PDA

View Full Version : 2 Sox Columns in Sunday Sun-Times


Viva Magglio
04-17-2004, 05:11 PM
In today's bulldog edition of the Sunday Sun-Times, both Rick Telander and Jay Mariotti have columns about the White Sox. Since the bulldog edition is not online, I'll have to post selected quotes from both.

In "Do the math: More interest in Cubs than Sox," Telander opens his column with common complaints by White Sox fans about the media:

"We hear it all the time in the Chicago newspaper business.

'You guys don't like the White Sox!'

'You only write about the Cubs!'

'You play up the Cubs over the Sox!'

First, none of those accusations is true.

Second, maybe it's time we looked to see whether maybe they should be true."

Really, it is not a total character assassination column by Telander. The basic theme of Rick's column (as I see it) is that because the Cubs draw more than we do, greater media coverage of them is may be justified. In fairness to Telander, he does mention positive attributes about the White Sox such as having...

"...better parking facilities, a redesigned park, better food, better restrooms, better amusements for kids, a good team and a charismatic new manager."

Rick mentions other positive attributes as well, but it's just that theme of the column that bothers me. The fact that the Cubs draw more fans to Wrigley Field than we do to USCF should be a moot point. As we have said millions of times already, the Cubs will always have a drawing advantage because of the amenities around Clark & Addision, many people who are not necessarily baseball fans just go there to be there, etc. What difference does it make that they have more fans than we do?

Second, I dispute the notion by Rick that the pro-Cubs/anti-Sox bias in the media is false. Sure, there are some local media members who I believe are fair. Yet, the overall tone is a favorable one to the Cubs. While the media generally brushes Cub fan misbehavior aside, we still see the media talking about bad incidents at our ballpark a year ago in the form of a Greg Couch column this week. The bias is there, and anyone who disputes its presence is kidding his or herself.

Now for Jay Mariotti, whose column "Thomas' selfish streak rears its ugly head" is practically a rewrite of Mariotti's previous anti-Sox columns. Sure, Jay inserts good obvious points that only a complete moron would dispute such as...

"What's troubling about Thomas' latest money-related hissy fit is that it rages in teh season's opening month, and seems a direct response to contract talks involving Magglio Ordonez."

And...

"[Thomas] looks bad compared to Ordonez, who has done little contract posturing and declined comment about the situation after his game-winning home run Thursday. Thomas' remarks also cause some uncomfortable feelings for three key players - Paul Konerko, Jose Valentin and pitcher Esteban Loaiza - who are due to become free agents after the season."

This situation really is Frank's fault. My position on this issue is "Frank, ****." But why does it take something like this for Mariotti to pen a column about us? He said very little about our sweep of Kansas City or how we played well against New York. This is a pure example of how Mariotti decends upon the White Sox like a vulture when something negative happens.

Joel Perez
04-17-2004, 05:15 PM
Since when has The Moron had ANYTHING positive to say about anything that is Chicago?

He does what he does--a negative, egotistical, ready-to-point-the-finger-at editorial columnist. And he gets paid for doing it because it sells papers, and the ST realizes it.

He's still a toad IMO.

MarqSox
04-17-2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Joel Perez
Since when has The Moron had ANYTHING positive to say about anything that is Chicago?

He does what he does--a negative, egotistical, ready-to-point-the-finger-at editorial columnist. And he gets paid for doing it because it sells papers, and the ST realizes it.

He's still a toad IMO.
Um, every day. About the Flubs. I wish they weren't from Chicago, but unfortunately, wishing it doesn't make it so.

batmanZoSo
04-17-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
[QUOTE]t rages in [B]teh season's opening month


That's definitely a Mariotti column. :smile:

Orta 4-6-3
04-17-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
In today's bulldog edition of the Sunday Sun-Times, both Rick Telander and Jay Mariotti have columns about the White Sox. Since the bulldog edition is not online, I'll have to post selected quotes from both.

In "Do the math: More interest in Cubs than Sox," Telander opens his column with common complaints by White Sox fans about the media:



Really, it is not a total character assassination column by Telander. The basic theme of Rick's column (as I see it) is that because the Cubs draw more than we do, greater media coverage of them is may be justified. In fairness to Telander, he does mention positive attributes about the White Sox such as having...



Rick mentions other positive attributes as well, but it's just that theme of the column that bothers me. The fact that the Cubs draw more fans to Wrigley Field than we do to USCF should be a moot point. As we have said millions of times already, the Cubs will always have a drawing advantage because of the amenities around Clark & Addision, many people who are not necessarily baseball fans just go there to be there, etc. What difference does it make that they have more fans than we do?

