PDA

View Full Version : Questions?


Lip Man 1
02-24-2003, 03:34 PM
After reading comments about the Chicago media today and in the past, I've noticed some strange things and I'm wondering if those of you out there who feel this way can help me understand where you are coming from and why. (and I'm serious in this, I'm not being facetious.)

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?

2. Why is it that when a media member says something "negative" about the Sox, they are morons ...when they say something "negative" about the Cubs, they are right ? Why is it OK to rip Sammy Sosa but not Frank Thomas? (and I don't think I have to prove my loyalty to the Sox to anybody so please don't bring that up.) can some fans be that shallow that any criticicsm of "their" team is wrong?

3. Why is it that when us folks here at WSI bring up "negative" comments about the Sox, particularly the organization, they are for the most part, discussed and tolerated. But when a media person brings up almost the exact same points , they are ripped and ridiculed?

Sorry for my stupidity but I don't get the differences in these matters. Unless it's simply a matter of fan bias... in other words it's OK for us fans to rip the Sox but nobody else, particularly in the media and especially those that are supposedly "biased" to the Cubs.

Lip

FanOf14
02-24-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
2. Why is it that when a media member says something "negative" about the Sox, they are morons ...when they say something "negative" about the Cubs, they are right ? Why is it OK to rip Sammy Sosa but not Frank Thomas? (and I don't think I have to prove my loyalty to the Sox to anybody so please don't bring that up.) can some fans be that shallow that any criticicsm of "their" team is wrong?

Lip

I've asked that same question a few times in the last few days and a few times last year and haven't gotten any answers to that yet...

TheBigHurt
02-24-2003, 03:48 PM
dont ask me :D: , i dont read the chicago papers, just new york newspapers

pearso66
02-24-2003, 03:57 PM
I'd have to agree with you Lip, those are good questions. If I read somethign that complains about the same thing I'm complaining about, i say they are right. But the only thing i complain about is the owner, and KW. Although i dont have the same coverage here in East Lansing about the Sox as i would at home. So I don't read much about them. I get all my readings here

czalgosz
02-24-2003, 03:58 PM
1. I like some guys from BP and some other analysts like Rob Neyer (although I don't agree with them on everything). I usually don't read beat writers or anyone who interviews players or coaches, because I don't care what players or coaches have to say. (Most of the time it's just tired crap about playing to win, giving 110%, blah, blah, blah). A lot of beat writers have their own agenda, and even if they're trying to be honest about the team they're covering, they're usually too close to things to really be objective. A lot of time they miss the forest for the trees.

2. Well, since I don't read most of what sportswriters have to say, I really don't usually criticise the media coverage these days (although I've been as vocal as anyone in ripping Mariotti). But I do agree that Sosa gets too much slack in Chicago, while Frank gets too little. I don't understand why, when their offensive production has been about equal over their respective careers, Thomas is held to a much higher standard than Sosa. That's been the case since Sosa went to the North Side, and I just can't help but feel that a large part of that is due to the uniforms they wear. Can you imagine how people would be talking about Thomas if he had spent his entire career in Cubby Blue?

3. Part of me feels defensive when someone outside of Sox fandom criticizes the team. That's not right, but I take it personally. The team has been so much a part of my life growing up that part of me feels that unless you build up your credentials as a Sox fan, you don't have the right to talk about them. I realize that's just my bias and my problem, however. But I do think that some Cubs have been unfairly treated by the media as well (Mark Grace being driven out of town springs immediately to mind).

Bmr31
02-24-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
After reading comments about the Chicago media today and in the past, I've noticed some strange things and I'm wondering if those of you out there who feel this way can help me understand where you are coming from and why. (and I'm serious in this, I'm not being facetious.)

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?

2. Why is it that when a media member says something "negative" about the Sox, they are morons ...when they say something "negative" about the Cubs, they are right ? Why is it OK to rip Sammy Sosa but not Frank Thomas? (and I don't think I have to prove my loyalty to the Sox to anybody so please don't bring that up.) can some fans be that shallow that any criticicsm of "their" team is wrong?

