PDA

View Full Version : Media Coverage Question


Viva Magglio
09-05-2003, 01:47 PM
As much as we love our White Sox, we cannot deny that the Cubs have a larger fan base than we do. With that said, does the Cubs having a larger fan base justify the media giving them more coverage than they give us? I say no.

JohnJeter
09-05-2003, 01:49 PM
If they want to attract more advertisers and generate more revenue, I would say yes, that does justify the weighted coverage.

Lip Man 1
09-05-2003, 01:56 PM
The news organizations are in business to make money...trust me on this since I worked in the business for twenty years.

If Chicago clearly shows they don't give a damn about the Sox the coverage will reflect this and to a large extent this is exactly what's happened.

If you want better media coverage you better win something, start marketing better and start kissing the media's ass not necessarily in that order.

That's reality Viva...the news organizations aren't going to give the Sox equal coverage because "it's fair..." The Sox have to earn it. The Cubs get it because they draw two - three million a season. They may not deserve it but they get the fans which leads to interest which leads to stories about them.

Lip

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 01:59 PM
I agree with Lip, news media needs to cover what is more popular. My problem, however, is that I believe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, the Cubs are more popular BECAUSE the media covers them more, instead of vice versa. Of course, that's impossible to prove and hard to reverse, but that's my belief.

KingXerxes
09-05-2003, 02:01 PM
The reason a newspaper exists is to sell newspapers.

Unbalanced coverage is not only justified, it's the game plan. I've always considered media claims of fairness and objectivity to be laughable.

CHISOXFAN13
09-05-2003, 02:04 PM
I work as the sports editor as a small weekly paper on the South Side.

I have approximately 20 schools to cover, and while it is my job to do my best to provide equal coverage, there are five or six schools that I cover more regularly because of the interest.

It's impossible to make everyone happy.

If you write one story a week for one school, it's still not enough in the eyes of some subscribers.

TDog
09-06-2003, 12:44 AM
While newspapers are in the business of making money, just about any reporter with any self-respect doesn't care. Reporters aren't in it for the money. If they were, they would have sold their souls and gone into public relations. If someone is suing the newspaper's biggest advertiser because a couple of security guards at the business beat the crap out of him at the front door, good reporters will aggressively chase the story, and decent editors will see that it gets the attention it deserves. The phone calls go to the publisher, and a decent publisher will tell them news is news.

That being said, there is an arrogance associated with sports journalism that seems all too accepted in the profession. If unbalanced coverage of Chicago's baseball team is fair, based upon their relative popularity, then would it not be fair to give the favored political candidate coverage superior to that of his worthy challenger?

When you look at the relative popularity of the two Chicago major league teams before the Cubs were acquired by a media giant, you have to conclude that the unbalanced coverage is at least perpetuating the Cubs' fan base.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2003, 07:46 AM
There is a good reason why college and high school sports are barely covered in Chicago. The Bloom/Crete-Monee game (which Bloom won 43-0, BTW) might be important to me (to rub in to West :smile: ) but is totally irrelevant for 99 percent of the people watching TV news or reading the sports page.

The Sox get less coverage than the Bears or Flubs, but far more than the Fire or Wolves, and far far more than any of the colleges or high schools. The media knows their audience, and we're a notch beneath the big-time. The truth hurts...

:(:

Dan H
09-06-2003, 08:20 AM
I do think economics has a large part to play in media coverage, and of course, it helps that the Tribune owns the Cubs.

Also I wonder if the Sox foster this lack of coverage. Jerry Reinsdorf stays away from the media because he believes everything he says is twisted. That is not totally true, and I think the Sox care more about controlling the media than giving access. That will be reflected in the coverage.

And go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble. There are about two or three books on the Sox compared to ten on the Cubs. There have been countless books on 1969 when the Cubs won nothing and more telling us what a shrine Wrigley is. I realize the market for White Sox books is not a big one, but the Sox are losing the propaganda war big time. And that is partially their fault. It's time for the team to stop circling the wagons. If they think they are getting bad press, it's in part due to the fact that they don't know how to get their message across. It hurts, too, when you don't understand your own fan base.

voodoochile
09-06-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by TDog
While newspapers are in the business of making money, just about any reporter with any self-respect doesn't care. Reporters aren't in it for the money. If they were, they would have sold their souls and gone into public relations. If someone is suing the newspaper's biggest advertiser because a couple of security guards at the business beat the crap out of him at the front door, good reporters will aggressively chase the story, and decent editors will see that it gets the attention it deserves. The phone calls go to the publisher, and a decent publisher will tell them news is news.

That being said, there is an arrogance associated with sports journalism that seems all too accepted in the profession. If unbalanced coverage of Chicago's baseball team is fair, based upon their relative popularity, then would it not be fair to give the favored political candidate coverage superior to that of his worthy challenger?

When you look at the relative popularity of the two Chicago major league teams before the Cubs were acquired by a media giant, you have to conclude that the unbalanced coverage is at least perpetuating the Cubs' fan base.

You are correct about the writers themselves, but you forget that they rely on the newspapers for their paychecks and the newspapers want writers who will sell more newspapers. It can be quite cyclical...

siugrad25
09-06-2003, 10:27 AM
As a media guy myself, I'm in total agreement with Lip and everyone else. The scary thing is there is so much more behind the scenes of running a paper that why certain things get covered better it still baffles me. I work for a large metro daily in So. Florida and I've been told we have to cover 'X' team more because one of the higer-ups went to school there or likes that team or that even if it's not the biggest news story, it still needs to be played up big in the paper. I've also seen the main ad reps come by and try to get a certain story in the paper because they can sell a few more ads. So no matter the size of the paper, things will never change.

Newspapers will never be 100 percent fair, with advertisers and upper management getting a personal stake in what goes in the section, with that sad, the Sox will never, ever get the ink the Cubs do now unless they win the whole damn thing. The only thing I can do on my end is put the Sox on top of the AL roundup on the baseball page. But I'm trying :)

MarqSox
09-07-2003, 11:17 AM
I never realized how many WSIers work in the media. You'd think we have more clout. :)
Besides the obvious -- Phil Rogers and Les Grobstein -- who else do we got? Myself, xil, siugrad, Lip, chisoxfan13 ... I know I'm forgetting a bunch. Kind of impressive.

hsnterprize
09-07-2003, 04:20 PM
...me. I work as a news and sports reporter for a station here in Chicago, and I can tell you that since I've been frequenting this site, I've been tooting its horn when I could. Check out my profile to find out where I am and stuff like that.

As far as spreading this site around and stuff, here's something that might interest you. I wrote a local TV reporter (who shall remain nameless) who mentioned on her program that even though she's a Cub fan, she recently went to U.S. Cellular Field, and in her words, "had a great time". Now when I heard that, I wrote her and linked this site to her. She had posed the question "Can a fan root for both teams in this town." I wrote her in responce to that question. She wrote me back and said that she's "torn" between rooting for one team over the other, but she's happy she's talking about "winnings team for a change" (she's originally from Milwaukee...other than the Packers, who else does she have to crow about?) She also said in her response that the Cell is a great place to watch a game, no matter what the critics say. In her closing, she does mention 2 words that will always tickle a Sox fan's frenzy, "GO SOX!!!!!"

So hopefully, this reporter, as well as others, will get the idea that Sox fans are tired of the constant "Cub Love" that's out there. When we can write such reporters and such with links to WSI, maybe we can show them there's a lot more to the Sox and their fanbase than what the Cubune is promoting

xil357
09-07-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The news organizations are in business to make money...trust me on this since I worked in the business for twenty years.

Lip

Lip,

I could not have more succinctly put my position on the way the media works in Chicago and nationally. With the exception of NPR and PBS, it is purely profit-driven. I don't think there is a conspiracy at all. It is completely transparent and understandable. That's why we Sox fans, if we care about our team, ought to try to do our part to change the perception among the media. The best thing that anyone can do is tell their friends, family and businesses they frequent to visit WSI. If you want to take more direct action, make your purchasing decisions based on that particular business' advertising. (Do they advertise in the Trib or with the Cubs? Or do they advertise at the Cell or on Sox radio and TV programming?) And tell those businesses WHY you are making the buying decisions you are making. My only point is that we as Sox fans have the power to effect change.

TDog
09-07-2003, 08:51 PM
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the question. I thought the issue was whether the slanted coverage was justified, not whether the reality is that many journalistic institutions lack integrity.

If media are slanting coverage because people want slanted coverage, they lack integrity by definition.

Lip Man 1
09-07-2003, 10:04 PM
TDog:

Utopia is a fantasy. It does not exist. Media institutions will do anything they can to maintain journalistic integrity as long as they make money at the end of the fiscal year.

If everyone in Chicago woke up tomorrow and demanded zero coverage of the Cubs, you can bet the media wouldn't print a whole lot about the North Siders.

They'd do the bare minimum from an integrity syandpoint but the bottom line would have the overiding consideration.

As long as the Cubs continue to draw 2-3 million, as long as the Sox have difficulty co operating with the media and as long as the Sox organization paints the media and the fans as villians NOTHING will ever change unless the Sox win a World Series.

Unfortunately that's the reality of the situation. Integrity has very little to do with things.

Lip



Lip

soxwon
09-07-2003, 10:42 PM
i being a lifelong sox fans38 years since my 1st game. I read the sun times- i hate the Cubune, however the times lately writes more about the cubs than the sox, what gives, they as a rival to the cubune should do the opposite and flood us with sox material, both teams are in first, but we deserve more or atleast equal press.
WE are the ONLY team in town that can go to the series, and i believe we will this year, the cubs will not survive the 1st round.
dont they see the sox are the TEAM?
another question do you guys read
a- Times only
b-tribune only
c- herald only
d- times & trib
e- times and Daily Herald

MarqSox
09-08-2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by soxwon
WE are the ONLY team in town that can go to the series, and i believe we will this year, the cubs will not survive the 1st round.
dont they see the sox are the TEAM?

Well duh. I mean, our record is a whole 1/2 game better. Forget about the fact that the Cubs are in first place, there is ZERO chance of them advancing further than us.

We need a smiley face for rolling eyes.

TDog
09-08-2003, 12:56 PM
If you want to argue that integrity has nothing to do with sports journalism, I will concede that point. I was looking at right and wrong, which often has little to do with reality.

Consider, though, that the Times of Northwest Indiana slants its coverage toward the Cubs. I have seen it staffing Cubs road games (which can be expensive) while using wire coverage of Sox home games. The last time I looked, Cubs cheerleader George Castle was still the sports editor. The newspaper office in Munster is a half-hour drive from the Cell. The quickest way to get to Wrigley from there is to park at the Cell and take the El the rest of the way. Getting to Wrigley from Munster is a monumental hassle. The Sox should be the favored local team. The Sox should be the favored local team at the Daily Southtown. Friends in the area, though, tell me the Sox aren't favored enough.


The Times probably gives its heaviest baseball coverage to the Gary Railcats, just The Yuma Daily Sun in Soutwestern Arizona was giving prominent coverage to the Yuma Desert Dawgs when they were drawing less than 100 people a night. More people in Yuma cared about the Diamondbacks and Padres, and in Northwest Indiana, more care about the Sox and/or Cubs than the Railcats. But the Times covers the Railcats because it is the home team, whether people care or not. It's the right thing to do.

I don't believe the Times has ever applied the same standard to the Sox. It wouldn't be so bad if the paper didn't seem to consider the Cubs the local team.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2003, 01:05 PM
TDog:

Some valid points to be sure but I wonder if the Times is making more money (i.e. through ads and such) when they report more on the Cubs (i.e. special sections and features that can be sold)

But why don't you call George Castle and ask him why they send reporters on Cub road games but won't send reporters to home Sox games?

See what he says, take some notes and post it here.

Lip

Hangar18
09-08-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
As much as we love our White Sox, we cannot deny that the Cubs have a larger fan base than we do. With that said, does the Cubs having a larger fan base justify the media giving them more coverage than they give us? I say no.

Ive said in ONCE i'll say it a Million TIMES....The Cubs FAN BASE is BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA COVERAGE.......

Lip Man 1
09-08-2003, 05:42 PM
Sorry Hanger, despite your best efforts to show otherwise there is no media conspiracy against the Sox.

Here's the answer thanks to Hold2Dibber:

"Because 20+ years of alienating Sox fans has greatly eroded the Sox fan base to the point where there simply aren't as many Sox fans around, and many people who still consider themselves to be Sox fans, don't go to games any more."

Conversly the Cubs have astutely taken advantage of EVERY dumb move the Sox have made in the past 22 years and turned them to their advantage. From Harry Caray to a stadium that fans grew to hate as soon as the novelty wore off, from the White Flag Trade, to a bunker mentality against the media, to SportsVision to an awful PR / marketing department....all moves the Sox did to THEMSELVES and the Cubs used.

An entire generation (22 years) has been born and grown up under these circumstances and now their kids are growing up under the same dynamics. And you wonder why nobody seems to care about the Sox?

The media is just like any other business, they are hear to make money. They can make much more money writing, showing and talking about the Cubs then the Sox. It generates interest and keeps or increases readers, viewers, listeners and most importantly advertisers. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be dumping on the Cubs in favor of the Sox.

The Sox have three choices...they can keep things the way they are and in another ten years if Uncle Jerry still owns the club the fan base will be I guess, 25% smaller then it is now and the club perhaps bordering on legtimate insolvency.

They can, by luck or design, get to a World Series before the Cubs which will change the dynamics of the situation (for a short period of time)

or they can bring in a new marketing / PR department and agressively start working to change the dynamics of the situation. It'll take time but in ten years (coupled with some success on the field) they can change the shape of things substancially.

I'd take the third option...my guess though is the Sox will choose door #1.

Lip

soxwon
09-08-2003, 06:48 PM
itll be number 2 this year- world series.
this team is magic, vegas fears US, and if by chance both teams make the series( it wont happen) i hope the CUBS are favored so we can clean the bookmakers out.
NO LOOKING BACK 2003 WHITE SOX

TDog
09-08-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
TDog:

Some valid points to be sure but I wonder if the Times is making more money (i.e. through ads and such) when they report more on the Cubs (i.e. special sections and features that can be sold)

But why don't you call George Castle and ask him why they send reporters on Cub road games but won't send reporters to home Sox games?

See what he says, take some notes and post it here.

Lip

I don't mean this to sound dismissive, but I live in a rain forest in a state so remote that it has its own time zone. The Times isn't my problem anymore. I do worry about the quality of journalism on a daily basis, but if I were to start a broader crusade, I would tackle bigger problems than the Times.

I still don't believe increased revenues justify slanting coverage. Should unruly fans at the Cell be given more attention than the unruliest of the animals at Wrigley because it might interfere with corporate profits? Certainly, newspapers shouldn't give more coverage to the political candidates that bought the biggest ads. And I hope no one would argue that a newspaper should spike a story about a clergyman accused of molesting children if members of his congregation threaten to boycott advertisers in the newspaper.

I know my opinion doesn't fit everyone's world view, but I agree with those that believe the Cubs' larger fan base is a result of its more favorable coverage.