PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Media Newspaper Watch


Hangar18
12-13-2002, 02:23 PM
Starting today...I will try as best I can, to monitor
both major Chicago Daily papers, to see just how much
of a real slant (real or perceived) these "unbiased" dailies
are giving our Sox and that other team.

For Friday 12.13.02.
Sun-Times: 1 story about Cubs/Hendry
Tribune: 1 story about Cubs/Baker

Hangar18
12-13-2002, 02:25 PM
so for Friday 12.13
I already see that other team in the lead.

Sox 0
Cubs 2

Lip Man 1
12-13-2002, 06:36 PM
I'm not sure what your ground rules are but there are a bunch on stories on the Sox on the web sites of the Southtown, Tribune and Sun Times (and those are updated during the day, which means to be accurate you'll need to check in three or four times per day per each paper. Especially the Tribune...) Also do columnists count as a story because Steve Rosenbloom has one on the Sox today.

Lip

Daver
12-13-2002, 06:39 PM
I have yet to figure out why this is nesascary in the first place........

Soxheads
12-13-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by daver
I have yet to figure out why this is nesascary in the first place........

Isn't that usually what you say when I post? :D:

jeremyb1
12-13-2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm not sure what your ground rules are but there are a bunch on stories on the Sox on the web sites of the Southtown, Tribune and Sun Times (and those are updated during the day, which means to be accurate you'll need to check in three or four times per day per each paper. Especially the Tribune...) Also do columnists count as a story because Steve Rosenbloom has one on the Sox today.

Lip

do you have links to the southtown and suntimes articles? on the sun times sports white sox page the most recent article is from yesterday (the 12th) and there weren't any articles on the southtown page about the sox that i could see. also, i'm pretty sure the trib web page is the only sight updated throughout the day that that's ussually just ap reports or articles that will be in the next day's paper that are finished ahead of time.

hose
12-13-2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Starting today...I will try as best I can, to monitor
both major Chicago Daily papers, to see just how much
of a real slant (real or perceived) these "unbiased" dailies
are giving our Sox and that other team.

For Friday 12.13.02.
Sun-Times: 1 story about Cubs/Hendry
Tribune: 1 story about Cubs/Baker


For October of 2003

Sun-Times: All White Sox
: No Cubs

Tribune : All White Sox
: No Cubs

Hangar18
12-16-2002, 08:42 AM
heheh...pretty funny.
my ground rules will be simple..
Only looking at actual hard copy/newpapers of the 2 papers.
though im sure I should look at internet copy also...
but that would be a bit much.
I want to walk up to a newstand,,,,and look at both Papers
and see who theyre giving the print to.
I dont really have a thesis....just following a hunch.
Every time I open the damn paper, theres a cub story.

Sunday Oct 15th
Tribune: 3 cub stories
1 sox story

voodoochile
12-16-2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
heheh...pretty funny.
my ground rules will be simple..
Only looking at actual hard copy/newpapers of the 2 papers.
though im sure I should look at internet copy also...
but that would be a bit much.
I want to walk up to a newstand,,,,and look at both Papers
and see who theyre giving the print to.
I dont really have a thesis....just following a hunch.
Every time I open the damn paper, theres a cub story.

Sunday Oct 15th
Tribune: 3 cub stories
1 sox story

Well, they are owned by the biggest newspaper in Chicago and have been much more active than the Sox this off season.

I wonder how that Loyola student's study worked out last summer? Anyone follow up on that at all?

Hangar18
12-17-2002, 11:39 AM
Tuesday Dec 17th.
Chicago Sun-Times:
2 Cub Stories
1 Sox Story

Tribune...TBA

Hangar18
12-17-2002, 11:56 AM
Monday Dec 16th

Chicago Sun-Times
1 cub story
1 sox story

if anyone has yesterdays Trib...feel free to post
their stats from the last couple of days.

Totals Stories as of 12.17
Cubs 8
Sox 3

Im seeing a pattern already.....

Hangar18
12-17-2002, 12:17 PM
Tuesday 12.17

Revised Totals from Weekend....

Total Stories since 12.13.02

Cubs 14
Sox 8

Hangar18
12-18-2002, 12:28 PM
Wednesday Dec 18, 2002

Tribune:
2 Cub stories
0 Sox stories
Sun-Times:
1 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Standings as of 12.18.02

17 Cub Stories
8 Sox Stories

Hangar18
12-19-2002, 02:17 PM
Stories for Thursday Dec 19, 2002

Chicago Tribune:
3 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories (2 days in a row)

Chicago Sun-Times
2 Cub Stories (1 column)
0 Sox Stories

Standings as of 12.19.02

Cubs 22
Sox 8

chunk
12-19-2002, 07:04 PM
VoodooChile , would that be Loyola Academy,where I go, or university? BTW, what was the study about anyway?

Daver
12-19-2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by chunk
VoodooChile , would that be Loyola Academy,where I go, or university? BTW, what was the study about anyway?

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

voodoochile
12-19-2002, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by chunk
VoodooChile , would that be Loyola Academy,where I go, or university? BTW, what was the study about anyway?

As Daver said, welcome aboard. It was the University, but it was just some journalism major doing a paper, expecting to prove there was no bias. I can't remember the details, or how we found out about it. Probably could do a search, but I'm a lazy lazy man...