3. Why is it that when us folks here at WSI bring up "negative" comments about the Sox, particularly the organization, they are for the most part, discussed and tolerated. But when a media person brings up almost the exact same points , they are ripped and ridiculed?

Sorry for my stupidity but I don't get the differences in these matters. Unless it's simply a matter of fan bias... in other words it's OK for us fans to rip the Sox but nobody else, particularly in the media and especially those that are supposedly "biased" to the Cubs.

Lip

Because the media is being paid to be knowledgable and most of them dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Does that answer your question?

joecrede
02-24-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
After reading comments about the Chicago media today and in the past, I've noticed some strange things and I'm wondering if those of you out there who feel this way can help me understand where you are coming from and why. (and I'm serious in this, I'm not being facetious.)

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?

2. Why is it that when a media member says something "negative" about the Sox, they are morons ...when they say something "negative" about the Cubs, they are right ? Why is it OK to rip Sammy Sosa but not Frank Thomas? (and I don't think I have to prove my loyalty to the Sox to anybody so please don't bring that up.) can some fans be that shallow that any criticicsm of "their" team is wrong?

3. Why is it that when us folks here at WSI bring up "negative" comments about the Sox, particularly the organization, they are for the most part, discussed and tolerated. But when a media person brings up almost the exact same points , they are ripped and ridiculed?

Sorry for my stupidity but I don't get the differences in these matters. Unless it's simply a matter of fan bias... in other words it's OK for us fans to rip the Sox but nobody else, particularly in the media and especially those that are supposedly "biased" to the Cubs.

Lip

As I think is Vickery's point in his outstanding article (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2106) apply the same standard across the board. Sox fans aren't responsible for placing Tribune sports writers in the conflict of interest position they are in.

cheeses_h_rice
02-24-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?

I like Corey McPherrin on Fox, as he really does give balanced coverage to both teams. I like Mark Schenowski (sp?) on NBC for the same reason. As for the other main sports reporters on the Chicago networks, I think you could safely say that Giangreco is biased in favor of the Flubs, and probably will never tilt towards the Sox because of how badly he was blasted a few years ago for ABC doing JUST a Flubs pre-season show...Brad Palmer seems like he leans toward the Flubs...Jim Rose is probably even-steven...Peggy Kaszinski seems like a big Flubbie booster...Dan Roan no question is a Flubbie lover...

As for press, I think Phil Rogers is better than I initially gave him credit for a few years ago. Barry Rozner of the Daily Herald has consistently given the Sox a fair shake.

As for radio, the Score is full of pro-Sox folks...Dan Bernstein, Jiggs, Julie Sweica, Fred Huebner. I think Bernstein probably is the most balanced of those 4.

I don't know. I just want someone to give the Sox a fair shake when they report. Doesn't really mean they have to be slanted in favor of the Sox, just be able to see through some of the cloud of Cubbie Blue garbage (e.g. Sosa "reporting early") and recognize that our team has some real gems on it that don't have the need or desire to constantly be in front of the camera.

NewyorkSoxFan
02-24-2003, 04:24 PM
Lip you are dead on, I know marriotti has his own agenda at times and others rehash old news to create an angle on new stories. But as fans we need to recognize that sometimes when it walks, talks, and quacks its a duck. And they aren't all morons. We are morons for thinking that they have some hidden motive behind what they say or write.

We all swear by P Rogers because he is a member, but what if he was on some cub board, I bet our feelings would be different.


NYSF

alohafri
02-24-2003, 04:38 PM
(from Mrs. Aloha)

I think the problem most of us have with the media in Chicago is that the Sox are given way too little press when things are going well, and way too much when things aren't.

