There's just stretching it out as much as they can.