PDA

View Full Version : Much negativity


MarqSox
05-14-2003, 12:23 PM
While looking at recent Sox headlines on chicagosports.com, a trend jumped out at me. I think it's equally symbolic of two things: media slant (which I don't think is as bad as a lot of posters do, but it's certainly there) and overall bad karma surrounding the club. Here are the most recent headlines.

"Williams' worries grow"
"Rick Morrissey: Any fire from Sox is welcome"
"Manuel fumes , Loaiza cruises"
"Thomas denies rift with skipper Manuel"
"Sox' Koch drops bad habits "
"South Side sparring "

boog_alou
05-14-2003, 12:30 PM
Bad performances breed negativity. This is doubly true when expectations were high.

By the way, on the ESPN.com Chisox board, I coined the term "Vast Anti-Sox Conspiracy (VASC)" to describe the negative media treatment of the Sox. However, I was being sarcastic in that I think the Sox do not get worse pub than any other similarly situated team. Now, the Trib is certainly going to give more time, space and love to the Cubs for obvious reasons, but I think that is the extent of the media slant. Other accusations of VASCular reporting are, I think, much ado about nothing.

Iwritecode
05-14-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
However, I was being sarcastic in that I think the Sox do not get worse pub than any other similarly situated team.

What exactly does "similarly situated" mean? Do you mean the fact that they have to share a city with another team or do you mean that they have performed badly the past couple of years?

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Bad performances breed negativity. This is doubly true when expectations were high.

By the way, on the ESPN.com Chisox board, I coined the term "Vast Anti-Sox Conspiracy (VASC)" to describe the negative media treatment of the Sox. However, I was being sarcastic in that I think the Sox do not get worse pub than any other similarly situated team. Now, the Trib is certainly going to give more time, space and love to the Cubs for obvious reasons, but I think that is the extent of the media slant. Other accusations of VASCular reporting are, I think, much ado about nothing.

BoogAlou, you couldnt be more wrong. Ive been too busy, but Ive been trying to keep track of the number of stories the Times and Trib devote to the Cubs and Sox. The Cubs just Ran Away with it. They were leading by a HUGE MARGIN

boog_alou
05-14-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
What exactly does "similarly situated" mean? Do you mean the fact that they have to share a city with another team or do you mean that they have performed badly the past couple of years?
By "similarly situated", I mean an in-between team. Not a top tier team, not a playoff team, but also not a doormat team. Somewhere in the general vicinity of .500. Has some talent but not a lot of success. That doesn't give rise to a lot of respect among the national media. Again, this is doubly true when expectations rise each of the past three offseasons, only to have them dashed on the rocks of reality.

boog_alou
05-14-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
BoogAlou, you couldnt be more wrong. Ive been too busy, but Ive been trying to keep track of the number of stories the Times and Trib devote to the Cubs and Sox. The Cubs just Ran Away with it. They were leading by a HUGE MARGIN
I granted that the Trib would give more attention and love to the Cubs. I'm not surprised that this also extends to other Chicago media outlets, due to the immense popularity of the Cubs.

But, I don't think this extends to an anti-Sox bias. They just give them less attention. Nor do I think there is an anti-Sox bias in the national media. They get the attention and respect they deserve.

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 01:14 PM
Its the combination of this Media Negativity towards the Sox, And the Media Love Affair with all things Cub, that has created this "cubs are more popular" mystique. Shoot, our own Player Frank Thomas even got suckered into "Believing The Hype" when he recently told (and hes supposed to be a big Public Enemy fan haha) ESPN he knows the "cubs have always been more popular". It is the YEARS AND YEARS of propoganda brainwashing that has caused this. It will take Years and Years of Propoganda in favor of the Sox to Neutralize this effect...IF IT EVER CAN BE NEUTRALIZED. The sox have been very Stupid to just let this happen, and let the Cubs pretend that they are the supreme organization. Anyone can get a world series manager hired if Noone Else Will. Anyone Can Draft the Greatest College Pitcher in 50 years if the team in front of them Purposely Avoids Drafting Said Player because they have Prior (no pun intended) and PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION from the Commissioner (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) that they will be one of the TEAMS CONTRACTED and WHY pay the Signing Bonus?? just throwing money away right? Any TEAM can be THIS POPULAR and Legendary if the Mighty Media Says So. Any Stadium can be said to be the MOST BEAUTIFUL if the Media Programs you to Believe it. The Cubs are the Product of the Media. Dont Let anyone else tell you otherwise.