:D:

Hangar18
12-20-2002, 10:46 AM
Friday Dec 20, 2002

Chicago Tribune:
2 Cub stories
0 Sox stories

Chicago Sun-Times:
1 Cub storie
0 Sox stories

Standings as of 12.20.02

Cubs 25
Sox 8

Hangar18
12-23-2002, 03:33 PM
Stories for the weekend Sat 12/21 and Sun 12/22

SATURDAY DEC 21, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times:
2 Cub Stories
1 Sox Story
Chicago Tribune:
2 Cub Stories
1 Sox Story

SUNDAY DEC 22, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times:
2 Cub Stories
1 Sox Story
Chicago Tribune:
1 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

MONDAY DEC 23, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times
0 Cub Stories (first time in a while no cubs)
0 Sox Story
Chicago Tribune
2 Cub Stories (1 about a bleacher bum)
0 Sox Stories

*********STANDINGS As Of December 23, 2002*************

34 Cubs Stories
11 Sox Stories

soxnut
12-23-2002, 05:58 PM
:?: Who are the Sox? :?: :(: :?: : :(:

Hangar18
12-24-2002, 12:19 PM
Tuesday DEC 24, 2002

Chicago Cubune:
1 Cub Story (dumb sammy story)
0 Sox Stories
Chicago SunTimes:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

STANDINGS as of DEC 24 2002

Cubs 35 stories
Sox 11 stories

Hangar18
12-27-2002, 10:31 AM
Christmas Day 12/25/02
Sun-Times:
1 Cub Story
0 Sox Stories
Tribune:
0 Cub Story
0 Sox Story (Cubs 36, Sox 11)

THURSDAY DEC 26, 2002
Sun-Times:
1 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
Tribune:
1 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories (Cubs 38, Sox 11)

FRIDAY DEC 27, 2002
Sun-Times:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
Tribune:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
*************STANDINGS as 12.27.02*******************

CUBS 38 Stories
SOX 11 Stories (we've broken in doubledigits)

Hangar18
12-30-2002, 11:57 AM
SATURDAY DEC 28, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
Chicago Tribune:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

SUNDAY DEC 29, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times 0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune 1 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

MONDAY DEC 31, 2002

Chicago Sun-Times 0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune 0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Hangar18
12-31-2002, 01:02 PM
TUESDAY DEC 31st 2002

Chicago Sun-Times:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Standings as of DEC 31 2002

CUBS 38
SOX 11

Hangar18
12-31-2002, 01:03 PM
totals as of 12.31. 02.

voodoochile
12-31-2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
totals as of 12.31. 02.

You can edit the post you made the mistake in by clicking on the "edit" link right beside the quote button at the bottom of the post...

Hangar18
01-02-2003, 09:34 AM
Thanks for the info

Hangar18
01-02-2003, 12:45 PM
WEDNESDAY JAN 1, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
Chicago Tribune:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

THURSDAY JAN 2, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories
Chicago Tribune:
0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Standings as of 1/3/02
CUBS 39
SOX 11

Hangar18
01-03-2003, 12:08 PM
FRIDAY JAN 3, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

1 Cub Story
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

2 Cub Stories (1 col from 1/2)
0 Sox Stories

Since 12/13/02, the chicago media newspaper outlets have
Published the following number of Stories of the 2 teams.

Cubs 42
Sox 11

Hullett_Fan
01-03-2003, 12:40 PM
I'd expect it to be a bit lopsided in favor of the Cubs. They've made a number of acquisitions (albeit nothing spectacular) while the Sox have made 2 (Koch and Alomar). Cubs were also involved in talks for Ivan Rodriguez among others at the winter meetings while Kenny was asleep at the wheel. Though the few fluff pieces on Sosa in both papers was ridiculous.

As as been said many times here, until the Gallas gets word out about Comiskey remodeling, all-star preparations, etc. OR the Sox make a big acquisition (Colon?? :D: ), this team doesn't deserve any ink.

Now as we get close to spring training there should be more articles about the Sox and how they can catch Minn. and win this weak division...but if there's a bias we'll see articles about where Dusty buys toothpicks in Mesa...because there is no way the Cubune or sun Times can seriously write about the Cubs as contenders - they're no where close to Astros or Cards.

Hangar18
01-03-2003, 01:32 PM
I LMA off reading that just now.
But Seriously, your hearing it HERE 1st.....
Wait til spring training starts....
Fox News and WGN will have live broadcast updates
from Mesa AZ, with a Sammy Watch...wondering when his highness will show up to camp.
The Times and Trib will run assorted articles on the flubs
from Sammy Watch, Sammy's parties in Latin America, to
how Toothpicks will affect the cubs won-loss record, to
how great the bullpen will be, to articles on Kerry woods bartending skills, to Dustys kid wearing artificial stilts, so that
he can appear taller and thus tag along on flub road trips,
to how this is the best cub team ever, to how this season
has high hopes, to how this cub bullpen is the best ever, to
how the Shooter is happy about his return to the northside,
to what Hat the 10million dollar greedbag Prior will wear in the Hall of Fame, to why Santo isnt in the HOF, to a story on each and every New Cub (which usually is about 15 new cubs every year that team stinks so bad, they have to overhaul the team every year) to the fans at hohokam foolishly come out shine or shine (doestn rain in az) to Dusty and Shawn Estes' dinner dates,
to where Dustys favorite pizza and steak houses are in chicago,
to an update on Woo-Woos new teeth, to that jackass Bill Murray showing up at Mesa, to how the Billy Goat will march around
clark and addison (for the 12th time) to lift the hex.....etc etc etc.
meanwhile, KW and JR will continue their non-moves and
we'll see the flubs take a triple digit lead on the sox as far
as stories/coverage

Hangar18
01-04-2003, 12:00 PM
SATURDAY JAN 4, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

1 Cub Story
0 Sox Story (none since 12.21.02)

Chicago Cubune:

1 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Sox non-moves, bunker mentality coupled with chicago media love affair with all things Cub (toni ginetti/fred mitchell) makes the Standings as of 1/4/03

Cubs 44
Sox 11

Hangar18
01-05-2003, 11:06 AM
SUNDAY JAN 5, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories (big one on "ryno"/small 1 santo)
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

1 Cub Story
1 Sox Story (first one in some time)

Hangar18
01-06-2003, 10:53 AM
MONDAY JAN 6, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

0 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Standings as of 1/6/03

CUBS 47
SOX 12

hold2dibber
01-06-2003, 11:06 AM
Just for a little perspective, this off season, the Sox have signed 3 players (Alomar, Big Frank and Wunsch) and made one trade (Foulke et al. for Koch et al.), for a total of 4 transactions. The Cubs have signed 6 players, made 3 trades and hired a manager, for a total of 10 transactions. So it's not at all surprising that the Cubs would have received more print coverage. But 4 times as much? Give me a break.

Just out of curiousity, are you counting stories about the Cubs' skirmishes with the roof top owners and the efforts to get Wrigley declared a landmark in your totals? How about articles about Sandberg and Smith's hall of fame possibilities? If those are counted in your totals, then the discrepancy doesn't seem quite as atrocious as, again, those are legitimate stories that merit coverage.

Hangar18
01-06-2003, 11:26 AM
Very Good Point Dibber. However, Yes I am counting
those stories about Rynos HOF possibilities and the Rooftop
story and the Landmark deal. Those stories havnt been as
many as you think, theyve probably added to the totals
about 5 more stories. its the extra Ryno Fluff stories,
and extra Fluff Santo stories and pieces about certain Cubs
scouts dinner preferences and the like that I find Atrocious.
These Stats are what they are. Im trying to save judgement
til at least midway thru the season. Lets not forget...this is something IVE NOTICED FOR YEARS....even when the sox were doing great in 2000, there were still more stories about what was wrong with the Cubs etc etc etc. The media didnt finally
ignore the cubs/give the sox more coverage til end of AUGUST,
a full 4 1/2 months into the season. I really think the media has everything to do the cubby love affair. Club wrigley was the same dump it is today back in the 60's and 70's. How come noone ever said how beautiful it was back then?? WGNS coverage of the flubs is a good example. Every time the flubs are on the road...they love to show fools in the stands (about 10x a telecast) wearing that cub junk, warranting a response from the announcers (chuckling-"theres another die hard cub
fan, there everywhere arent they" more chuckles. Ive travelled
to see the Sox play out of town, and Ive seen many many Sox fans, many more Than I expected, and when I watch the WGN games, do they bother to show the number of us that travel to see them? NO. there were a ton of Sox fans in Cleveland last yr for instance...I was told they showed maybe 1 or 2 fans there. I almost forgot really, how dedicated and die-hard Sox Fans are.
Do you think the Chicago/National Media would document this?
And yes, I know that the Sox Marketing dept is partly to blame, as well as Jerry Reinsdorf, but still overall, for a City with 2 major league teams (I use the term major loosely), and one of the teams has lost almost 100 games 4 of the last 6 years, Rooftops and 2nd baseman with a ton of basket-shot/wind-aided homeruns aside,
THERES NO WAY THE CUBS SHOULD HAVE 4X as much coverage as the Sox. NO WAY.

Hangar18
01-07-2003, 11:01 AM
TUESDAY JAN 8, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

1 Cub Story (another ryno/mariotti)
1 Sox Story (a pic and paragraph!)

Chicago Tribune:

3 Cub Stories (Mitchell strikes again)
1 Sox Stories (nice long paragraph)

Im being Generous Today....seeing the sox stories are
merely paragraphs...but they count. Same with the Cub
Lover himself, Fred Mitchell over at the Tribune.

Standings to Date 1/8/03

CUBS 51
SOX 14

Hangar18
01-08-2003, 10:29 AM
WEDNESDAY JAN 8, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories (all about ryno)
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

3 Cub Stories (absolutely ridiculous)
0 Sox Stories

Absolutely ridiculous the number of stories about
ryno not making it. he didnt make it. how many times
do we need to hear about it.