One instance of media bias was last year when Mark Prior pitched his first game for the scrubbies. The scrubbies (as far as I can remember) were not in contention or anything, and Prior's first outing was not bad, it was decent but nothing to write home about...he was pitching against the (arguably) worst-hitting team in baseball at the time...it's not like he was striking out Bonds or Giambi or anyone like that...so the media prints a pitch-by-pitch outline of Prior's entire game. (The scrubs lost that game, I'm pretty sure.)

Meanwhile, over on the lowly Southside, Mark Beurle pitches his finest game to date--a 2-hitter that was just fabulous... But the media was so worked up on Prior pitching against a mediocre team that they practically ignored Buerle. It was shameful!

34 Inch Stick
02-24-2003, 04:40 PM
Well, then he'd clearly be a moron.

I like Rick Telander. I think he probably likes the Cubs socially. However, profesionally he is as even handed as I have seen.

MarkEdward
02-24-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
After reading comments about the Chicago media today and in the past, I've noticed some strange things and I'm wondering if those of you out there who feel this way can help me understand where you are coming from and why. (and I'm serious in this, I'm not being facetious.)

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?
Lip

Czalgosz had a good reply to this question, but I'll post anyway. I like writers who help me understand the game better. I like writers who analyze the game. Maybe it's just my tastes, but I'd rather read about DIPS over a beat writer's story titled "Alomar thinks leadership key to success in '03." When I read the DIPS article, I know I'll learn something new about baseball. The Alomar article will be filled with boring cliches that I've almost memorized.

Also, I don't like writers who insult my intelligence. Take Phil Rogers. I love the stuff he does with the minors. However, his MLB writings are mostly atrocious. Aside from his stance on the labor talks (which I take issue with), his "stats" are mind-boggling. 30-190 the key to a World Series winner? Personal winning percentage? I just can't take a writer who makes stuff like this up seriously.

This isn't a flame against Phil Rogers. He was the quickest person that came to mind. I could have easily written the same for someone like Jay Mariotti or Richard Griffith.

soxruleEP
02-24-2003, 05:07 PM
Because the only press the Sox get is bad press.

Frank comes to Sox Fest and the fans are happy and he is happy but he's a jerk because he won't kiss the reporters butts.

Frank comes to spring training early and the story is a rehash of old "controversies".

Sammy comes on time for the first time and he's a god.

The SCubs open spring training and there are special reports. The Sox open spring training and they are ignored.

The SCubs ptiching staff is the best in the ML but the Sox are filled with question marks.

They are not morons not because they raise questions and criticise, but because that is all they do, except ignore the Sox.

If you live south of Madison you are a mouth-breathing uncultured troglodyte.

gosox41
02-24-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
After reading comments about the Chicago media today and in the past, I've noticed some strange things and I'm wondering if those of you out there who feel this way can help me understand where you are coming from and why. (and I'm serious in this, I'm not being facetious.)

1. I get the impression that some of you don't like ANYBODY in the media, regardless of medium, regardless of affiliation. Why is that and more to the point is there anybody that you do like and why?

2. Why is it that when a media member says something "negative" about the Sox, they are morons ...when they say something "negative" about the Cubs, they are right ? Why is it OK to rip Sammy Sosa but not Frank Thomas? (and I don't think I have to prove my loyalty to the Sox to anybody so please don't bring that up.) can some fans be that shallow that any criticicsm of "their" team is wrong?

3. Why is it that when us folks here at WSI bring up "negative" comments about the Sox, particularly the organization, they are for the most part, discussed and tolerated. But when a media person brings up almost the exact same points , they are ripped and ridiculed?

Sorry for my stupidity but I don't get the differences in these matters. Unless it's simply a matter of fan bias... in other words it's OK for us fans to rip the Sox but nobody else, particularly in the media and especially those that are supposedly "biased" to the Cubs.

Lip

Here's a couple of answers for you.

1. This is not true for me. I enjoy reading informed people like Phil Rogers. It seems like he reports the facts and offers an educated opinion. Guys like Mariotti (who I know is a columnist and not a beat reporter) distorts facts to make ourtrageous claims to sell papers. It doesn't help that a good chunk of his articles are negative on the Sox. Just about anything they do is spun negatively by Marriotti. I'm very critical of Sox management, but at least I have an open mind before forming an opinion. What % of Marrotti's articles are negative on the Sox? Guys like him give the media a bad name.