Iwritecode
05-14-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
By "similarly situated", I mean an in-between team. Not a top tier team, not a playoff team, but also not a doormat team. Somewhere in the general vicinity of .500. Has some talent but not a lot of success. That doesn't give rise to a lot of respect among the national media. Again, this is doubly true when expectations rise each of the past three offseasons, only to have them dashed on the rocks of reality.

So how do you explain the love affair with the Cubs? They are closer to being a doormat team than the Sox are. Yet they are the ones that get all the attention.

boog_alou
05-14-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
So how do you explain the love affair with the Cubs? They are closer to being a doormat team than the Sox are. Yet they are the ones that get all the attention.
I can't explain the Cubs popularity. But, I think it is entirely unique. Never having lived in Chicago, I always chocked it up to the "lovable loser" syndrome. They have been doormats for decades, but there is some kind of mystique about them. Thankfully, at a national level, that mystique is mostly about them being losers and how they'll never win the WS.

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
By "similarly situated", I mean an in-between team. Not a top tier team, not a playoff team, but also not a doormat team. Somewhere in the general vicinity of .500. Has some talent but not a lot of success. That doesn't give rise to a lot of respect among the national media. Again, this is doubly true when expectations rise each of the past three offseasons, only to have them dashed on the rocks of reality.

Well, this Cub Team has managed, despite the fact they almost lost ONE HUNDRED GAMES 4 0f 6 years, Have NOT had 2 winning seasons in a ROW since the Lyndon Johnson administration, Havent won a World Series championship since Polio, but SOMEHOW, this shameful and dreadful team gets mentioned and given JUST AS MUCH ATTENTION as the NY YANKEES, a team with much more REAL and DIGNIFIED HISTORY, not to mention 26 World Championships. How is that? How did Cubs Manage to Pull the Wool over everyones eyes? (not mine, I see thru this BS Smoke and Mirror show big time)

CHISOXFAN13
05-14-2003, 01:26 PM
For those of you who like to complain about the lack of Sox coverage, put 50 cents in the Daily Southtown box.

The Southtown provides tremendous coverage, and the Sox are the paper's lead dog.

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 01:27 PM
I explained the cub "mystique" in my 2nd post. Its not so much a "Mystique" or "forces from beyond" as much as its GIANT MEDIA WORKING VERY HARD to make you believe the Fuzzy Blue Machine is the best organization ever, have the most fun teams out there, have the most fun park. Ask any SOX fan (even ones that DONT hate the cubs) if they believe those things? Ive been to that dump. Ive watched that team. Ive seen the stats. theyre not good. Sorry Media, Im not buying.

gosox41
05-14-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
So how do you explain the love affair with the Cubs? They are closer to being a doormat team than the Sox are. Yet they are the ones that get all the attention.

Marketing. They're owned by a media company, which makes it that much easier. Who actually believes in the term "Lovable Losers?" There is nothing lovable about losing. But combine that with beer, sunshine, etc. and all of a sudden losing isn't so bad.

Bob

Iwritecode
05-14-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Marketing. They're owned by a media company, which makes it that much easier. Who actually believes in the term "Lovable Losers?" There is nothing lovable about losing. But combine that with beer, sunshine, etc. and all of a sudden losing isn't so bad.

Bob

Which goes a long way towards explaining why the Sox are so largely ignored and/or looked at negatively in their own city. I could care less about the national media attention they get good or bad. They shouldn't have to put up with it in their own city. A major league team being owned by a major media giant is, IMO, a conflict of interest.

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Marketing. They're owned by a media company, which makes it that much easier. Who actually believes in the term "Lovable Losers?" There is nothing lovable about losing. But combine that with beer, sunshine, etc. and all of a sudden losing isn't so bad.

Bob

Heh heh, in my country, they call these guys MAGICIANS

Daver
05-14-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the Sox are so largely ignored and/or looked at negatively in their own city. I could care less about the national media attention they get good or bad. They shouldn't have to put up with it in their own city. A major league team being owned by a major media giant is, IMO, a conflict of interest.