Second, I dispute the notion by Rick that the pro-Cubs/anti-Sox bias in the media is false. Sure, there are some local media members who I believe are fair. Yet, the overall tone is a favorable one to the Cubs. While the media generally brushes Cub fan misbehavior aside, we still see the media talking about bad incidents at our ballpark a year ago in the form of a Greg Couch column this week. The bias is there, and anyone who disputes its presence is kidding his or herself.

Now for Jay Mariotti, whose column "Thomas' selfish streak rears its ugly head" is practically a rewrite of Mariotti's previous anti-Sox columns. Sure, Jay inserts good obvious points that only a complete moron would dispute such as...



And...



This situation really is Frank's fault. My position on this issue is "Frank, ****." But why does it take something like this for Mariotti to pen a column about us? He said very little about our sweep of Kansas City or how we played well against New York. This is a pure example of how Mariotti decends upon the White Sox like a vulture when something negative happens. :gulp:

SoxBoy14
04-17-2004, 07:01 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't read the newspaper.

MarqSox
04-17-2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by SoxBoy14
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't read the newspaper.
Who says we're becoming an uninformed electorate? I hope you at least read the front page now and then.

Orta 4-6-3
04-17-2004, 07:21 PM
Sorry I Kotched my last post. In regard to Sox/Cubs coverage, my gripe has always been more about the tone than the volume. Sad to say, there appears to be more Cubs fan than Sox fans, so that may very well justify more Cub articles. But Sox coverage for both the print and electronic media is done so begrudgingly most of the time. It seems that they are waiting for the slightest bit of Cub optimism to build them up, and for some Sox mishap to justify relegate them to page three. The Flubbies winning back-to-back games gets just as much play as a Sox 10 game winning streak. With all that focus on that idiot who ran on the field last year, triggering the segregation of the upper deck, it was glossed over that he was a Cub fan who got tanked at Wrigley that afternoon. While this caused much negative stereotyping of Sox fans, there is never any mention about all the public urination, et al, in Wrigleyville before, during and after Cubs game.

All kidding and partisanship aside, the history of Chicago baseball is pretty disgraceful. Neither team has much to brag about. Having said that, as bad as we've been, they have been worse. That makes the Laker/Clipper disparity in media coverage so frustrating.:gulp:

NonetheLoaiza
04-17-2004, 07:22 PM
ya know what really makes me mad? they took kornheiser off espn1000 for mariotti...mariotti followed by jim rome. wow, theres 6 hours of dead air time.

TDog
04-17-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by SoxBoy14
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm glad I don't read the newspaper.


Really, you should read newspapers. You just shouldn't read the the sports section.

ChiSox14305635
04-17-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by NonetheLoaiza
ya know what really makes me mad? they took kornheiser off espn1000 for mariotti...mariotti followed by jim rome. wow, theres 6 hours of dead air time.


Switch over to Boers and Bernstein on the Score, if not for any other reason then to hear them crap on idiotic Cub fans.

rahulsekhar
04-17-2004, 09:40 PM
What's interesting is that in a VERY positive early stretch for the Sox with clutch hitting, good starting pitching, wins against tough teams, great attitude and heart.....Mariotti's written (I believe) 3 Sox-related columns:
1) Opening Day debacle (I'm not sure about this - it may only be 2 columns and this might be my bad memory)

2) After Maggs GWHR - article on how the Sox need to resign him. No mention of the heart the team showed with comebacks 2 days in a row

3) Anti-Frank

Nothing written up on the change to Ozzie, the winning by the team, the great start, etc....


And this guy has the balls to continue to say that he's "fair to both teams"??? I guess in his defense it's probably hard to see well with his head so far up Sham-ME's rectum.

What's sad is that his standing in the ST and column placement makes the crap that he writes gospel to a large portion of the reading public.

hsnterprize
04-17-2004, 10:23 PM
You pretty much beat me to posting about these articles. You also iterate my points about how the Cubs/Sox attendance subject is a "moot point" and that Frank should just shut up about his salary problems.

As far as the attendance thing is concerned, I'll first of all say as a member of the media that there are people who legitimately try to be fair to both teams. However, like you said, there are SO MANY people in the press who are Cubs fans that anything good coming from the north side will need about 10 positive things from the south to get fair play. Granted, the Cubs/Sox home openers were definitely an exception in this case...the Cubs were embarrassed at home Monday while the Sox rolled over KC on Tuesday. However, when the Wednedsay and Thursday attendance figures were mentioned in the piece, I thought as you, "I wonder just how many people are there for the Wrigley aspect of attending a Cubs game rather than the team itself." It seems like the Sun-Times is beating a dead horse so many times, I think I used some of the glue to fix a couple of cracks on my fender. We've said over and over again on this site that attendance is generally low for April day games...there isn't much of a novelty to them, and many people actually have to work, and they can't afford to take days off all the time.

Funny...but I do remember in that piece Telander saying the "scientific" person he had to actual surveys to figure out why so many people go to Wrigley vs. the Cell did not factor in things like incomes, social classes, and other topics we regularly discuss here on WSI. He did say, however, there's an undeniable desire for Cubs fans to see their team the Sox fans' don't measure up to. This person said that until the 80's, the Sox were outdrawing the Cubs. Gee...no mention in the article about the Tribune company's transformation of turning a ballpark destined for the wrecking ball to the "world's largest frat party", to "Beautiful Wrigley Field", to any other cliche' used by Cubs fans to justify why they think their team is so much better than ours. How many times have we written on this board about the real goings on when it comes to Wrlgley? Why don't these reporters have ebough cohones to do some legitimate research instead of perpetuating the same Cubbie-lovin' garbage over and over again? It's just mind-boggling.

When it comes to Frank Thomas, he's my favorite player, but I'd tell him it would be best not to publicly comment on salary issues. Whether or not its fair, the bottom line is that the Big Hurt has a reputation for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. This could not have come at a worse time since most of the attention towards the Sox is so positive. Granted, Frank may not be as content when he picks up his check ont he 1st and 15th of each month, but he's still making more in 2 weeks than most of the people paying to watch him play will make in years. Frank...we love ya, but please...shut up about the contract problems. Keep them in the clubhouse before people like Moronotti continually razz you for speaking out.

Frankfan4life
04-18-2004, 12:58 AM
I'd like to use the NBA as an example of how the Chicago media over-hypes the importance of attendance. The top 10 NBA teams in attendance in 2004 are:

Detroit
Dallas
Chicago
Philadelphia
Utah
New York
Lakers
Toronto
Cleveland
San Antonio

Five of those teams did not even make the playoffs (and you know how easy it is to make an NBA playoff). Based on attendance alone, the media should have focused more on Detroit, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia and Utah (the top five teams in attendance). Of those teams, only two made the playoffs. How many people know that New Jersey ranked 26 out of the 29 NBA teams in attendance? Or, that four of the teams in the playoffs ranked in the bottom 10 in attendance? How many people thought the Lakers or San Antonio were at least 1st or 2nd in attendance?

So why is the Chicago media more focused on attendance than winning in terms of the two Chicago baseball teams? It doesn't make sense. The team with the best winning record is the team that should get the most press. If attendance had any effect on whether a team wins or loses, then the Marlins would not have stood a chance of winning the WS last year. They ranked 28 of out the 30 MLB teams in attendance (and I'm sure they picked up a lot more fan support toward the end of the season because they were certain to make the playoffs, otherwise they could have fared even worse). I wish the media would turn its attention to the most important stat in sports, which is winning.

I'm not trying to say that attendance is not important; it is, with the revenue it generates, a team can invest in better players, facilities, etc., and it's a lot more fun having a packed stadium. I'm glad the Bulls are still drawing well after six losing seasons, but should they get more attention for that or for how they played?

DrCrawdad
04-18-2004, 07:39 AM
The media didn't roast Baker for the gaffe (that gaffe being an improper double switch), perhaps another sign Chicago is a Cubs town. Does that notion bother Guillen?

''No. It is [a Cubs town],'' Guillen said. ''I mean, we have our [home] opener, my first one in my hometown as manager, and we have one or two pages in the paper. And the Cubs lose the game, and it's 45 pages. That's OK. I like that. Maybe Jerry [Reinsdorf] doesn't like it, but I like to be the underdog -- that way you can sneak in.'' - Sun-Times, April 18 2004 (http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-ssep18.html)

34rancher
04-18-2004, 08:28 AM
So why is the Chicago media more focused on attendance than winning in terms of the two Chicago baseball teams? It doesn't make sense. The team with the best winning record is the team that should get the most press. If attendance had any effect on whether a team wins or loses, then the Marlins would not have stood a chance of winning the WS last year. They ranked 28 of out the 30 MLB teams in attendance (and I'm sure they picked up a lot more fan support toward the end of the season because they were certain to make the playoffs, otherwise they could have fared even worse). I wish the media would turn its attention to the most important stat in sports, which is winning.

Two comments:
1. Read and weap (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=misery/standings)

2. Something I learned in high school........
The most popular kids end up being losers in the long run....


What do I care though, I am on strike this season.

wilburwood
04-18-2004, 11:52 AM
Excuse me if I'm wrong here and maybe just a little old---fasioned thinking but is it not the newspapers job to report the NEWS. I agree there may be some legitimacy to writing about attendance from time to time, if it figures into a story. But writing sports news in a newspaper based on attendance kind of defeats the purpose of the paper itself IMO. But more importantly than that its totally unfair to the athletes who work their asses off. IMO reporters should report the facts good or bad. Good grief they are all lowering themselves to the ilk of "CEMENT HEAD" Mariotti, and one of them is more than one town can stomach.

TDog
04-18-2004, 12:21 PM
On the other hand, Roger Ebert will tell people about movies that aren't the top money-earners to let them know what they should be gong to see.

joecrede
04-18-2004, 12:39 PM
For what it's worth, I prefer that Telander never write about the Sox because his previous writings about baseball show he lacks a basic understanding of the sport. That said, his column today was a piece of garbage.

What I found particularly galling about it was, here's a guy who's written many a column on Northwestern football including at least one on NU spring practice, justifying not writing about something based on attendance(!) What an absolute joke.

BTW, drop him an email as I did, at rick@ricktelander.com

SlipperyPete8
04-18-2004, 12:47 PM
Ballpark attendance is only part of the equation. You also have to take in account the TV and radio ratings, which the Cubs also dominate. Better attendance + Better ratings = More Cubs fans = More Newspaper Customers = More Media Coverage = More $$$ . It's all about the Money. That's what makes it a business and not some unbiased charitable organization trying to make everyone happy. Until Sox fans not only fill up the stadium, but also start watching and listening to more games, the Cubs will dominate the headlines.

Daver
04-18-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by SlipperyPete8
Ballpark attendance is only part of the equation. You also have to take in account the TV and radio ratings, which the Cubs also dominate. Better attendance + Better ratings = More Cubs fans = More Newspaper Customers = More Media Coverage = More $$$ . It's all about the Money. That's what makes it a business and not some unbiased charitable organization trying to make everyone happy. Until Sox fans not only fill up the stadium, but also start watching and listening to more games, the Cubs will dominate the headlines.



Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

SlipperyPete8
04-18-2004, 12:50 PM
Thank you sir.

Lip Man 1
04-18-2004, 02:01 PM
First off...an important distinction.

Beat writers and reports do not make the news, they do not pre-judge the news (in a perfect world...). They simply report the news / sports etc.

Newspaper columnists are giving their opinions. It does not have to be factual, it does not have to be relevant. That's why they are properly identified as 'columnists.'

Big difference between the two.

Now...here's a copy of the e-mail I sent to Rick. If he replys, I'll post that also.

Rick:

Always enjoy reading your work. (That SI story you did on your family is one of the best things I've ever read...)

I've been a Sox fan since 1960, when I was five, that's been 43 years now. I'm also a regular contributor to White Sox Interactive (I do the monthly interviews with former players like Carlos May, Jack McDowell, Gary Peters etc.) and the audio / historical pieces (like the Sox of the 50's, 60's, 70's etc.)

If you want to know why there are fewer Sox fans in Chicago, the answer is obvious... Jerry Reinsdorf.

It's easy to dismiss this as a convenient answer, but the reality is that he is the basis for what has happened over the past twenty years.

Go back to SportsVision in 1982 (while the Cubs were still showing their games on 'free TV'), forcing out the individual who almost single handedly revived Cub-dome, Harry Caray. Add the extortion of a stadium that fans subsequently hated, by threatening to move a Chicago-institution to Florida, throw in his hated of the players union (Chicago is a union town you know...) add a large dose of the 1994 strike and splash with a jigger of the White Flag Trade and it doesn't take an economics professor to understand the situation. Also the Sox PR / marketing department hasn't been anything to write home about under the stewardship of former newspaper writer Rob Gallas.

The fact of the matter is that the White Sox are on a treadmill to nowhere until new ownership comes in with fresh ideas, a willingness to spend money and an attitude that the media and fans are 'our' friends and not 'our' enemies.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Most of the thousands of fans who visit White Sox Interactive seem to realize this simple fact clearly enough.

Hope things are going well with you.

Sincerely,
Mark Liptak
mliptak1@ida.net

Joel Perez
04-18-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Frankfan4life
How many people thought the Lakers or San Antonio were at least 1st or 2nd in attendance?

LOL...being and living close to San Antonio, I could tell.

You know, the Spurs do it right though.

Player/community involvement + mass marketing throughout Texas + a winning ball club with players who have character, quality and professionalism + an even more important dynasty in the making = attendance = a winning atmosphere.

You follow that equation, and the people will come. Hands down.

That's how the Spurs, my 2nd favorite NBA team only to Da Bulls, are doing it. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have the only pro sport team (excluding the AHL SA Rampage) in the city. However, this organization has made itself special, like the Bulls did back in the 90s. I wish someday my White Sox would follow suit.

Dan H
04-18-2004, 02:09 PM
Telander's column is nothing but a rehash of Sox fan bashing. It has the usual statement of how mind-boggling Sox attendance problems are. And ironically it comes one day after Cub fans throw garbage on their beloved field once more. The theme of the column is old, and offers no insight into anything. Regardless, if Telander doesn't get it about Sox attendance, he is either stupid or doesn't want to get it. I don't know which one is worse.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-18-2004, 02:17 PM
Fifteen years ago Rick Telander was one of the best writers at Sports Illustrated. It's sad to see how far he has fallen. He simply rehashes one sports cliche after another.

It's as though Telander has been learning at the foot of this guy:

:moron
"Just sell newspapers, Rick. Any publicity is good publicity. Got it?"

Cubbiesuck13
04-18-2004, 02:56 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay18.html


i don't know if anyone has posted the link to mariotti's column so here it is. Most of what he says is true, unfortunatly he has that nail on a chalkboard way of saying it, and of course get his digs in here and there as well.


''No. It is [a Cubs town],'' Guillen said. ''I mean, we have our [home] opener, my first one in my hometown as manager, and we have one or two pages in the paper. And the Cubs lose the game, and it's 45 pages. That's OK. I like that. Maybe Jerry [Reinsdorf] doesn't like it, but I like to be the underdog -- that way you can sneak in.''

this guy has the right idea. he knows what's up. he also said how if he made the double switch gaffe, then he would be roasted, fired and the media would be running him out of town.

Cubbiesuck13
04-18-2004, 03:20 PM
if you can only be a fan if you go to the game, no matter if you don't live anywhere near illinois then i guess all that article makes sense. I am willing to bet that there are more sox fans living abroad than sox fans living in the city. by abroad i mean suburbs too.

Hangar18
04-18-2004, 03:41 PM
He states his conclusion in the Title of his Article. Fine. Now Mr Telander, lets hear his reasoning. He never proves anything.
He correctly mentions that "you only write about the cubs" and "you play up the cubs over the white sox" to which he simply says "none of those accusations is true". OK. What wouldve made his last statement Credible, is if Telander offered up some PROOF as to why "none of those accusations is true".
He never does. He simply decides to see whether the previous reasons "SHOULD BE TRUE". Garbage. He Flim-Flams his way out of proving anything ala Dusty Baker, and simply spews out "facts" that we ALL KNOW TO BE TRUTH already. the CUbs are outdrawing the sox.

He Fails to point out that also, in the early 1980's, Cubpoganda began to be manufactured on a much regular basis. The cubs, though they STUNK, were getting more coverage for .............losing. Anyone remember how suddenly, wrigly became 'Historic'? Anyone remember how fans were being told how "great" the Urinal was, and how "good times" could be had there? Well Mr Telander, thats exactly what happened. THE MEDIA played that joke of a franchise up, and the Fans came. Its been a Decade long Infomercial. Now, he pretends he doesnt know WHY there are more "fans"? Its Garbage like this, that makes stupid flub fans Reinforce the Stereotype that there arent SOX fans.

Case in point, Ozzies comment yesterday..........which is ENTIRELY TRUE. Ozz said if he made that double-switch blunder, he wouldve been run out of town by the Chicago Media. he couldnt be more right. Baker makes the mistake, gets thrown out of the game, and the Media says hes "competitive" and a "fiery manager who sticks up for his players". What a bunch of BULL****. Im sick of the chicago media and everyone who thinks they DONT INFLUENCE PEOPLE here. Who says the Media doesnt affect the White Sox?
2nd Case in Point. Mariotti couldnt wait to write an article SLAMMING Frank. That Thomas Article was COMPLETELY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. per usual for the Chicago Media. We last saw a manufactured story like this by a certain Mike Kiley, and guess who bore the brunt of the story? A former SOX player, and by Extension, the White Sox. Mariotti forgets that Thomas also said Maggs deserves the big contract and the respect because Maggs is the Key to the SOX future. was that mentioned? Nope. Lets just bring up something negative.
Who says the Media isnt cubcentric in this town?

Deadguy
04-18-2004, 03:50 PM
All this negativity about the White Sox, and they just so happen to have the best record in the AL, at the moment.

Imagine the media chaos if we got off to the same kind of start the Phillies have gotten off to.

I didn't bother to read either column, but Mariotti is the reason I cancelled my subscription to the Sun-Times five years ago. I've yet to bother reading a column of his since.

As far as Telender goes, the guy knows nothing about baseball. On the old Sportschannel show, "The Sportswriters on TV", everytime the subject of baseball came up, you could tell from his mannerisms and the tone of his voice that he had absolutely no desire to even discuss baseball. The only things he added to the conversations were just obvious obversations that any idiot (Telender) could pick up on. He could never offer the kind of insight that guys like Gleason, Jauss, and Munson could.

Hangar18
04-18-2004, 03:51 PM
Wheres Rick Telander when you need him? The GFS factor is HUGE in determining if the Media is Truly Unbiased. The GFS stands for Gratuitous Fan Shot. If anyone watched the last 2 games at Tampa, will note there were a whole bunch of SOX fans at the game. How did I know? Well, for one, you could hear the Crowd Cheering SOX hits. Secondly, any foul ball to the seats, or any of the Homers, youd see SOX fans waving and cheering briefly on the TV screen. BUT.................
Did the WGN today and FOX yesterday pan the crowd between each Inning for SOX fans on the Road, like they Gratuitously do for the cubs every Road Game? NO. they didnt. The following is just a Sample of cubpopoganda. The last cub road game, out of 18 possible moments the camera could pan the crowd and show cub fans on the road, they did so all 18 times, always prompting a comment from the announcers "look at all the wonderful cub fans here stoney". The last two games, did they show any SOX fans in the stands? Well, I watched both SOX games, and from the 3rd inning on (when I put the game on last nite), the SOX got ZERO Gratuitious Fan Shots. Zero in 2 games. thats 36 times they come back from a commercial and didnt bother showing any of the fans. And now we know WHY Rick Telander can write columns like this. What a bunch of BS

TDog
04-18-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
First off...an important distinction.

Beat writers and reports do not make the news, they do not pre-judge the news (in a perfect world...). They simply report the news / sports etc....

Unfortunately, in the arrogant world of sports journalism, objectivity is not a valued standard among beat writers.

Hangar18
04-18-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
First off...an important distinction.

Beat writers and reports do not make the news, they do not pre-judge the news (in a perfect world...). They simply report the news / sports etc.

Newspaper columnists are giving their opinions. It does not have to be factual, it does not have to be relevant. That's why they are properly identified as 'columnists.'

Big difference between the two.

mliptak1@ida.net

Hmmmmmm, if thats the Case, how does one explain Mike Kiley?
That guy has been Blurring the Lines between "reporting" news to "manufacturing" propoganda. Look what what he did with the McDowell/Prior/Steroids incident last week.

RichFitztightly
04-18-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Wheres Rick Telander when you need him? The GFS factor is HUGE in determining if the Media is Truly Unbiased. The GFS stands for Gratuitous Fan Shot. If anyone watched the last 2 games at Tampa, will note there were a whole bunch of SOX fans at the game. How did I know? Well, for one, you could hear the Crowd Cheering SOX hits. Secondly, any foul ball to the seats, or any of the Homers, youd see SOX fans waving and cheering briefly on the TV screen. BUT.................
Did the WGN today and FOX yesterday pan the crowd between each Inning for SOX fans on the Road, like they Gratuitously do for the cubs every Road Game? NO. they didnt. The following is just a Sample of cubpopoganda. The last cub road game, out of 18 possible moments the camera could pan the crowd and show cub fans on the road, they did so all 18 times, always prompting a comment from the announcers "look at all the wonderful cub fans here stoney". The last two games, did they show any SOX fans in the stands? Well, I watched both SOX games, and from the 3rd inning on (when I put the game on last nite), the SOX got ZERO Gratuitious Fan Shots. Zero in 2 games. thats 36 times they come back from a commercial and didnt bother showing any of the fans. And now we know WHY Rick Telander can write columns like this. What a bunch of BS

Wouldn't this issue have to deal more with the producer each team's telecast as opposed to an example of a media bias. I gotta imagine that Arnie Harris and James A. Angio (I think those are the producers) can show whatever they want.