The number of stories of both chicago teams since 12/13/02 til today, 1/8/03

CUBS 56
SOX 14

Hangar18
01-09-2003, 09:28 AM
THURSDAY JANUARY 9, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

1 Cub Story
1 Sox Story (paragraph about soxfest)


With just barely a month into this study.....the cubs (the team thats basically lost 100 games 4 of the last 6 years) still seem to
warrant a majority of the news here in chicago. I guess people
want to know about really bad baseball in chicago??

Standings as of 1.9.03

CUBS 59
SOX 15

hold2dibber
01-09-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
THURSDAY JANUARY 9, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

1 Cub Story
1 Sox Story (paragraph about soxfest)


With just barely a month into this study.....the cubs (the team thats basically lost 100 games 4 of the last 6 years) still seem to
warrant a majority of the news here in chicago. I guess people
want to know about really bad baseball in chicago??

Standings as of 1.9.03

CUBS 59
SOX 15

The Trib today printed an article by some reporter from a newspaper in Orange County about how Sandberg and Sutter should have made the hall of fame. Didn't we cover that already in yesterday's paper? So now they're reaching out to other papers to find some article, any article, even if it's a day late, to talk about the Cubs. Unbelievable.

Hangar18
01-09-2003, 09:37 AM
Dibber, thats EXACTLY what Im talking about....
sure, the Flubs have done more in the news lately...
but the Media here feels its best to rehash and replay the
story again ....and again...... and again...... and again....
and lets talk about bruce sutter......
and hey....ray burris, what do you think about all this....
and isnt Woo Woo upset about the landmark status...
etc etc etc

A team coming of 4 near 100 loss seasons in the last 6 yrs NO WAY warrants THIS MUCH ATTENTION.


**********NO FREAKIN' WAY****************************

WillieHarris12
01-09-2003, 09:22 PM
We go .500 and they suck it up. What the heck is going on here? Do we need to win the World Series? :angry:

Hangar18
01-10-2003, 10:42 AM
FRIDAY JANUARY 10, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

1 Cub Story (about training camp)
1 Sox Story (about chico getting carjacked)

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Interesting note here....checking Fred Mitchell of the Tribs
last 15 columns....Noticed that 6 of those dealt with the Almost-lost-100-games-4-out-of-6-year cubbies. 6 columns. cub affair huh?

Standings as of 1.10.03

CUBS 60
SOX 15

soxnut
01-10-2003, 10:56 AM
Hangar18 ,It's great that you are keeping track of this. I was wondering, what you plan on doing with this information?? :(:

Hangar18
01-10-2003, 11:04 AM
thanks for the compliment. Good Question. im not sure just yet. I want it out there so Sox fans can make no mistake, and have Actual Proof. I believe theres a Media Bias. Its one thing to just say "hey, I think the media favors the cubs"...and not be able to prove it.
Now we can. Then again, Sox fans have Always been More Knowledgeable about their team and the sport.
This is just my way of Contributing.


Knowledge Kind of Feels like having a Loaded Uzi....

voodoochile
01-10-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
thanks for the compliment. Good Question. im not sure just yet. I want it out there so Sox fans can make no mistake, and have Actual Proof. I believe theres a Media Bias. Its one thing to just say "hey, I think the media favors the cubs"...and not be able to prove it.
Now we can. Then again, Sox fans have Always been More Knowledgeable about their team and the sport.
This is just my way of Contributing.


Knowledge Kind of Feels like having a Loaded Uzi....


Actually makes for a good on-going thread, IMO. Many of us have talked about it for a long time, but it is interesting to see it proven so dramatically. I realize that the numbers are skewed a bit by the flubbies activity and the Sox lack there of, this off season, but the numbers are starting to get really ridiculous even factoring that stuff in...

hold2dibber
01-10-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Actually makes for a good on-going thread, IMO. Many of us have talked about it for a long time, but it is interesting to see it proven so dramatically. I realize that the numbers are skewed a bit by the flubbies activity and the Sox lack there of, this off season, but the numbers are starting to get really ridiculous even factoring that stuff in...

Despite the fact that the Cubs have been more active than the Sox, the HUGE discrepancy in coverage is also attributable to the large number of "fluff" pieces on the Cubs; as Hangar pointed out, Fred Mitchell's "Q&A" piece in the Trib has repreatedly featured Cubs-related people, despite the fact that those people have not been in the news or done anything noteworthy recently. There were several "Sammy is Great!" articles earlier in the winter. There have been numerous, repetitive articles about the HOF canidacy of several former Cubs that say the same things over and over again. The Sox, on the other hand, have received coverage only when there is actual news, and even then, the articles tend to be short and terse.

voodoochile
01-10-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Despite the fact that the Cubs have been more active than the Sox, the HUGE discrepancy in coverage is also attributable to the large number of "fluff" pieces on the Cubs; as Hangar pointed out, Fred Mitchell's "Q&A" piece in the Trib has repreatedly featured Cubs-related people, despite the fact that those people have not been in the news or done anything noteworthy recently. There were several "Sammy is Great!" articles earlier in the winter. There have been numerous, repetitive articles about the HOF canidacy of several former Cubs that say the same things over and over again. The Sox, on the other hand, have received coverage only when there is actual news, and even then, the articles tend to be short and terse.