2. It depends on the logic they use when they're being negative. Are they making a solid argument or just spouting off. As for Sammy, there isn't much negative written about him but if reporters were being fair and honest they can find fault with a lot of what he does.

For example, most think Frank makes a ton of money and should stop whining and play ball and get back to form. MEanwhile Sammy makes 3 times what Frank makes and never gets criticized for showing up late. Instead he gets praised for being on time. Big deal, that's status quo. Remember the outrage when Frank was late too camp in 2001 because of his holdout. Yet the media ate it up when Sammy had the cameras in the locker room when he arrived late for spring training last season and said "Sammy is in the house." Big deal, he's late. It's a double standard.

3. Lots of negative comments are ripped here. At least most of the negative comments are explained by a certain logic. Not so in the media.

Bob

kermittheefrog
02-24-2003, 05:14 PM
Good questions Lip.

I really agree with a lot of what MarkEdward said. I absolutely hate it when media members play up their "insider" knowledge. One of the cool things about Baseball Prospectus is they started as guys with no insider knowledge whatsoever and now even though they have a lot of major league contacts and "inside" info they are still reasonable and not condescending to their audience. BP is definitely my favorite baseball media source. I'm also a fan of Rob Neyer, John Sickels and David Schoenfield of ESPN.

On the non-stathead side of things I really like Jim Caple. He has a good sense of humor and writes genuinely interesting stuff. I usually read Jayson Stark's column but I know what to take with a grain of salt. I'm also a big fan of Baseball America. Particularly Jim Callis. While I don't like most of what Phil Rogers writes for the Trib he's pretty solid as BA's White Sox correspondent. I am not a fan of beat writers in general because a lot of what they have to offer is cliches to fill space they are required to fill. I also receive Sports Weekly (formerly Baseball Weekly) and I really appreciate it whenever Matt Olkin writes something. Occasionally I read something by Joe Posnanski about the Royals. Bill Simmons is typically pretty funny though he's not exactly an information source or a guy who is supposed to provide insight.

Hangar18
02-24-2003, 05:57 PM
The biggest problem I have is the only attention the sox get from the media, is Negative Attention. Everything I read about the Cubs is nothing but Fluffy, Cubby and Lovable. Why is that? At what point did it become "COOL" to favor the cubs, and rip and write completely negative things about the Sox?? THe Thomas talking and Sammy coming "early" thing is but 1 perfect example.
Most writers I dont have a problem with. Mariottis seem to fixate on the negative, though I dont have a problem w that necessarily. Its all the cubfluff that I cant Handle. that Rogers guy that posts occasionally. I kind of like him. whatever he does write, is well thought out, and there is Fair Writing. Thats All I ask. Telander once in a while does this too. I just want the TRUTH. Dont try to tell me a Banana is a Muffler.

hose
02-24-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Lip you are dead on, I know marriotti has his own agenda at times and others rehash old news to create an angle on new stories. But as fans we need to recognize that sometimes when it walks, talks, and quacks its a duck. And they aren't all morons. We are morons for thinking that they have some hidden motive behind what they say or write.

We all swear by P Rogers because he is a member, but what if he was on some cub board, I bet our feelings would be different.


NYSF


I would assume the P Rogers is on a Cub board.
It wouldn't stop me from reading him or change my opinion of him.

T Dog
02-24-2003, 09:03 PM
I am certain that if you were to go to a newspaper in a two- or three-high-school city, you would find the sports editor getting calls from the community complaining about slanted coverage. I am also fairly certain that these newspapers are working harder than most of the Chicago media works at treating its city's baseball teams with equal respect.

Just because you can have paranoid delusions that people are out to get you doesn't mean you can't know it for a fact.