Frankfan4life
04-18-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Wheres Rick Telander when you need him? The GFS factor is HUGE in determining if the Media is Truly Unbiased. The GFS stands for Gratuitous Fan Shot. If anyone watched the last 2 games at Tampa, will note there were a whole bunch of SOX fans at the game. How did I know? Well, for one, you could hear the Crowd Cheering SOX hits. Secondly, any foul ball to the seats, or any of the Homers, youd see SOX fans waving and cheering briefly on the TV screen. BUT.................
Did the WGN today and FOX yesterday pan the crowd between each Inning for SOX fans on the Road, like they Gratuitously do for the cubs every Road Game? NO. they didnt. The following is just a Sample of cubpopoganda. The last cub road game, out of 18 possible moments the camera could pan the crowd and show cub fans on the road, they did so all 18 times, always prompting a comment from the announcers "look at all the wonderful cub fans here stoney". The last two games, did they show any SOX fans in the stands? Well, I watched both SOX games, and from the 3rd inning on (when I put the game on last nite), the SOX got ZERO Gratuitious Fan Shots. Zero in 2 games. thats 36 times they come back from a commercial and didnt bother showing any of the fans. And now we know WHY Rick Telander can write columns like this. What a bunch of BS
You're on a roll here Hangar and I'm jumping all over your bandwagon. This post and your previous one were right on. You have the right idea about the media and I don't understand why some others here don't see it. I heard the Sox fans in Tampa too and you are right, the media completely ignored them. How do you think these fans feel after going to the "enemy" ballpark while wearing their Sox gear and screaming their hearts out and then not getting noticed? Of course they're going to feel discouraged instead of encouraged.

Sox fans, it's not all your fault, the media has played a large role in creating the cubs juggernaut while at the same time underming the Sox's fan base by pretending that there are few, if any, "cute, interesting, loyal and/or lovable" Sox fans. I'm afraid, a lot of you have bought the hype.

Frankfan4life
04-18-2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Joel Perez
LOL...being and living close to San Antonio, I could tell.

You know, the Spurs do it right though.

Player/community involvement + mass marketing throughout Texas + a winning ball club with players who have character, quality and professionalism + an even more important dynasty in the making = attendance = a winning atmosphere.

You follow that equation, and the people will come. Hands down.

That's how the Spurs, my 2nd favorite NBA team only to Da Bulls, are doing it. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have the only pro sport team (excluding the AHL SA Rampage) in the city. However, this organization has made itself special, like the Bulls did back in the 90s. I wish someday my White Sox would follow suit.
Yikes, you're not getting my point at all. San Antonio won the NBA championship last year, they were supposed to draw well. But they still did not draw more fans than some of the teams that had miserable finishes last year, like, uh, Da Bulls. My point is, how many times did you see the Bulls showcased on ESPN this year because of their attendance? Let's face it, they were not an interesting team to watch even though they drew well. If the media wants to use attendance to show what teams they should hype, then the Bulls should have been all over ESPN this year. Instead, I saw more Lakers, San Antonio, Sacramento, Cleveland, Houston and Dallas games on ESPN this year. Why? Because they were the most "interesting" teams or had the best chance of "WINNING" the NBA championship, even though they were not necessarily the most popular teams in terms of attendance.

By the way, I hate the Lakers! GO SPURS!!!

miker
04-18-2004, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Frankfan4life
Sox fans, it's not all your fault, the media has played a large role in creating the cubs juggernaut while at the same time underming the Sox's fan base by pretending that there are few, if any, "cute, interesting, loyal and/or lovable" Sox fans. I'm afraid, a lot of you have bought the hype.

The way hacks like Moronotti, Telander and the rest of the pro-Cub Chicago media reiterate the "small fan base -- dangerous neighborhood" propaganda, it would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

joecrede
04-18-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Dan H
Telander's column is nothing but a rehash of Sox fan bashing. It has the usual statement of how mind-boggling Sox attendance problems are. And ironically it comes one day after Cub fans throw garbage on their beloved field once more. The theme of the column is old, and offers no insight into anything. Regardless, if Telander doesn't get it about Sox attendance, he is either stupid or doesn't want to get it. I don't know which one is worse.

Agreed. Not surprisingly, Telander offered nothing new on the topic. Fact is, that article could have been written on February 18 and makes me wonder if he had better things to do on a beautiful Saturday than think of something to write about.

Frankfan4life
04-19-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
Agreed. Not surprisingly, Telander offered nothing new on the topic. Fact is, that article could have been written on February 18 and makes me wonder if he had better things to do on a beautiful Saturday than think of something to write about.
I totally agree. While the Sox are in first place, why write something like that? Sox fans know how bad the attendance is. I'm sick and tired of the Chicago media bashing the Sox while they try to pretend they're not doing it.

I actually e-mailed that jerk. While there are so many other pressing problems in the world, I wonder why I spent the time and effort to do that. But, I guess garbage like that just gets my blood boiling. :angry:

The Sox are in FIRST PLACE, for heaven's sake, and we've got some really interesting, loyal and knowledgeable fans. Please Chicago media write about that!

maurice
04-19-2004, 12:55 PM
To the editors:

Leaving aside Rick Telander's pompous notion that everybody's favorite fourth-place team deserves better media coverage than the first-place White Sox, his alternative contention that the Cubs do not receive better coverage is nothing short of delusional. It is well-documented that the Cubs receive from the Chicago media both more coverage and more favorable coverage.

The good folks at whitesoxinteractive.com have tracked this trend for the past several years. For example, since the beginning of spring training 2004, the Sun-Times and the Tribune have published approximately 57% more articles about the Cubs. Data from previous years also reflect a serious discrepancy.

Additionally, the tone and placement of the coverage is significantly different. The edition in which Mr. Telander's fanciful claim appears is no exception. Following a day when the Cubs lost and the first-place Sox won, Kerry Wood was the most noticeable feature on both the front and back cover. The Sox received only a single line on each. The Sox blurb on the front cover was listed after the Earth-shattering report that "Italians have given up procreation." Accurate and unrebutted examples of Cub media bias were articulated by Sox manager Ozzie Guillen and by several baseball fans, but these rebuttals were confined to pages six and 24 of the sports section. By contrast, pages two and three of the same paper are entirely devoted to columns attacking Sox fans and the best hitter in Chicago history, respectively.

Columns beating dead-horse issues like the absence of fans at a 1:00 p.m. game on a work night are commonplace, continually reaffirming Lee Elia's well-informed conclusion that the Cubs are the team of choice among Chicago's unemployed. The fact that an umpire was assaulted at the Cell is regularly bandied about more than a year later, though the fact that the offender was a Cubs fan is hardly ever mentioned.

To be fair, the Sun-Times regularly publishes dead-horse articles about the Cubs also. However, these articles are uniformly positive, including numerous references to the greatness of Greg Maddux (notwithstanding his 8.62 ERA), the certainty of a Cub World Series (despite their utter failure to provide back-to-back winning seasons since the Nixon administration), and the divinity of the Holy Trinity of Baker, Prior, and Sosa. When Cub fans once again throw trash on the field after a baseless tantrum by their manager, the event is reduced to a single clause in the second half of the last sentence in the eleventh paragraph of the game re-cap, never to be heard from again.

More truthful members of the Chicago media have admitted their bias and some have even taken steps to rectify it. While the owner of the Cubs at least has a financial incentive to libel its competition, the Sun-Times does not and should make every effort to ensure fundamental fairness and objective baseball coverage.

Props to hangar for supplying much of this content and to Mariotti (of all people) for making some of these points in his column today.

iwannago
04-19-2004, 02:40 PM
Marriotti couldn't make a positive comment if his life depended on it. I get sick watching him on ESPN. Thank God I don't get his radio show out here.

thecell
04-19-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Props to hangar for supplying much of this content and to Mariotti (of all people) for making some of these points in his column today.

Props to you for writing a great letter!

maurice
04-19-2004, 05:20 PM
Thanks.

Frankfan4life
04-21-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
Wouldn't this issue have to deal more with the producer each team's telecast as opposed to an example of a media bias. I gotta imagine that Arnie Harris and James A. Angio (I think those are the producers) can show whatever they want.

There is a lot of truth to that and as far as the cubs producers are concerned they have done a masterful job in highlighting the fans, and their announcers have followed suit by making observations about most of the fan shots. This goes a long way in showing how "lovable, interesting and cute" cubs fans are. It is a good PR technique. Fans like getting this kind of recognition and it works to bring in more fans.

This, however, doesn't mean that the White Sox, or any other team for that matter, don't have "cute, interesting or loveable" fans. I just want the reporters to recognize that.

Also, it wouldn't hurt for the Sox to take a page out of the cubs notebook every once in a while. Try doing more fan shots. If it works, why not steal it. The cubs have been doing it for years.