No a conflict of interest is the league owning a team.

The Trib owning the Cub is no different than Time owning the Braves or Fox owning the Dodgers,or ABC owning the Angels.

Iwritecode
05-14-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by daver
No a conflict of interest is the league owning a team.

The Trib owning the Cub is no different than Time owning the Braves or Fox owning the Dodgers,or ABC owning the Angels.

Yes, but those are all one-team cities and also owned by a National media giant. The Cubs are owned by a local media in a two-team town. The Tribune is still required to provide news for another team within the same city.

I agree with you on the league owning a team though...

Paulwny
05-14-2003, 02:48 PM
CBS owned the yanks, those were good years.

Daver
05-14-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Yes, but those are all one-team cities and also owned by a National media giant. The Cubs are owned by a local media in a two-team town. The Tribune is still required to provide news for another team within the same city.

I agree with you on the league owning a team though...

The Trib is a national media giant,they own newspapers across the country.

Iwritecode
05-14-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Trib is a national media giant,they own newspapers across the country.

Really? Gee, shows what I know huh?

:(:

JUGGERNAUT
05-14-2003, 04:00 PM
more than just Cubune defined. Essentially any negative news on the SOX gets amplified 10 x as much as any positive news on the SOX.

Whereas with the Cub, it's almost the reverse.

And that's not just local either. It appears at the national level as well.

TommyJohn
05-14-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Well, this Cub Team has managed, despite the fact they almost lost ONE HUNDRED GAMES 4 0f 6 years, Have NOT had 2 winning seasons in a ROW since the Lyndon Johnson administration,

Not to nitpick, but the last back-to-back Cubbie winning seasons
were 1971-72, which would be the Richard Nixon administration.
There. Aren't you glad I told you?

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by espnjohn1
more than just Cubune defined. Essentially any negative news on the SOX gets amplified 10 x as much as any positive news on the SOX.

Whereas with the Cub, it's almost the reverse.

And that's not just local either. It appears at the national level as well.

YES. here are some Examples.

Cub: Star Player punches wife out..... No media attention
Sox: Star Player joins team w history of punching wives out..
Gets Negative Media Scrutiny

Cub: Draft player with checkered "past", maims another college player, causing severe and irreversible injuries. media ignores.
Sox: Star player has bad season and lashes out at mgmt, Media accuses player of being selfish and causes "circus"

Cub: team only draws 10,000 for opener. media ignores this.
SOx: team draws 10,000 for opener in terrible weather conditions, media covers the lack of "fans" at game.

Sox: team is in 1st place, but doesnt get national attn til past AllStar break
cub: team is in 1st place, but are Garnering attn from media outlets all over the us and world.

cub: Team is playing poorly, yet getting More stories printed about club in newspapers
Sox: Team is playing well, yet NOT getting more stories printed in local papers

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by TommyJohn
Not to nitpick, but the last back-to-back Cubbie winning seasons
were 1971-72, which would be the Richard Nixon administration.
There. Aren't you glad I told you?

DAMN! I was going to Write the NIxon administration, but though Lyndon was in office in early 70's. Good one.

Hangar18
05-14-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by espnjohn1
more than just Cubune defined. Essentially any negative news on the SOX gets amplified 10 x as much as any positive news on the SOX.

Whereas with the Cub, it's almost the reverse.

And that's not just local either. It appears at the national level as well.

WAIT!! theres more!

SOX: "Fans" run on field, causing disturbances...Negative Media Backlash that hasnt been seen in Years descends on south side
on local and national level

Cub: Just one week later, Fan throws cell phone at player, angering player, saying he couldve been hurt. media buries story and ignores it.

Sox: "Fans" who run on field/assault umpire are interviewed by various media outlets, and are discovered to all be CUB fans who were at the cub game previously that afternoon. Sox are still Maligned for this
Cub: "Fans" that run on field/assault umpire admit theyre cub fans who were at previous Cub Game. Media ignores storyline.

T Dog
05-14-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
I can't explain the Cubs popularity. But, I think it is entirely unique. Never having lived in Chicago...

You have no credibility on the issue.

Hangar18
05-15-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by T Dog
You have no credibility on the issue.

heh heh, I do! I hate the media loved cubs. :cool: