PDA

View Full Version : Breaking News: Chicago Cubune Reports Sox Fans boneheaded and poor


mandmandm
10-20-2003, 09:23 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0310200043oct20,1,1508413.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed

I will try not to do too many boneheaded things today and make sure I spend my food stamps and the little money I have wisely.

cwsox
10-20-2003, 09:30 AM
what a stupid column

waste of newspaper space

Procol Harum
10-20-2003, 09:34 AM
The really cute line was the one about the "fans" who bombarded poor Steve Bartman with beer, peanuts, and obscenities: "Wrong fans, wrong place, wrong time." Gee, who could he have meant by that? Again, it's amazing--no, not really-- how Flub fans have gotten a free pass with almost nary a mention of "hooligan Cub fans" after this incident.

Jerko
10-20-2003, 09:37 AM
Funny, we're boneheaded Sox fans for buying Marlin gear but the idiots at the Urinal who throw beer and want to literally kill a guy are Chicago 'fans'. Well asswipe, the only Marlin gear I have is a hat that a girl BOUGHT for me when she was in Florida, so thanks for worrying about what little money I have but I saved 20 bucks right there in case you really care. Jerkwad.

mandmandm
10-20-2003, 09:46 AM
Last night on GN's sports show they show the world series score and have the Cubs in place of the Marlins. Dan Rohan laughs it off as a mistake and ponders what could have been. To cap off the show they do a highlight package of the Cubs season. All flub filled with highlights, no cork. At the end they start filling in the highlights with Marlin "lowlights". The Marlin highlights are in black and white. They do not even have the class to show the Marlins winning. What makes the collapse even more great is that a bunch of the Trib execs are ND grads. Now they share another common bond with Dork, they are all losers, albeit rich losers.

joecrede
10-20-2003, 10:29 AM
A truly amazing article.

Further proof that no group of Chicago fans gets treated worse than Sox fans by the Chicago media. Actually, we're the only group of Chicago fans that gets this kind of treatment in the Chicago media . . .

Pretty cowardly too that the writer or writers who compiled this list didn't attach their names to it.

JohnJeter
10-20-2003, 10:37 AM
Pretty cowardly too that the writer or writers who compiled this list didn't attach their names to it.


Um, if that piece required more than one writer, that's REALLY scary.

dickallen15
10-20-2003, 10:37 AM
Kinda ironic that Ronnie Woo Woo isn't frowned upon. I doubt his bank account has many zeros after the 1.

Viva Magglio
10-20-2003, 10:47 AM
It's just anti-Sox propaganda from the Cubune. What else is new?

cheeses_h_rice
10-20-2003, 10:48 AM
Boneheaded Sox fans who spent what little money they have on Marlins jerseys. They got what they wanted.

Exhibit ****ing A in "Why Sox fans hate Flub fans."

Christalmighty...

Unregistered
10-20-2003, 10:49 AM
Wow, accurate and pullitzer-worthy journalism from the Trib.

Look for the follow up article from this same bunch of third graders, entitled "White Sox Fans Are Doodyheads."
It's sure to blow the whole lid off the "Are White Sox Fans Doodyheads?" scandal!

Idiots.

LuvSox
10-20-2003, 10:50 AM
How do you contact the idiot that wrote this trash? It's absolutely amazing how a media outlet the size of the Tribune could treat a portion of the citizens of Chicago so poorly. Absolutely amazing.

Jerko
10-20-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Kinda ironic that Ronnie Woo Woo isn't frowned upon. I doubt his bank account has many zeros after the 1.

I doubt he even has a 1! Funny, the last few games of the year I went to at the Cell, there he was in all his glory. He must share Jesse Jackson's frequent flyer miles; another guy who doesn't work but you see everywhere.

Risk
10-20-2003, 11:00 AM
Whatever Cubune. I'm such a classless piece of society's tripe that I would screw over my fellow fans by overcharging tickets to the Yankees series.

And by the way, 2008=100 years of Cubbie futility

And they wonder why we never respect them or their useless, unintelligent fans.

Risk

Irishsox1
10-20-2003, 11:02 AM
Anyone who wants to vent or flood the Cubune with hate e-mail, here is the link:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/chi-printform.customform

Dadawg_77
10-20-2003, 11:22 AM
I know it is probally a furtile efforts, but I wrote to Don Wycliff the Tribune's public editor. This is what I said.



It is articles like this, http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0310200043oct20,1,1508413.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed, which make consider the journalistic integrity of the Tribune in covering other areas of Tribune Corp's business. "Boneheaded Sox fans who spent what little money they have on Marlins jerseys. They got what they wanted. (See Winners.)" This is the line which got my ire, full discloser: I'm Sox fan, but why does the Tribune continue to promote stereotypes of Chicagoans. I have heard it all this post-season from radio shows and newspapers that the Sox and their fans are inferior to Cub fans. Shock jocks saying you need flak jacket to go to Comiskey Park, and this statement. The only thing, which I can think of, is some WASP suburbanite is steady afraid of African American neighborhoods after they flew out of those neighborhoods. With the media repeating these falsehoods, the public starts to accept them as fact. I am sure the Tribune compensates John Kass well enough that he could afford Marlin’s gear if he wants some. I am sure the Mayor is raising the cost of living in Chicago so he can get his new Juan Pierre Jersey. Now I am using two highly known examples of Sox fans, but while the area around Comiskey is a considerably less wealthily then the area around Wrigley (2000 US Census), it doesn’t mean Sox fans are poor, nor white trash or all the other stereotypes media, including the Tribune label us with. While I accept dribble from talk radio and TV reporters, I have come to expect a higher level journalism for the Tribune. This leads me to believe that the Tribune may go out of its way to report stories about it competitors and hide stories about it self and its corporate parent. I have to ask this question every time I read editorial supporting the FCC allowing media companies to acquire more outlets. Ask myself how come the Tribune never reported on Tribune’s scalping service. Why the Tribune backed its sister newspaper the LA Times, when most other non Tribune media outlets were questioning its coverage of California recall election? I understand the corporate world and bottom line pressures, but a newspaper is a source of news and truth, if you can not get that, then newspaper loses any value what it had.

dickallen15
10-20-2003, 11:34 AM
As a poor Sox fan, I may have to save some money and cancel my subscription to the Tribune.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
The really cute line was the one about the "fans" who bombarded poor Steve Bartman with beer, peanuts, and obscenities: "Wrong fans, wrong place, wrong time." Gee, who could he have meant by that? Again, it's amazing--no, not really-- how Flub fans have gotten a free pass with almost nary a mention of "hooligan Cub fans" after this incident.

ANYONE ELSE HEAR ABOUT THE "FANS" that began kicking and throwing TRASH CANS around ON SHeffield after the game?
The Riot police moved in, on horseback, and quelled it.
Notice that was BURIED?? there were pics in the Trib Gallery,
but I looked for them, and they were Quickly Taken Down.

LuvSox
10-20-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
Anyone who wants to vent or flood the Cubune with hate e-mail, here is the link:http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/chi-printform.customform

Done.

Foulke You
10-20-2003, 11:56 AM
It's those ridiculous articles that make me never buy or subscribe to the Tribune. Let your wallet do the talking Sox fans. When you send your email to the editor, be sure to tell them you aren't buying their newspaper because of this tripe and you are encouraging your fellow Sox fans to do the same.

woodenleg
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
Excuse me, but weren't the bars in question in Beverly, which is quite a nice area?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am absolutely fed up with the Chicago media hiring writers who are not from Chicago and who have so little respect for the town that they do not bother to learn its history and neighborhoods.

I was in Medill for a while, and let me tell you - THIS IS TYPICAL. Some of the students up there won't even get on the 'L'!

The_Floridian
10-20-2003, 12:04 PM
Well that sucked.

Maybe if we win the World Series next year the Trib will give us a nice write-up on page 2. Of the sports page.

But only if the Cubs don't make the playoffs.

doogiec
10-20-2003, 12:05 PM
My comments to the Trib, since they won't ever be printed:

If we ever needed confirmation that the Chicago Tribune lacks the journalistic ethics and integrity to both own and report on a professional sports team, we can merely read "You win some, You lose some" in the October 20th edition.

The author of the piece, too gutless to include his/her name, includes some of the most ridiculously biased and clearly racially motivated abusive comments about the White Sox and their fans ever published. "Boneheaded Sox fans spending what little money they have", is too disgusting and stereotypical of a comment to be even included in a hate group newsletter, much less a major newspaper. Every other news organization has the integrity to include a disclaimer when they are "reporting" on a subsidiary. Why won't the Tribune do the same?

Everyone associated with the Tribune should be disgusted with that article, and a published apology and retraction is demanded.

DrCrawdad
10-20-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Exhibit ****ing A in "Why Sox fans hate Flub fans."

Christalmighty...

You're so right!

You think if I wrote an article about Cub fans being homosexuals it would be printed in the Cubune?

It's funny to me that Sox fans get reprimanded (and rightly so) when we refer to Cubbie fans as being homosexuals. Yet Cubbie fans and the Cubune routinely takes steroetyping swipes at Sox fans and no one, other than Sox fans, says a word about it.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
My comments to the Trib, since they won't ever be printed:

If we ever needed confirmation that the Chicago Tribune lacks the journalistic ethics and integrity to both own and report on a professional sports team, we can merely read "You win some, You lose some" in the October 20th edition.

The author of the piece, too gutless to include his/her name, includes some of the most ridiculously biased and clearly racially motivated abusive comments about the White Sox and their fans ever published. "Boneheaded Sox fans spending what little money they have", is too disgusting and stereotypical of a comment to be even included in a hate group newsletter, much less a major newspaper. Every other news organization has the integrity to include a disclaimer when they are "reporting" on a subsidiary. Why won't the Tribune do the same?

Everyone associated with the Tribune should be disgusted with that article, and a published apology and retraction is demanded.

Excellent Reply. Just one of the Thousands of Reasons
Why I HATE that Team, Hate their Culture, Hate their Ownership, hate their Stadium and Hate their "Fans"

Daver
10-20-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by The_Floridian
Well that sucked.

Maybe if we win the World Series next year the Trib will give us a nice write-up on page 2. Of the sports page.

But only if the Cubs don't make the playoffs.

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

JRIG
10-20-2003, 12:19 PM
Can you ever imagine the Cubune printing this last year:

"Losers: Boneheaded Cubs fans spending what little money they have supporting a team that lost almost 100 games. They got what they deserved. A fifth place finish."

white sox bill
10-20-2003, 12:31 PM
I'm gonna gather my change up since I live in the hood, buy a bomb and plant it on bottom level of Trib. Tower and watch an explosion that will make Oklahoma City look like a fizzled firecracker!!

woodenleg
10-20-2003, 12:48 PM
What about all of the "loser" Cub fans who, after the Cubs blew it, were whining about all of the money they had spent on seats, hotel reservations, plane fare, etc.? "I can't believe I paid $1400 for these seats!"

Lip Man 1
10-20-2003, 01:01 PM
Here's my reply:

I was born and raised in Chicago. I've been in the media for over twenty years in three markets. I'm a White Sox fan for 43 years.

I'm college educated... not boneheaded and not poor.

I think it's an absolute joke the way your newspaper can insult a segment of the population and think they can get away with it.

At least when I write something, or say something on radio and or television, I use my name. You "professionals" are gutless.

By the way do you even realize that your own Bob Vanderberg, Paul Sullivan and Dan McGrath are Sox fans? That your own Phil Rogers is a registered member at White Sox Interactive?

Your Cubs gagged for the 3rd time in the last 34 years...your fans tried to kill another fans after the foul ball incident. Write about that.

White Sox fans will not tolerate losing, cuteness or warm fuzziness. They want to win period, Write about that.

Finally one question. Do you seriously think Yankee fans root for the Mets? Do you think A's fans root for the Giants? Why do you expect (demand) that Sox fans root for the Cubs.

MarqSox
10-20-2003, 01:03 PM
I am very insulted by the "article" in today's Tribune which chronicled the winners and losers of the Cubs choking in the NLCS. The article referred to White Sox fans as having "little money" and said they were "losers" for wasting it on Marlins gear. That was a cheap shot and it was uncalled for. Are you implying that Sox fans are less wealthy than Cubs fans? Even if this is true, what is its relevance? It was obviously meant as a put-down. That was disgusting and unbecoming of a paper of the Tribune's prestige. I would expect that from the Sun-Times, but the Tribune should be more professional. You owe Sox fans everywhere a sincere apology -- and try not to be snide with it. We've got no use for your sour grapes just because your company's baseball division blew it.

Dan H
10-20-2003, 01:03 PM
I haven't read this article nor do I care to. There have been so many in the past few years, I have become numb to them. What is really amazing it that this stuff keeps getting written, and it is equally amazing that the White Sox organization has little or no response. Does this mean the organization agrees with the sentiment? Otherwise, it is just another reason to hate the Chicago sports media.

jortafan
10-20-2003, 01:18 PM
This isn't a defense of the Tribune as much as it is just a thought to keep in mind. How many of you actually read the piece in the newspaper, as opposed to reading it off the Tribune's web site.

This particular piece ran in the Tempo section, where they put all the artsy fluff features, along with the advice columnist and the comics. It isn't even really a story, it's just a lot of blurbs with assorted photographs that is meant to look nice when laid out on the front page of the feature section.

Reading it off the web site takes away all the graphic emphasis, which was the only reason for having the piece.

My point?

This thing is pure fluff, and not worth getting worked up over. It's meant for a quick chuckle, and only a bone head would take it literally. (Although that category would include many of the Cubbie blue fanatics)

Besides, the "list" of winners also includes Mayor Daley on the grounds that he "no longer has to hold his nose and pretend to cheer" for the Cubs.

The Tribune is often guilty of many gross misunderstandings, perpetuating many myths that cause great harm to the people of Chicago and its surrounding suburbs.

This drivel isn't among them.

Tom in Boston
10-20-2003, 01:19 PM
Every time they mention the LA Times - even if it's just to cite a statistic the LA Times reported, while covering a story on the West Coast - the Cubune prints a short disclaimer in the story that both papers are owned by the Tribune Co. Why the #$%& can't we get the same thing?

Oh yeah, that's right...... $$$$$$$

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Here's my reply:

I was born and raised in Chicago. I've been in the media for over twenty years in three markets. I'm a White Sox fan for 43 years.

I'm college educated... not boneheaded and not poor.

I think it's an absolute joke the way your newspaper can insult a segment of the population and think they can get away with it.

At least when I write something, or say something on radio and or television, I use my name. You "professionals" are gutless.

By the way do you even realize that your own Bob Vanderberg, Paul Sullivan and Dan McGrath are Sox fans? That your own Phil Rogers is a registered member at White Sox Interactive?

Your Cubs gagged for the 3rd time in the last 34 years...your fans tried to kill another fans after the foul ball incident. Write about that.

White Sox fans will not tolerate losing, cuteness or warm fuzziness. They want to win period, Write about that.

Finally one question. Do you seriously think Yankee fans root for the Mets? Do you think A's fans root for the Giants? Why do you expect (demand) that Sox fans root for the Cubs.

Wow! Even Lipman is pissed off!!!

Good job!

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

minastirith67
10-20-2003, 01:56 PM
We can hate the tribune all we want, but the truth of the matter is that the Tribune/WGN/Cubs are getting more fans to their side every day, which means less Sox fans overall. More saddening than maddening, IMO. We may have one one battle (interleague series) but they're certainly winning the war.

alohafri
10-20-2003, 02:04 PM
I agree that the piece was "fluff"--much like the Dybas fluff article last summer. I can't recall the details, but it was extremely insulting to Sox fans, and everyone here at WSI just brushed it off as the "joke" that it was.

But I for one, am sick and tired of this cr*p. Fluff or not, it is in extremely poor taste and there are many people who take the cr*p to heart and out of context. Plus it further exacerbates the myth that Sox fans are ignorant poor people who are also sore losers.

I wish the Sox management would just once take out a full page ad in the Trib and take the Cubune to task for spewing such hateful, vindictive trash, EVEN IF THAT TRASH WAS MEANT TO BE SATIRICAL or "fluff" or whatever. Money talks, and the Trib would have to print it. Meanwhile, our letters to the editor will go into the circular file, after the cubune people have a good laugh.


:angry: Mrs. Aloha

AsInWreck
10-20-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
[B

I will try not to do too many boneheaded things today and make sure I spend my food stamps and the little money I have wisely. [/B]

Sounds like someone was reading WSI. I don't remember who, but someone posted they would buy a Lowell jersey and wear it once a week until next season started. That's just wrong though to degrade people for being poor, even if it is an ignorant and false statement.

AsInWreck
10-20-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Wow! Even Lipman is pissed off!!!

Good job!

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

I thought he would have said that unless the white sox went out and boughtt a media conglomerate we would have no right to complain.

BTW, chicago must be a city full complete nitwits if it keeps electing a "bonehead" like Daley. You guys may want to vote a pay raise for the poor guy, I never suspected the mayor of chicago would be such a pauper.

Dadawg_77
10-20-2003, 02:50 PM
Actaully I got a responce from Don.

Don't you think you're making a bit too much of a silly line in a lightweight feature?

DW

I replied,
If it was just this one article, yes I would be, but it is just 1000th cut. While it maybe small, added on top of the 999 ones it becomes a problem.

Whether or not this was meant as fluff, it still portrays Sox fan in a stereotypical way. While not as offensive, imagine if they made a passing reference to African Americans and monkeys in a fluff piece. People would hammer the Tribune, why because it further push stereotype in people minds. I am not comparing the Civil Rights struggle to being Sox fan just that in order to squash a stereotype, it can't become worthy of publication even in fluff. Take this comment, the comments posted here that some radio host said you needed to wear a flak jacket at Comiskey, people's reaction when you say you are a Sox fan, this is what is happening. In order to stop stereotypes you need to battle it where ever you find it.

AsInWreck
10-20-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Actaully I got a responce from Don.



Take this comment, the comments posted here that some radio host said you needed to wear a flak jacket at Comiskey, people's reaction when you say you are a Sox fan, this is what is happening. In order to stop stereotypes you need to battle it where ever you find it.

These "journalists" are apparently unfamiliar w/ the code of ethics of the American Journalism Assoc, the Society of Professional Journalists, and of the Trib itself

JRIG
10-20-2003, 03:27 PM
"Boneheaded" is bad enough, but the part that really gets me is "what little money they have."

What does that have to do with anything? And wasn't there a study that came out a few years ago that showed Sox fans have a higher income than Cub fans?

Gee, that stat couldn't have anything to do with all the recent college-grad Cub-fan party guys spending "what little money they have" (since they're all jobless) just trying to pay the rent on their yuppy-fied Lakeview/Wrigleyville apartment, could it?

And since when does being a "silly line in a lightweight feature" excuse the rules of journalism? They just as easily could have gotten the point across without damning all Sox fans as penniless retards.

For example: "Losers: Sox fans who didn't join in the fun of the Cubs run for the World Series"

MarqSox
10-20-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
And since when does being a "silly line in a lightweight feature" excuse the rules of journalism? They just as easily could have gotten the point across without damning all Sox fans as penniless retards.

For example: "Losers: Sox fans who didn't join in the fun of the Cubs run for the World Series"
You're exactly right ... but in a bit of irony, the Sox fans who refused to give in to the flubbie hysteria were the ones who came out winners in the end. :)

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 05:03 PM
"Are you guys kidding me? Why the Constant dig at Sox Fans,
even though you think your doing it Tongue-In-Cheek? I see
thru the Smoke and Mirrors you guys use to run that
"newspaper". Your constant stereotyping leads foolish
cub fans (theres your loser group of people right there if your
looking for them) to repeat verbatim Everything you guys
Print. As a life long, Educated, and gainfully employed
Sox Fan, your Generalizations, Lies, Myths, Blatant Distortions
of truthful information, as well as Blatant Withholding of truthful
information regarding the Chicago White Sox and its fanbase
are Repulsive and Irresponsible, and INDICATIVE of a Newspaper
with a clear Conflict of Interest. The Tribune is nothing but
the printed version of a Cubs Infomercial. Your reply is
appreciated and Necessary" signed Hangar 18

winodj
10-20-2003, 06:19 PM
Nice how they aren't Cubs fans when they do something wrong. Apparently they were yelling "Yay! NonSuburban Cook County!"

Nick@Nite
10-20-2003, 07:55 PM
... it should have read "You win some, you lose some more"

Marshmallow journalism!

xil357
10-20-2003, 08:30 PM
Finally, folks are starting to wake up to the fact that as a subsidiary of Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune's business is not journalism -- it is making money for its parent company.

The intersection of interests brought about by the relaxation of media ownership standards has resulted in the death of legitimately fair and balanced American journalism outside of PBS and NPR.

When the Tribune owns the Cubs, the corporate managers want nothing more than to see any and all competition to the Cubs eliminated. And the White Sox are the most direct and closest form of competition to the Tribune-owned Cubs as they are the only other MLB team in Chicago.

I could more readily accept the Tribune as a legitimate publication if they just came out and said, in a Page One editorial, "We the Tribune Company seek to eliminate any and all competition in the industries in which we compete. We seek to eliminate all local radio and TV stations that compete with WGN, all local newspapers that compete with the Tribune, and all major league baseball teams that compete for fans, sponsors and profits with the Cubs."

I with the Trib (and other U.S. newspapers) would be like the British newspapers, who for all intents and purposes just wear their biases on the front page.

If I owned the White Sox, my #1 priority would be promoting the success of the Sox. My #2 priority would be finding a way to eliminate the competition -- the Cubs. That's the way capitalism works, folks, the law of the jungle.

Make your voices heard, Sox Army! Cancel those Tribune subscriptions. Continue writing those letters to the editor. CC them to the corporate officers and managers and stockholders. Boycott Tribune advertisers, and tell them exactly why you are boycotting them. Take your business to companies that DO NOT advertise in the Trib, and tell them why you are patronizing them instead.

Chicago Derby
10-20-2003, 08:53 PM
Here's my reply:

Regarding that "bonehead Sox" article that was in your "fluff" section of the paper-many articles such as these are why I quit reading and purchasing the Trib at least 2 years ago. Also, I quit watching the WGN news (hardly a ratings winner, is it?).

CD

GoSox2K3
10-20-2003, 09:04 PM
Uh, could you guys dumb down this discussion a little bit. You see, as a Sox fan, I'm too much of a bonehead to understand your use of big words. Uh, what is a stereo type?

I would have posted sooner, but since I am a Sox fan I am obviously uneducated and have very little money and I can't afford a computer. I had to borrow a Cub fan's computer because we know that Cub fans are high income earners with high IQs.

By the way, does anyone know any liquor stores that take food stamps?

:giangreco
Why are you using teal? Your posting sounds like a typical Sox fan to me.

Huisj
10-20-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
Uh, what is a stereo type?

You know, sony, aiwa, panasonic, bose. I can only afford the offbrand audiophase ones at kmart though, being the sox fan that i am.

On a more serious note, I joined the troop and emailed them. Told em that they helped me save "what little money I have" by convincing me never to pay for their newspaper.

TornLabrum
10-20-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by xil357
Finally, folks are starting to wake up to the fact that as a subsidiary of Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune's business is not journalism -- it is making money for its parent company.

The intersection of interests brought about by the relaxation of media ownership standards has resulted in the death of legitimately fair and balanced American journalism outside of PBS and NPR.

When the Tribune owns the Cubs, the corporate managers want nothing more than to see any and all competition to the Cubs eliminated. And the White Sox are the most direct and closest form of competition to the Tribune-owned Cubs as they are the only other MLB team in Chicago.

I could more readily accept the Tribune as a legitimate publication if they just came out and said, in a Page One editorial, "We the Tribune Company seek to eliminate any and all competition in the industries in which we compete. We seek to eliminate all local radio and TV stations that compete with WGN, all local newspapers that compete with the Tribune, and all major league baseball teams that compete for fans, sponsors and profits with the Cubs."

I with the Trib (and other U.S. newspapers) would be like the British newspapers, who for all intents and purposes just wear their biases on the front page.

If I owned the White Sox, my #1 priority would be promoting the success of the Sox. My #2 priority would be finding a way to eliminate the competition -- the Cubs. That's the way capitalism works, folks, the law of the jungle.

Make your voices heard, Sox Army! Cancel those Tribune subscriptions. Continue writing those letters to the editor. CC them to the corporate officers and managers and stockholders. Boycott Tribune advertisers, and tell them exactly why you are boycotting them. Take your business to companies that DO NOT advertise in the Trib, and tell them why you are patronizing them instead.

Okay, where in your scheme of things does the Tribune's sponsorship of half-price Mondays at The Cell over the entire existence of the new ball park fit in? Have they spent all these years trying to attract the Ligue's and their ilk to create an incident that makes the Sox look bad?

MisterB
10-21-2003, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, where in your scheme of things does the Tribune's sponsorship of half-price Mondays at The Cell over the entire existence of the new ball park fit in?

Obviously they feel sorry for all the poor boneheads who can't afford to pay full price for Sox tickets...

Actually I just looked through my Sox program for this year and there is no mention of any sponsorship of half-price Mondays, and no advertisements at all for the Tribune.

hsnterprize
10-21-2003, 07:52 AM
Okay...

I understand that the Tribune owns the Chicago Cubs, so I get the notion that your paper, along with your TV and radio stations, will do their best to put the best light on the the Cubs' season. However, it's one thing to highlight the positives on what turned out to be a great Cubs season with an eventful (and I would like to add...enjoyable" ending, but it's another thing to use a fluff-story to bash the White Sox and their fans who didn't join the "let's support the Cubs" bandwagon.

I'm a sports and news reporter/producer for a local radio station here in town, and I'm also a White Sox fan. I've constantly read and seen knock after knock on the White Sox for years, and to tell you the truth, whether if it's a legitimate news story or a fluff piece...the slams against the Sox and Sox fans are pretty sickening. Referring to Sox fans in a recent Tempo piece as "boneheaded and poor" only reflects the idiocy and downright nonsense your paper constantly uses to put the White Sox and Sox fans into a second-class category. Hey...in case you didn't know...there are White Sox fans who are affluent, intelligent (I'm personally am a 10-year Army veteran with a bachelor's degree in radio and broadcast journalism), and are loyal to our team. In spite of all the attempts by your paper, TV, and radio stations, you couldn't get all the world, much less all of Chicago, to cheer for the Cubs in the NLCS against Florida. Although we Sox fans were dissapointed that our team didn't make the post-season, there was reason to celebrate when we saw our rival team, the Cubs, choke in the series and lose to the Marlins.

Whether you like it or not, not everyone in Chicago is a Cubs fan. And with the constant slams against the Sox in the guise of "fair" and "honest" reporting, there won't be too many Tribune subscribers left, either.

Sincerely,

A "boneheaded and poor Sox" fan who got what he wanted...a Cubs loss in the playoffs.

P.S. Will you be as "fair" and "unbiased" when the Sox WIN the World Series next year? Knowing your paper...I wouldn't count on it.

Not that what I have to say will mean much, but if we keep voicing our displeasure at the Tribune for their anti-Sox rhetoric, who knows...they might actually listen to us and be fair for a change.

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, where in your scheme of things does the Tribune's sponsorship of half-price Mondays at The Cell over the entire existence of the new ball park fit in? Have they spent all these years trying to attract the Ligue's and their ilk to create an incident that makes the Sox look bad?

Dont let their phony Contributions to the Poor fool you...
They write that off :smile:

woodenleg
10-21-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by xil357
Finally, folks are starting to wake up to the fact that as a subsidiary of Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune's business is not journalism -- it is making money for its parent company.

The intersection of interests brought about by the relaxation of media ownership standards has resulted in the death of legitimately fair and balanced American journalism outside of PBS and NPR.

When the Tribune owns the Cubs, the corporate managers want nothing more than to see any and all competition to the Cubs eliminated. And the White Sox are the most direct and closest form of competition to the Tribune-owned Cubs as they are the only other MLB team in Chicago.

Yep, the Tribune was a big, big champion of relaxing the ownership rules - no surprise, and they used their editorial page to argue in favor of the changes. It must be said that not every media company was in favor of this - just the big fish. I believe that I saw an editorial in the Sun-Times that was opposed to such changes.

mandmandm
10-21-2003, 09:33 AM
Hard to believe with Rupurt in charge.

MarqSox
10-21-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Hard to believe with Rupurt in charge.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the ST is owned by Hollinger, not News Corp. Murdoch had a stake in the ST back in the 80s but sold it. That's just off the top of my head though, it may not be correct and I don't really care enough to research it. :D:

MarqSox
10-21-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize

Not that what I have to say will mean much, but if we keep voicing our displeasure at the Tribune for their anti-Sox rhetoric, who knows...they might actually listen to us and be fair for a change.
You have the right idea. Often, it isn't about being the largest group, it's about making it SEEM like you're the largest group by bombarding them with PO'd e-mails and phone calls. Making contact with them and shows you really took exception to it, and it'll force them to more carefully consider their audience in the future, if for no other reason than to avoid having to deal with us again.

LoveTheSox
10-21-2003, 11:39 AM
Here's my reply to the idiots at the Tribune:


I am disgusted with the lack of journalistic integrity shown in your paper. To print a column that encourages the stereotype of a group of people is criminal. What's worse is that this group of people are being humiliated for liking the White Sox. It's just baseball! The Cubs lost, and it had nothing to do with the White Sox or their fans! Get over it! Besides, there are two baseball teams in Chicago, and it is a legitimate choice to cheer for the boys in black. As a fourth generation Sox fan, I am deeply offended at the recent anti-Sox press that has filled the media. Going forward, please try to refrain from slanderous attacks on your fellow Chicagoans, and stick to reporting on the real news.


This kind of stuff irritates me to no end. :angry:

xil357
10-21-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, where in your scheme of things does the Tribune's sponsorship of half-price Mondays at The Cell over the entire existence of the new ball park fit in? Have they spent all these years trying to attract the Ligue's and their ilk to create an incident that makes the Sox look bad?

Perhaps I'm just a tin-foil hat pinko commie.

Even the most strident capitalist knows that capitalism is an exercise in economic Darwinism -- the strong will survive. I intend no condescension, but MLB's federal anti-trust exemption means that they are exempt from federal anti-trust laws. So the owners are free to behave as complete capitalists. One way to guarantee your success is to eliminate your competition by buying them out or shutting them down.

The newspaper business is a perfect example of this. Hal, you know that Chicago has had many, many newspapers over the years. But the strongest papers survived by running their competitors out of business or by buying them out.

Why shouldn't the Tribune Company seek to marginalize the value of the White Sox? Eliminating the Sox, the Cubs' only competition for fans of major league baseball within 100 miles, would only help the Cubs' bottom line. If I owned the Cubs that's what I would do, too. Sure I would be clandestine about it, and I would employ measures to divert attention (sponsoring half-price nights, for example?) from my true intent.

You can't argue for a second that the people who run the Tribune Company (or the Sox ownership group, for that matter) from the top are not red-blooded (or blue-blooded?) hard-core capitalists. Using their "trusted voice," the hallowed Chicago Tribune and WGN, is just a convenient way to execute their unwritten plan.

Am I saying that there is a top secret file in Mark McGuire's desk entitled "My plan for killing off the Sox by 2010"? Of course not. But don't tell me that making the market more fertile for Cubs supremacy isn't their first priority. Marginalizing the Sox is just one part of that strategy.

Again, its not a scheme or a conspiracy. It is capitalism as practiced in today's corporate media.

For me, the only question is, are we as Sox fans going to re-claim our "Customer is King" label? Or are we going to allow ourselves to be propagandized and cowed by a corporate media monolith seeking to marginalize our chosen team? It was a pretty easy decision for me once I allowed myself to open my eyes to the reality of the situation.

That's why I choose to take the Tribune's information (there still is some good info in it) for free by providing them with a phony address, e-mail and phone number when I registered for their web site. I consider it an act of civil disobedience in which every Sox patriot ought to engage.

TDog
10-21-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the ST is owned by Hollinger, not News Corp. Murdoch had a stake in the ST back in the 80s but sold it. That's just off the top of my head though, it may not be correct and I don't really care enough to research it. :D:

Murdoch owned the Sun-Times in the 1980s and revolutionized Chicago journalism by printing the names of rape victims. Murdoch sold the Sun-Times to get into Chicago television. Not that Murdoch is any less evil (there is at least one evil media empire in Wisconsin, too, probably everywhere), but only the Tribune is allowed to monopolize Chicago media.

voodoochile
10-21-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by xil357
Perhaps I'm just a tin-foil hat pinko commie.

Even the most strident capitalist knows that capitalism is an exercise in economic Darwinism -- the strong will survive. I intend no condescension, but MLB's federal anti-trust exemption means that they are exempt from federal anti-trust laws. So the owners are free to behave as complete capitalists. One way to guarantee your success is to eliminate your competition by buying them out or shutting them down.

The newspaper business is a perfect example of this. Hal, you know that Chicago has had many, many newspapers over the years. But the strongest papers survived by running their competitors out of business or by buying them out.

Why shouldn't the Tribune Company seek to marginalize the value of the White Sox? Eliminating the Sox, the Cubs' only competition for fans of major league baseball within 100 miles, would only help the Cubs' bottom line. If I owned the Cubs that's what I would do, too. Sure I would be clandestine about it, and I would employ measures to divert attention (sponsoring half-price nights, for example?) from my true intent.

You can't argue for a second that the people who run the Tribune Company (or the Sox ownership group, for that matter) from the top are not red-blooded (or blue-blooded?) hard-core capitalists. Using their "trusted voice," the hallowed Chicago Tribune and WGN, is just a convenient way to execute their unwritten plan.

Am I saying that there is a top secret file in Mark McGuire's desk entitled "My plan for killing off the Sox by 2010"? Of course not. But don't tell me that making the market more fertile for Cubs supremacy isn't their first priority. Marginalizing the Sox is just one part of that strategy.

Again, its not a scheme or a conspiracy. It is capitalism as practiced in today's corporate media.

For me, the only question is, are we as Sox fans going to re-claim our "Customer is King" label? Or are we going to allow ourselves to be propagandized and cowed by a corporate media monolith seeking to marginalize our chosen team? It was a pretty easy decision for me once I allowed myself to open my eyes to the reality of the situation.

That's why I choose to take the Tribune's information (there still is some good info in it) for free by providing them with a phony address, e-mail and phone number when I registered for their web site. I consider it an act of civil disobedience in which every Sox patriot ought to engage.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but there is the other side of the coin to look at. The Sox are in a competitive market for their customers and the otherside is playing dirty, but this isn't Ma & Pa Groceries Vs. WalMart. JR, KW, RG and whoever the new manager is need to do a WAY better job of appealing to the masses. There are ways to fight against the built in media advantage the flubbies have. One of them is to win every year and then laugh at the ineptness of the flubbies themselves. The Sox are their own worst enemy, or have been. I see signs of improvement both in their remake of the ballmall into a nice place to watch a ballgame even if you aren't a diehard Sox fan. The removal of seats and roofing of the UD is nothing short of genius if done correctly. It will make that space smaller thus making it more intimate and the amount of "blue space" will seem more in proportion to the people sitting up there thus there will be less room to point out that the Sox are playing before an empty house. The pictures won't bear it out. In addition that will increase demand for Sox tickets as people start to see the ballpark as full and fun. The Sox are also making good pub out of the manager hunt. I think they will sign Gaston if they can get the terms worked out. It will give them a "name" manager and give them some wiggle room if things go bad. KW is also trying to re-sign Colon. So, like I say, there is SOME improvement. Time will tell if they will build on their success and learn from it or go back into turtle mood, but since they are in a fight for their very economic existence (and hence their very life in this city), they need to start doing more of the "right" things and stop whining about the big bad flubbies.

As to bad press and stereotypes, all you can do is express yourself economically by not buying the newspapers, supporting their advertisers, writing to the editor and setting a good example in public about what it means to be a Sox fan whatever that is.

Still, as has been pointed out before, this was a joke in a fluff piece in the tempo section, not a front page editorial or a full column rant from a name sports writer.

Peeing on the garden when the house is on fire...

xil357
10-21-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'm not saying you are wrong, but there is the other side of the coin to look at. The Sox are in a competitive market for their customers and the otherside is playing dirty, but this isn't Ma & Pa Groceries Vs. WalMart.

As to bad press and stereotypes, all you can do is express yourself economically by not buying the newspapers, supporting their advertisers, writing to the editor and setting a good example in public about what it means to be a Sox fan whatever that is.

Still, as has been pointed out before, this was a joke in a fluff piece in the tempo section, not a front page editorial or a full column rant from a name sports writer.

Peeing on the garden when the house is on fire...

We can argue about this in circles for hours and hours. Voodoo, you and Lip and PHG and TornLabrum and others are right that the Sox PR machine has been stuck in neutral or reverse for many years. Yes, they have at times been their own worst enemy.

(Sipping my silver and black Kool Aid and slipping into my war-time rhetoric)
But even though we may quibble over the significance of "leadership" (or lack thereof) in "The White House" of Sox ownership and management, that doesn't mean we, Sox Army, can't fight for Sox Nation against the Evil Tribune (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Al Qaeda) Empire.

The two-pronged offensive is the best plan -- keep working on the Sox and encouraging their efforts to reform their PR operations and re-load the team with a better manager and better players, but also keep hammering away at the real enemy -- the Cubs, their insipid lemming fans, their greedy owners and their propaganda outlets: WGN "Tokyo Rose" Channel 9 and The Chicago "Pravda" Tribune.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors. It's the best I can do over lunch...

xil357
10-21-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Peeing on the garden when the house is on fire...

You call it peeing on the garden, I call it the scorched earth tactics of General W.T. Sherman to burn and plow under the fields of pablum from which the Tribune feeds their prized herds of lemming fans. (PHG, will you be our Ulysses S. Grant today?) Sadly we have Warren Harding and not Abe Lincoln as the Sox owner...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by xil357
PHG, will you be our Ulysses S. Grant today?

Sure, xil. "War is hell!"

Was that Grant? Or maybe it was Sherman? All I know is the right side won inspite of that boob McCellan.

:smile:

GoSox2K3
10-21-2003, 01:32 PM
Here's my reply to the Tribune :angry: :

Cub fans and the Tribune are understandably disappointed in their team’s loss to the Marlins. Unfortunately, both have resorted to their trusty old stand-by, Sox fan bashing, to make themselves feel better. (See Oct. 20 “You Win Some, You Lose Some (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0310200043oct20,1,1508413.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed) ” article and Oct. 17 “Voice of the People” from Tom Sheridan (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0310170110oct17,1,3653900.story) ) Almost every Cub fan I have met roots against the Sox - even when they make the playoffs. Yet, there is an outcry from Cub fans and the Trib when Sox fans dare root against their team. It must be nice for Cub fans to be able to follow baseball under this double standard.

It is unfortunate that Cub fans and the Trib continue to perpetuate the myth that Sox fans are uneducated, poor “boneheads”. It is pointless for us Sox fans to explain that this is false because despite any evidence we gather to the contrary, we’ll never convince Cub fans and the Tribune that we are not beneath them. Even if it were true that all Sox fans were poor, I find it appalling that the Trib thinks poverty is funny and proof of a person’s inferiority.

It’ll be another long, cold winter in Chicago without a pennant on either side of town. Luckily for Cub fans and the Tribune, they’ll have their own self-satisfying smugness to warm their hearts until spring.

Sincerely,
An Educated, Middle-Class Sox Fan

alohafri
10-21-2003, 02:46 PM
Maybe we should stop buying the Tribune and subscribe to a newspaper that is more balanced...like Pravda.

bigfoot
10-23-2003, 03:44 AM
A mere suggestion, we must thank the, Northside Fans of Futility for sending the promotion department a perfect media campaign slogan. US Cellular becomes...The BoneYard!!!!!!!..i.e. Welcome to The BoneYard, prepare to be buried! Boneheads Back Bartolo!! ETC!!!! There is already the Dog Days promo and so many other Poor/Bone possibilities can be mined from the thoughtless musings of a, soon to be out of work Trib writer. Perhaps he/she will catch on trimming the weeds on the walls at Weedly Field. Or rewiring the drunk-catcher/basket to include the right & left field lines(to save other Bartmen from certain death). If only the Sox could find a place for Lance Johnson on the staff.

DrCrawdad
10-23-2003, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by bigfoot
...Or rewiring the drunk-catcher/basket to include the right & left field lines(to save other Bartmen from certain death)...

On all three games of the Cubbies vs. White Sox at The Cell next year we need to pay the Sox the $40 it costs to post this message:

WHITE SOX INTERACTIVE WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN.

If they won't put WSI on the scoreboard then let's just send a welcome to Mr. Bartman as a little dig to our friends on the Northside.

:D:

jabrch
10-23-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
On all three games of the Cubbies vs. White Sox at The Cell next year we need to pay the Sox the $40 it costs to post this message:

WHITE SOX INTERACTIVE WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN.

If they won't put WSI on the scoreboard then let's just send a welcome to Mr. Bartman as a little dig to our friends on the Northside.

:D:

Great idea...if we are passing the hat around let me know. I'm in for $10. 11 more people at $10 each and we got messages!!!!

MarqSox
10-23-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
On all three games of the Cubbies vs. White Sox at The Cell next year we need to pay the Sox the $40 it costs to post this message:

WHITE SOX INTERACTIVE WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN.

If they won't put WSI on the scoreboard then let's just send a welcome to Mr. Bartman as a little dig to our friends on the Northside.

:D:
They won't put that up. They reserve the right to deny scoreboard messages that aren't in good taste, and they'll rule that one fits the bill. Funny idea though.

DrCrawdad
10-23-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
They won't put that up. They reserve the right to deny scoreboard messages that aren't in good taste, and they'll rule that one fits the bill. Funny idea though.

Well maybe it will pass by the censors since "welcome Steve Bartman" isn't necessarily in bad taste or maybe they'll not remember who Bartman is.

It's worth a try. And I'm in for the money too!

washington
10-23-2003, 09:15 AM
It seems like half the messages they put up there have misspellings or other errors. Maybe they won't even notice Bartman's name if someone asks them to post it

cheeses_h_rice
10-23-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
On all three games of the Cubbies vs. White Sox at The Cell next year we need to pay the Sox the $40 it costs to post this message:

WHITE SOX INTERACTIVE WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN.

If they won't put WSI on the scoreboard then let's just send a welcome to Mr. Bartman as a little dig to our friends on the Northside.

:D:

Me likey. I pledge $10 to the cause!

DrCrawdad
10-23-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Me likey. I pledge $10 to the cause!

I'm probably wrong about the price but whatever it is it'll be worth it.

voodoochile
10-23-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
On all three games of the Cubbies vs. White Sox at The Cell next year we need to pay the Sox the $40 it costs to post this message:

WHITE SOX INTERACTIVE WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN.

If they won't put WSI on the scoreboard then let's just send a welcome to Mr. Bartman as a little dig to our friends on the Northside.

:D:

If you get grief about the message, try

"FLYINGSOCK.COM WELCOMES STEVE BARTMAN!"

davenicholson
10-23-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Sure, xil. "War is hell!"

Was that Grant? Or maybe it was Sherman? All I know is the right side won inspite of that boob McCellan.

:smile:
Oh, let me be William Tecumseh Sherman! Please!?!?

You are absolutely right about McClellan!!! Some comparisons have been made with him and a certain other modern ex-general, but I digress...

I became somewhat of a fan of Civil War history, and have since read several books about Sherman, and he has become one of my true heroes of that era. Although the South remembers him as one who plundered their countryside, the fact is that he saved perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives by prosecuting the war the way he did. Contrast this with the human meat grinders that Grant, or that saint of the South, Lee used as "strategy" in the East.

OK, I'll stop my Civil War geekiness before I get too involved in casualty comparisons, motivations, etc. Here's what Sherman actually said (two separate quotes)
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengance, more desolation. ...War is all hell.
And:
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

OK, I'll stop now.

TornLabrum
10-23-2003, 08:42 PM
The stuff about McClellan reminded me of something I wrote recently about Gen. Disarray to the effect that if there was any Civil War general he could be compared to, it was McClellan.

No matter what he had in the way of troops, he never could get started until it was far too late.

MRKARNO
10-23-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The stuff about McClellan reminded me of something I wrote recently about Gen. Disarray to the effect that if there was any Civil War general he could be compared to, it was McClellan.

No matter what he had in the way of troops, he never could get started until it was far too late.

This analogy is perfect. McClellan kept waiting and waiting. He needed to gather more troops because he overestimated the enemy. And one he got enough troops, he needed more because the reports were that the enemy forces were getting bigger. By the time he was finally ready to fight, it was too late to do anything