Again, there is some natural reason for the increase. ShamME sits at 499 HR. He is going to be a natural candidate for off-season fluff pieces. The Flubbies had 3 people up for Cooperstown this year so again, they are going to write about that, but I do agree that the numbers are pretty ridiculous.

Still, I more blame our management than I do the press. What have the Sox done to deserve lots of media coverage this off-season. They are even hiding the one major story they've got (renovation). These clowns couldn't market indoor heating to nomadic eskimos living in igloos...

cornball
01-11-2003, 12:04 PM
The coverage of the teams is similar during the season, it is the offseason where there is a disparity. Maybe one of the reasons for the "eternal optimism" label placed on the Cubs.

When the Sox won the division in "83, the papers had devoted a few pages to their championship and covered it very well. The following year the Cubs won the division, and there was a special pullout section, in addition to the few pages.

The biase is sooo obvious to all paying attention, however with a beat writer covering both teams during the season it appears to be fair to some.

Hangar18
01-11-2003, 10:34 PM
SATURDAY JANUARY 11, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

I guess Fred Mitchell and the other Cubune writers
couldnt think of another angle on Why Ryno, he of the
numerous wind-aided, barely-into-the-basket homeruns,
didnt make it into the Hall. Wait, I know...because
of the aforementioned wind-aided, barely-into-the-basket
home-runs.

as of 1.11.03
Cubs 60
Sox 16

Hangar18
01-13-2003, 11:25 AM
Sunday Jan 12, 2003
Monday Jan 13, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

0 Cubs Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Guess the media, having nothing Cub to write about,
chose this time to NOT catch up the coverage, as nothing
Sox related was written. ATTN CHICAGO MEDIA: I have
an idea. Why Not just start writing a bunch of stories
Critical of this team?? you certainly have a TON of
MATERIAL TO WORK WITH (secret renovations/lack of F.A. spending/GM who apparently doesnt know what hes doing/
same holes on roster from last year not filled/fans perception
of team/team building stands in stadium to block views of field-get back at Fans) you would have roughly a MONTH to get about
oh, say around 40 stories to CATCH UP this ridiculous amount
of coverage.
Cubs 60
Sox 16

soxnut
01-13-2003, 11:40 AM
Hangar18..........Have you called either paper to see if they have tried to get any information about the "secret renovations"? Don't they have a "hot tip" phone number or something. I say "hot tip" because it's obvious noone is paying attention. :angry: :whiner: :(: :?: :D:

Vsahajpal
01-13-2003, 12:08 PM
Um, considering the Tribune Corp owns the Cubs...



Anyways, I think you should pursue this cause during baseball season.

Hangar18
01-13-2003, 03:42 PM
I think its better to do this NOW, when news about a team is slow and not regular. we see that even though the cubs have been in the news a bit more....there have been far more FLUFF and Rah-Rah type pieces than a newspaper is allowed.
Thats ashamed, my Perception of the Trib is that it was good writing. This study makes me think Otherwise. Its nice when
cold hard facts prove a point.
when the season starts...Lets see how many Back Pages (suntimes) and Front Pages (tribune) the sox get when the
season starts. It will be the same thing.....Watch.

Vsahajpal
01-13-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I think its better to do this NOW, when news about a team is slow and not regular. we see that even though the cubs have been in the news a bit more....there have been far more FLUFF and Rah-Rah type pieces than a newspaper is allowed.
Thats ashamed, my Perception of the Trib is that it was good writing. This study makes me think Otherwise. Its nice when
cold hard facts prove a point.
when the season starts...Lets see how many Back Pages (suntimes) and Front Pages (tribune) the sox get when the
season starts. It will be the same thing.....Watch.

But what do you expect? The Trib owns the damn team! Of course they're going to write about them. Do you expect Coca-Cola to make an advertisement for Pepsi?

Iwritecode
01-13-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
But what do you expect? The Trib owns the damn team! Of course they're going to write about them. Do you expect Coca-Cola to make an advertisement for Pepsi?

I think the point is that the Trib has been denying any kind of bias since they bought the team! This is the proof right here!

As far as them owning the team, they should be a newspaper for the city of Chicago first and a promoting tool and owners of one of the city's baseball teams second.

Hangar18
01-13-2003, 04:28 PM
Coke would never advertise for a rival, because theyre rivals.
were talking about 2 different things here. When your in the
newspaper biz, your job is to report the news in and UNBIASED
manner. WSI for instance, has no constiuency to report to ....just SOX Fans, so they are BIASED to the sox. we dont
talk about the Orioles here, or what moves the Mariners
should be making. Soda and newspapers are two different things. As I said, im very very surprised that the Tribune
seem to be the Worst at this. At least now I know theyre
not really a newspaper (as far as sports is concerned I guess)
I dont want cubbie stories shoved down my throat. Im not a
Fan of theirs. TRIBUNE: stop trying to make me/others a Cub fan.
People start to believe things if you keep printing it as such.

Vsahajpal
01-13-2003, 04:31 PM
The point is, the Sox have done nothing for the press to write about since acquiring Koch. There's only so many times Phil Rogers can tout Arnaldo Munoz!

As far as them owning the team, they should be a newspaper for the city of Chicago first and a promoting tool and owners of one of the city's baseball teams second.

It is their team. Now if the discrepancy in press is similar with the Sun-Times, it's a different story.

Hangar18
01-14-2003, 03:47 PM
TUESDAY JANUARY 14, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

0 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

another chance for the media to write about Paul Konerkos
eating habits, or KW's new car wasted. Guess theyre
waiting for Dusty to Belch or Sammy to have another party.

Standings to Date

Cubs 60
Sox 16 (last 2 were merely paragraphs)

rwschm_bull
01-14-2003, 06:32 PM
A few non-Chicago based comments...

[ascend soapbox]

Your survey measures two variables and one derived metric -- (CHC - CWS) but IMHO you're ignoring the bigger story with the inevitable (if myopic) focus on Cubs vs. Sox in the Chicago print media. We miss the forest because we're looking at a few trees.

MLB news in general is down. The winter meetings were a dud for trades. Bud's still Bud (groan). "Les Expos" are now "Le/El Expos" in a trilingual jumble -- will MLB try to sell Spanish rights to the Expos since they're now literally "The Americas Team"?! The free agent market is a bust. The HOF players lacked any pizazz -- without looming contraction, blockbuster trades, free agent signings, or franchises declaring bankruptcy (see the NHL) MLB is about as old-news as you can get right now.

There's two ways to get print -- make news (do something newsworthy), or create news (a.k.a. marketing, promotions, etc).

The Sox have done precious little newsworthy since the end of the regular season. The All-Star renovations are hush-hush. One trade, one motorbike accident, the return of Sandy Alomar (whoopie), a couple non-tenders -- and we may not have seen the end of either player in a Sox uniform -- the only thing that's sure to change is their contract, and, now, a pending arbitration hearing. Did I miss anything?

SoxFest used to create something out of nothing (a baseball "event" on a cold winter weekend) but SoxFest isn't exactly "news" by default anymore. What other marketing has this club done?..... That's ok, I'll keep going while you try and think...

The Cubs went through a managerial firing/hiring with a very respected and well-known Dusty Baker with proven pennant race and post-season experience (and unlike Lou Pinella, he's not going to Tampa Bay), a noteable trade, and have at least been portrayed as an active observer in the free agent market.

I haven't seen any Cub "marketing" worthy of the name (not that I'm looking) -- it's hard to market a near last-place ballclub.

Once you add in the Santo/Sandberg HOF stories and the WF neighborhood stories, the amount of press given the Cubs seems about average for winter baseball coverage, anywhere.

But that's it -- the Cub news coverage is average. Even with all the "fluff" accessory pieces -- it's not that the papers are overflowing with Cubs baseball news. Nobody's saying the Cubs stories are "excessive" -- they're getting average play (at best)given the amount of news and little marketing they've done, AND given the fact that they're OWNED by one of the papers you're reviewing in your sample (which by default emphasizes and simplifies their marketing).

It's the SOX news that is down -- and why is that?

The same @#$& reasons that have plagued this organization for years -- certainly since the '94 strike, but sadly, probably as far back as the early-70's, when Wrigley was half-full (the upper deck was usually closed unless the Pirates or Reds were in town) and the Sox were "Chicago's baseball team trying to chase down the "Swingin' A's".

The Sox can't market their product. Where have we seen that before? A fairly sterile, non-retro ballpark built AFTER the beginning of the "retro ballpark" era? (I doubt I'll live long enough to see THAT mistake rectified) Ticket prices? The upper deck? Attendance (again and again and again)? The same half-baked promotional schemes? Is Chicago THAT BAD of a baseball town that the only people who go to baseball games are Wrigleyville Yuppies and GenX'ers pounding beers or tourists from Iowa to see the Cubs at "beautiful Wrigley field?"...????

And now we get to add the KW factor -- if he traded our entire Gulf Coast roster for the Braves pitching staff 75% of WSI fans would immediately think he's been taken AGAIN (one's of those kids is gonna be a fHOF'er!). KW's gone out of his way to climb deep into the bunker. Half of the articles I've read have been trade rumors -- MTL pitchers, etc., none of which likely had ANY real chance of coming to pass. Free agent talk? Oh yeah, silly me, we signed Sandy Alomar as "insurance" -- everybody who wants Sandy to have significant playing time raise their hands... ok, thought so.

It's foolish to draw direct comparisons, but I live in city where the Tex Rangers beg and plead for coverage. The Mavericks and Stars are at the tops of their sports. Jerry Jones would have gone broke if he'd had to buy the inches (and yards, and miles) of print they got over the Campo/Parcells courting/firing/hiring from a 5-11 team three years running that plays in a plastic 1970's vintage hell-hole of a stadium. The Rangers have made more moves than the Cubs/Sox combined and have drawn probably half of the coverage the Cubs receive in the Chicago press from the Dallas and FtWorth papers.

Without context, comparisons can become meaningless. The mechanical comparison and resulting data is "correct" -- but the resulting limits to your view doesn't provide the full picture you could otherwise describe. Like a camera, you've zoomed in too far -- the real picture needs a wider field of vision.

The real story is not Cubs vs. Sox -- it's, sadly, Sox vs. Sox, and the answers lie directly within the organization -- right now, for some reason, they don't want to make news.

Don't mean to tear down the work -- but I guess I get sick of the "conspiracy theories" after awhile. There's a reason this franchise doesn't get much publicity (or respect, nationally) -- and it's usually their own @#$* fault.

[descend from soapbox] :smile:

hose
01-14-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by rwschm_bull
A few non-Chicago based comments...

[ascend soapbox]

Your survey measures two variables and one derived metric -- (CHC - CWS) but IMHO you're ignoring the bigger story with the inevitable (if myopic) focus on Cubs vs. Sox in the Chicago print media. We miss the forest because we're looking at a few trees.

MLB news in general is down. The winter meetings were a dud for trades. Bud's still Bud (groan). "Les Expos" are now "Le/El Expos" in a trilingual jumble -- will MLB try to sell Spanish rights to the Expos since they're now literally "The Americas Team"?! The free agent market is a bust. The HOF players lacked any pizazz -- without looming contraction, blockbuster trades, free agent signings, or franchises declaring bankruptcy (see the NHL) MLB is about as old-news as you can get right now.

There's two ways to get print -- make news (do something newsworthy), or create news (a.k.a. marketing, promotions, etc).

The Sox have done precious little newsworthy since the end of the regular season. The All-Star renovations are hush-hush. One trade, one motorbike accident, the return of Sandy Alomar (whoopie), a couple non-tenders -- and we may not have seen the end of either player in a Sox uniform -- the only thing that's sure to change is their contract, and, now, a pending arbitration hearing. Did I miss anything?

SoxFest used to create something out of nothing (a baseball "event" on a cold winter weekend) but SoxFest isn't exactly "news" by default anymore. What other marketing has this club done?..... That's ok, I'll keep going while you try and think...

The Cubs went through a managerial firing/hiring with a very respected and well-known Dusty Baker with proven pennant race and post-season experience (and unlike Lou Pinella, he's not going to Tampa Bay), a noteable trade, and have at least been portrayed as an active observer in the free agent market.

I haven't seen any Cub "marketing" worthy of the name (not that I'm looking) -- it's hard to market a near last-place ballclub.

Once you add in the Santo/Sandberg HOF stories and the WF neighborhood stories, the amount of press given the Cubs seems about average for winter baseball coverage, anywhere.

But that's it -- the Cub news coverage is average. Even with all the "fluff" accessory pieces -- it's not that the papers are overflowing with Cubs baseball news. Nobody's saying the Cubs stories are "excessive" -- they're getting average play (at best)given the amount of news and little marketing they've done, AND given the fact that they're OWNED by one of the papers you're reviewing in your sample (which by default emphasizes and simplifies their marketing).

It's the SOX news that is down -- and why is that?

The same @#$& reasons that have plagued this organization for years -- certainly since the '94 strike, but sadly, probably as far back as the early-70's, when Wrigley was half-full (the upper deck was usually closed unless the Pirates or Reds were in town) and the Sox were "Chicago's baseball team trying to chase down the "Swingin' A's".

The Sox can't market their product. Where have we seen that before? A fairly sterile, non-retro ballpark built AFTER the beginning of the "retro ballpark" era? (I doubt I'll live long enough to see THAT mistake rectified) Ticket prices? The upper deck? Attendance (again and again and again)? The same half-baked promotional schemes? Is Chicago THAT BAD of a baseball town that the only people who go to baseball games are Wrigleyville Yuppies and GenX'ers pounding beers or tourists from Iowa to see the Cubs at "beautiful Wrigley field?"...????

And now we get to add the KW factor -- if he traded our entire Gulf Coast roster for the Braves pitching staff 75% of WSI fans would immediately think he's been taken AGAIN (one's of those kids is gonna be a fHOF'er!). KW's gone out of his way to climb deep into the bunker. Half of the articles I've read have been trade rumors -- MTL pitchers, etc., none of which likely had ANY real chance of coming to pass. Free agent talk? Oh yeah, silly me, we signed Sandy Alomar as "insurance" -- everybody who wants Sandy to have significant playing time raise their hands... ok, thought so.

It's foolish to draw direct comparisons, but I live in city where the Tex Rangers beg and plead for coverage. The Mavericks and Stars are at the tops of their sports. Jerry Jones would have gone broke if he'd had to buy the inches (and yards, and miles) of print they got over the Campo/Parcells courting/firing/hiring from a 5-11 team three years running that plays in a plastic 1970's vintage hell-hole of a stadium. The Rangers have made more moves than the Cubs/Sox combined and have drawn probably half of the coverage the Cubs receive in the Chicago press from the Dallas and FtWorth papers.

Without context, comparisons can become meaningless. The mechanical comparison and resulting data is "correct" -- but the resulting limits to your view doesn't provide the full picture you could otherwise describe. Like a camera, you've zoomed in too far -- the real picture needs a wider field of vision.

The real story is not Cubs vs. Sox -- it's, sadly, Sox vs. Sox, and the answers lie directly within the organization -- right now, for some reason, they don't want to make news.

Don't mean to tear down the work -- but I guess I get sick of the "conspiracy theories" after awhile. There's a reason this franchise doesn't get much publicity (or respect, nationally) -- and it's usually their own @#$* fault.

[descend from soapbox] :smile:


EXCELLENT post!!!

Hangar18
01-15-2003, 10:49 AM
nice post, well done. yes, im aware the bigger problem is THE SOX THEMSELVES. theyve done so much almost irreparable Damage to THEMSELVES yes.

rwschm_bull
01-15-2003, 11:57 AM
Well, the Colon deal should spur some stories!

:)

Hangar18
01-15-2003, 01:45 PM
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 15, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

0 Cub Stories
1 Sox Stories (1st time in a while)

Chicago Tribune:

0 Cub Stories
1 Sox Stories (1st time " " )

Standings to date......1/15/03


Cubs 60
Sox 18 (were catching up!)

all we need to do now is SIGN/Acquire 21 more Players,
and we'll have Caught the Cubs!!!!

Hangar18
01-16-2003, 10:03 AM
THURSDAY JANUARY 26, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories (wood/beat writer)
4 Sox Stories (wow, all the stops,plus Back Cover)

Chicago Tribune:

2 Cub Stories (Wood/Fred Mitchell's CubFluff Column)
4 Sox Stories (top front page...not bad)

For the 1st Time since this has begun, the Sox have ACTUALLY gained +3 Stories. I BELIEVE the Cubs released their Wood
signing on purpose, so as to not let the Sox have their day.
Fred Mitchell, (who is quickly becoming a FARCE with his Journalistic Integrity) again writes yet Another Fluff Piece
on the Cubs (7 of his last 16 articles have been CubFluff)

Hangar18
01-17-2003, 10:59 AM
FRIDAY JANUARY 17, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories (Cubfluff from beatwriter)
1 Sox Stories (reaction from trade)

Chicago Tribune:

2 Cub Stories (Cub Fluff Baker)
0 Sox Stories (why no trade story?)

Mike Kiley has got to be the hardest working writer in
sports journalism today. many many of the CubFluff articles
have been penned by him. Being a beat writer, im sure
he works OT during the season, but in dead of winter?
Fred Mitchell, eat your heart out. Next Week, Fred will have
a Q&A regarding Dustys choice of restaurants, and a poll
of ML players on underage batboys.
SO...despite making one of the biggest trades of the Winter,
the Media has already moved on to Dusty and other
CubFluff stories.....The SOX +3 gain yesterday is quickly
wiped out by todays Loss -3. Who said all the Sox had
to do was Make News and we'd get the Headlines again?

Standings to date 1.17.03

CUBS 68
SOX 27

Hullett_Fan
01-17-2003, 05:48 PM
From the Cubune:

"Baker has altered his diet, making fruit smoothies and soy milkshakes, snacking on edamame beans. He still loves a Scotch but sips black or green tea daily, believing it helps cleanse the toxins from his body."


Why do they subject us to this kind of #&@%

Don't tell me...I know. It's sad really.

Hangar18
01-18-2003, 11:13 AM
SATURDAY JANUARY 18, 2003

Chicago Sun-Times:

2 Cub Stories
0 Sox Stories

Chicago "Cub"une:

1 Cub Story
0 Sox Story

Well, lets just see what happens in exactly 2 weeks, when
the SOX have their convention. Following the obvious
Media Edict, there should be about 10 stories for the Cubs(average of 3 per day so far from the Trib/Times)
and 0 for the Sox.
Lets visit this in just a couple of weeks. Will the Tables be
turned?? In Chicago, this is the apparent Media Edict.

Cubs win
Sox win media talks about cubs winning and world series

Cubs lose
Sox win media talks about whats wrong w cubs

Cubs lose
Sox lose media talks about whats wrong w cubs

Cubs win
Sox lose media talks 2wice as much about cub wins and world series, and other important stories as where will Woo-Woo sit
for the series, will the goat finally be allowed a box-seat, and Bobby "holding out for my millions" Hills parents will talk about his grandmothers world series wish.

Standings as of 1/18/03 (ATTN media outlets & Sox PR dept: Id be embarrassed if I were the two of you. Media for being SUCKERS and SOX for letting the Cubs Propoganda Campaign operate Unchecked for years and letting people throughout the free world Foolishly Believe this actually is a Cubs Town. ITS NOT. ask people here. They (CubFluff Campaign/Media Vultures) make you look like SUCKERS.

CUBS 71 News and cub related stories
SOX 27 News and sox related stories

soxnut
01-18-2003, 11:24 AM
Hangar18--- what you are doing is great. And sure ther are probably some Sox front office people on here, but take your info to them. If you feel this is important, which I think it is as well, call the PR dept, email them, show them your results, give them your opinion. And keep on them. Find out who to talk to at Soxfest. Get a direct response, I do it all the time. :smile: Not that I always like their answers, but they're really nice to me.

Hangar18
01-18-2003, 11:33 AM
Thanks Soxnut. The Facts here speak for themselves.
Hopefully, I dont have to go and show them something
that painfully obvious......every day....in both papers.
If someone from the Sox Front Office cant see this....

See Ya At SoxFest Soxnut!

"Winning Teams RELOAD, Losing Teams Rebuild"

FarWestChicago
01-18-2003, 01:34 PM
I closed this thread. Due to the number of replies and the fact it occasionally gets a new one, it shows up as a hot thread on the site home page. Since this isn't really the case, please start a new one.