Sports journalism is a fairly light pursuit at a newspaper. Rarely are reporters writing about life and death. The fact that a reporter could coin the phrase "white flag trade" reflects a double standard in journalistic attitudes. Would someone covering the trial for the killer of two local cops come up with a cute nickname for a judge who had to make the unpopular determination that mitigating circumstances involving the killer's state of mind warranted life in prison instead of a death sentence?

Objectivity doesn't exist among Chicago baseball writers, and no one demands it. Long before Jerry Reinsdorf came to run things, I asked a Chicago sportswriter at a Bulls game in Indianapolis about his attitude toward the White Sox. He rolled his eyes and made a rude remark about management. Today, there is at least one columnist who doesn't talk to players, but hangs out at the lockers with a tape recorder listening to answers to questions from others. Some players have made off-the-record comments to reporters and seen them turn up in stories written by the competition. The players really hate that, by the way.

News reporters do misquote people, and I'm sure that there is some sleazy stuff going on among writers on the capital beat. But nowhere in a newspaper is personal opinion allowed to determine coverage the way it is on the Chicago baseball beat.

alohafri
02-24-2003, 09:18 PM
(from Mrs. Aloha)

Just for the record (as my wunnerful hubbie pointed out to me), it was Garland, NOT Buerle, who pitched the 2-hitter game that I was talking about in my previous post.
But even so, the point is the same: some rookie scrub gets full-page press because he throws a few S-Os against the lowest hitting team in baseball, and all Garland gets is a blurb for throwing an amazing 2-hitter against Boston.

Lip Man 1
02-25-2003, 12:30 AM
Folks:

Many thanks for your input. I appreciate the fact that you took these questions seriously. In fact I can only think of one response that was sarcastic and didn't really answer anything.

A few random points and a few more questions for you.

The point about Garland versus Prior was brought out. What wasn't mentioned though is the fact that Prior was making his first MLB start and he was perhaps the most highly rated pitcher coming out of college in ten years. Short of Garland tossing a no hitter he was going to get the short end of the deal that night because of circumstances beyond his control.

Keep in mind columnists DO NOT have to be fair and impartial. They write "opinions," not automatically the facts. Beat writers are a different breed altogether and have to be more neutral when recounting a game. Columnists (and I've been both) have to sell ideas and papers.

Three more question please...

1. Writers, broadcasters, radio folks etc are people. How much does the Sox "confrontational" attitude starting with Jerry Reinsdorf and going right down the line have an influence on what the media does and how they handle things in connection with the Sox?

In a perfect world, it wouldn't have any effect, but as I said we're dealing with humans here. I'm not automatically defending let's say, Jay Mariotti's hatred against the Sox owner, but doesn't it stand to reason that if the Sox took the same PR approach that the Cubs have made a habit of, that things would get better? In short as some of the media have stated in the WSI Q&A's are the Sox their OWN worst enemy?

2. As I recall (and I have a number of articles in my files to prove this) there were many seasons when the Sox got more coverage and space then the Cubs. 83, 93, 94 and 00 come to mind. Does the adage that if you want more coverage (and better coverage) win more games... have any meaning?

3. How much of the city's love affair with the Cubs is the direct result of the Sox driving away Harry Caray? Those of us old enough to remember, think back to when Harry was nothing short of a God with the Sox, particularly in 72 and 77. Like I asked in question #1 "are the Sox their own worst enemy? (particularly Reinsdorf and Gallas)

Lip

T Dog
02-25-2003, 09:18 AM
Strange, though, that winning more games than the Cubs doesn't draw more respect from the media. The Times of northwest Indiana is geographically in White Sox country, but in August, the paper was staffing Cubs road trips and taking AP reports for the home Sox games.

Read AP baseball game reports, straight off the wire if you can. The reporters turn them out in a hurry. Shortly after the game ends, they file game reports. Later they will file writethroughs with comments. It is objective reporting. Local beat reporters are writing for people who, by and large, saw or listened to the game, or at least knew how the game came out before coming to the newspaper story. I recall a lead in 1970 about a July game I attended. The lead described it as "chapter 50 in the White Sox book on how to blow a baseball game." The beat writer wasn't quoting anyone with such sentiments. The Sox didn't even have a lead in the game. For that matter, in their previous 49 losses, they didn't always blow leads. In many of those games they didn't even score. The local beat reporters do things in their stories that wouldn't get past the AP desk.

I don't believe it is the readers of this board who are blurring the difference between local beat writers and columnists. It is the beat writers.

Much of the Cubs' PR excellence is after the fact. The Tribune Co. originally said they wanted to get rid of Wrigley Field. Just as New Coke boosted the demand for the original formula and set up the continuing popularity for Classic Coke, the Tribune Co.'s statements (genuine or manipulative) helped management to promote their ballpark as a baseball cathedral and use it as an eternal marketing tool, with lights.

I don't think Sox fans would have put up with the sort of job Harry Caray was doing in his later years. But it may not have mattered, judging from the continued employment of the current television broadcast team. There were a lot of Sox fans who hated Harry Caray in the '70s and '80s. They were in the minority, but Harry Caray had an abrasive style. He drove players out of town. When Harry Caray went to the Cubs, surveys showed that Cubs fans were just as upset as Sox fans. But Harry Caray changed. When he got his big Cubbie contract, it was with the understanding that he wouldn't criticize the team. Initially, he was kinder and gentler, and the St. Louis boy began bleeding Cubbie blue. He came to the Cubs as a better public relations tool than he had been-- or ever would be -- with the Sox, although he took more liberties as he became, as he was with the Sox, bigger than the team.

hose
02-25-2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by T Dog
Strange, though, that winning more games than the Cubs doesn't draw more respect from the media. The Times of northwest Indiana is geographically in White Sox country, but in August, the paper was staffing Cubs road trips and taking AP reports for the home Sox games.

Read AP baseball game reports, straight off the wire if you can. The reporters turn them out in a hurry. Shortly after the game ends, they file game reports. Later they will file writethroughs with comments. It is objective reporting. Local beat reporters are writing for people who, by and large, saw or listened to the game, or at least knew how the game came out before coming to the newspaper story. I recall a lead in 1970 about a July game I attended. The lead described it as "chapter 50 in the White Sox book on how to blow a baseball game." The beat writer wasn't quoting anyone with such sentiments. The Sox didn't even have a lead in the game. For that matter, in their previous 49 losses, they didn't always blow leads. In many of those games they didn't even score. The local beat reporters do things in their stories that wouldn't get past the AP desk.

I don't believe it is the readers of this board who are blurring the difference between local beat writers and columnists. It is the beat writers.

Much of the Cubs' PR excellence is after the fact. The Tribune Co. originally said they wanted to get rid of Wrigley Field. Just as New Coke boosted the demand for the original formula and set up the continuing popularity for Classic Coke, the Tribune Co.'s statements (genuine or manipulative) helped management to promote their ballpark as a baseball cathedral and use it as an eternal marketing tool, with lights.

I don't think Sox fans would have put up with the sort of job Harry Caray was doing in his later years. But it may not have mattered, judging from the continued employment of the current television broadcast team. There were a lot of Sox fans who hated Harry Caray in the '70s and '80s. They were in the minority, but Harry Caray had an abrasive style. He drove players out of town. When Harry Caray went to the Cubs, surveys showed that Cubs fans were just as upset as Sox fans. But Harry Caray changed. When he got his big Cubbie contract, it was with the understanding that he wouldn't criticize the team. Initially, he was kinder and gentler, and the St. Louis boy began bleeding Cubbie blue. He came to the Cubs as a better public relations tool than he had been-- or ever would be -- with the Sox, although he took more liberties as he became, as he was with the Sox, bigger than the team.


Interesting post.
I am amazed that you can remember a story from 1970 , whoa!.

The Cubs promoted Harry Caray just as Bill Veeck did.