PDA

View Full Version : Hangar18...KEEP IT UP...YOUR MESSAGE IS GETTING OUT!


hsnterprize
05-07-2004, 09:16 PM
Let me be the first in the Chicago media, as a news and sports reporter for a major radio station and a state-wide news network (WMBI-FM and the Illinois Radio Network respectfully), to acknowledge and more importantly THANK Hangar18 for his "relentless pursuit of the truth" in his monitoring the coverage of the Sox and Cubs. After seemingly countless posts about the "bias" towards the Cubs that has gone either unheeded, laughed at, or criticized, it is now a fact that the Chicago media KNOWS and admits to about this bias they so smugly have denied for so long.

Tonight on WTTW-11's "Chicago Tonight" (a local PBS program where a commentator talks to members of the local media about news and sports issues for those of you who aren't from Chicagoland), both ESPN Radio's Bruce Levine and NBC-5 Political Editor Dick Kay both admit to the bias towards the Cubs. Levine responded to host Joel Weisman (a prominent member of the local media and an agent to many high-profile reporters in the city) about how the teams are covered. He specifically said, "Is there a bias towards the Cubs." Both Levine and Kay, the only 2 to speak on the subject, said YES!!!!!! Levine said the Tribune sends up to "5" reporters to Wrigley Field to "cover stories that don't exist", and Kay said in response to Rick Telander's column about "there's no bias in the Chicago media towards the Cubs" that on the day that article came out, there was a front AND back page picture of a Cub, while he had to dig to find a Sox picture. Kay and Weisman said that was "unfair."

Now, I didn't hear the Boers and Bernstein show on the Score, but according to Hangar, both of them ripped both the Cubune and the Cub-Times for their lack of "front-page" coverage about the shooting outside of Wrigley Field. Now, in fairness to the situation, I'll say for the record that the shooting could've happened ANYWHERE, but it happened across the street from "beautiful" Wrigley Field. Now...Hangar's posts quoted Boers and Bernstein saying if the shooting happened outside U.S. Cellular Field, the events would've made front page news. But since it happened outside Wrigley, the Tribune wanted to protect it's product's image by only having it on page 3. HALLELUJAH!!!!!! The word in FINALLY getting out to the masses.

Of course, there are always going to be people who'll either not want to believe it, or not care as long as it's THEIR TEAM (i.e., the Cubs) who are getting the biased, favorable coverage. We Sox fans have known about such biases for years, but now, with the Cubs in the limelight they're in, as well as the recent shooting by Wrigley, is the word getting out. When a radio caller said he's finally starting to understand that Sox fans are complaining about, that's worthy of a "YES!!!!!"

So Hangar, if I ever make it big in this one-horse town, I'll make sure to acknowledge you as a reason why I'm more aware of what's going on as far as Sox/Cubs coverage is concerned. At least this member of the media isn't going to act like he's high and mighty and deny what's obvious. Now, it's up to our team to help do something about this discrepancy by winning, and winning BIG!!!!!

In the meantime, keep up the good work, Hangar. This member of the "elitist" media appreciates your efforts.

1951Campbell
05-07-2004, 10:10 PM
The real question is, now that there seems to have been a sudden--very sudden--confession/acknowlegdement of the bias, what will the long-term effects be? Is some dad going to decide take his two kids to the Cell instead of Wrigley this summer and sell those Cubs tickets? Will there be more stories about Sox baseball now? Will Cub attendance dip? Will there be more cops around Wrigley (in another thread, someone quoted a cop the poster knew as saying "as soon as it gets warm, there will be a riot")?

These are all interesting questions, but somehow I lean towards the idea that this incident will die down rather quickly. It's a barnburner on sportsblab radio for a week or so and then poof! gone. But then again, I don't live in Chicago, so my perspective is clearly not the best.

DGSWR81
05-07-2004, 10:45 PM
Nice job. :smile:

Hangar18
05-08-2004, 09:49 AM
Thanks Hsnterprize. Alas, I am only one man ........ I think its important that EVERY SOX fan know that this is going on, and not to Ignore or Accept this bias. JReinsdorf has "accepted" this for 20 something years, and look what its gotten us

Viva Magglio
05-08-2004, 10:01 AM
For a reporter of Dick Kay's stature to say that a pro-Cubs bias exists is significant.

daveeym
05-08-2004, 11:52 AM
This is what's going to happen. 1. Some families will decide to go to comiskey to avoid the drunken revelry. Probably not anything significant but it will begin to happen and slowly expand.

2. The city of chicago, cops and cubs will continue on as usual, maybe a week of citations for stumbling drunks in the area but i doubt even that.

3. Another incident occurs, I'm thinking pretty good sized brawl in front of hi tops and someone gets maimed by falling out the 2nd floor windows there, and it's jumped all over by the media.

4. The cubs start tanking, the city says ok they're not making it to the playoffs, and starts ARRESTING stumbling drunks that offer any problem after games.

5. The Cubbie Heaven has ended the sox make the playoffs, build new officespace above a strip of bars and restaurants in the parking lot off of 35th, unfortunately lose in the early rounds, but have changed the tide and go on to 3 WS wins in the next 5 years with sellout crowds.

rahulsekhar
05-08-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by 1951Campbell
The real question is, now that there seems to have been a sudden--very sudden--confession/acknowlegdement of the bias, what will the long-term effects be? Is some dad going to decide take his two kids to the Cell instead of Wrigley this summer and sell those Cubs tickets? Will there be more stories about Sox baseball now? Will Cub attendance dip? Will there be more cops around Wrigley (in another thread, someone quoted a cop the poster knew as saying "as soon as it gets warm, there will be a riot")?

These are all interesting questions, but somehow I lean towards the idea that this incident will die down rather quickly. It's a barnburner on sportsblab radio for a week or so and then poof! gone. But then again, I don't live in Chicago, so my perspective is clearly not the best.

No impact on Cubs attendance, until/unless another incident happens. At that point media will be forced to give it proper coverage. That will deter some families, who may well opt for Sox games (but the message will have to get out that Bridgeport is safe, otherwise they'll just stay home).

What IMO will happen is that we'll start to see fairer coverage of the Sox (it's already started, with fewer items focusing on the negative aspects of games & players). That won't have any short term effect, but if the Sox continue to win and the coverage is fair, it will start to build back the image of theteam in the general public's eye.

It's a start, and gives a more even playing field. But the Sox need to take advantage of it and the fans need to keep the pressure on the media to keep this "revelation" from blowing over.

IA_soxfan
05-08-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
This is what's going to happen. 1. Some families will decide to go to comiskey to avoid the drunken revelry. Probably not anything significant but it will begin to happen and slowly expand.

2. The city of chicago, cops and cubs will continue on as usual, maybe a week of citations for stumbling drunks in the area but i doubt even that.

3. Another incident occurs, I'm thinking pretty good sized brawl in front of hi tops and someone gets maimed by falling out the 2nd floor windows there, and it's jumped all over by the media.

4. The cubs start tanking, the city says ok they're not making it to the playoffs, and starts ARRESTING stumbling drunks that offer any problem after games.

5. The Cubbie Heaven has ended the sox make the playoffs, build new officespace above a strip of bars and restaurants in the parking lot off of 35th, unfortunately lose in the early rounds, but have changed the tide and go on to 3 WS wins in the next 5 years with sellout crowds.

That sounds wonderful Dave, but you forgot to type it in this color

greenpeach
05-08-2004, 02:09 PM
I was shocked that 790 The Zone in Atlanta mentioned the Wrigley Field homicide on its hourly news update on Friday morning. I guess the word got out, in spite of the local media attempts to ignore it.

ewokpelts
05-08-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
This is what's going to happen. 1. Some families will decide to go to comiskey to avoid the drunken revelry. Probably not anything significant but it will begin to happen and slowly expand.

2. The city of chicago, cops and cubs will continue on as usual, maybe a week of citations for stumbling drunks in the area but i doubt even that.

3. Another incident occurs, I'm thinking pretty good sized brawl in front of hi tops and someone gets maimed by falling out the 2nd floor windows there, and it's jumped all over by the media.

4. The cubs start tanking, the city says ok they're not making it to the playoffs, and starts ARRESTING stumbling drunks that offer any problem after games.

5. The Cubbie Heaven has ended the sox make the playoffs, build new officespace above a strip of bars and restaurants in the parking lot off of 35th, unfortunately lose in the early rounds, but have changed the tide and go on to 3 WS

Are you on crack?
Genewins in the next 5 years with sellout crowds.
Are you on crack?
Gene

Rex Hudler
05-08-2004, 03:51 PM
The reason the Cbus get more coverage than the Sox is that there is more interest in the Cubs, plain and simple. It doesn't help that the Tribune owns the Cubs, but even if it didn't, the coverage would not be a 50/50 proposition.

Media outlets, whether print, radio or television cover the events they feel the majority of their customers want to know about. Like it or not, that is the way it is. The Cubs get more coverage than the Sox. The Yankees get more than the Mets. That's how media works.

It is not your local hometown newpaper in a city of 30,000 where they not only cover local events, but help promote them. That is not the role of media in a larger city. Until the Sox draw as many fans and are as talked about locally and nationally, the interest will be greater on the north side. It's life and the way it is. Don't blame the media, blame the lesser interest in the Sox.

TornLabrum
05-08-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The reason the Cbus get more coverage than the Sox is that there is more interest in the Cubs, plain and simple. It doesn't help that the Tribune owns the Cubs, but even if it didn't, the coverage would not be a 50/50 proposition.

Media outlets, whether print, radio or television cover the events they feel the majority of their customers want to know about. Like it or not, that is the way it is. The Cubs get more coverage than the Sox. The Yankees get more than the Mets. That's how media works.

It is not your local hometown newpaper in a city of 30,000 where they not only cover local events, but help promote them. That is not the role of media in a larger city. Until the Sox draw as many fans and are as talked about locally and nationally, the interest will be greater on the north side. It's life and the way it is. Don't blame the media, blame the lesser interest in the Sox.

You say that it is not the media's job to promote the clubs, but that is precisely what they do. Sports is not news. It is entertainment. A critic reviews every movie whether it is going to be popular or not (and believe me, they can usually tell which ones will be).

In addition, do you believe that the Tribune doesn't promote the Cubs? Do you believe that by trashing the Sox and praising the Cubs, Mariotti is not promoting the Cubs?

BTW, did you actually believe the newspapers when they were saying up until a few weeks ago that they gave equal coverage to the Sox?

rahulsekhar
05-08-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The reason the Cbus get more coverage than the Sox is that there is more interest in the Cubs, plain and simple. It doesn't help that the Tribune owns the Cubs, but even if it didn't, the coverage would not be a 50/50 proposition.

Media outlets, whether print, radio or television cover the events they feel the majority of their customers want to know about. Like it or not, that is the way it is. The Cubs get more coverage than the Sox. The Yankees get more than the Mets. That's how media works.

It is not your local hometown newpaper in a city of 30,000 where they not only cover local events, but help promote them. That is not the role of media in a larger city. Until the Sox draw as many fans and are as talked about locally and nationally, the interest will be greater on the north side. It's life and the way it is. Don't blame the media, blame the lesser interest in the Sox.

15 years ago when attendance was even or even favoring the Sox was the coverage even? I dont' think so (although I ahve no stats to back that up). The fact of the matter is that while the Sox have made many boneheaded moves from a PR standpoint, the obivously slanted media coverage has contributed significantly to the imbalance in the fan bases - led by the Trib's nepotistic coverage of the Urinal and the generally terrible team therein.

Rex Hudler
05-08-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
You say that it is not the media's job to promote the clubs, but that is precisely what they do. Sports is not news. It is entertainment. A critic reviews every movie whether it is going to be popular or not (and believe me, they can usually tell which ones will be).

In addition, do you believe that the Tribune doesn't promote the Cubs? Do you believe that by trashing the Sox and praising the Cubs, Mariotti is not promoting the Cubs?

BTW, did you actually believe the newspapers when they were saying up until a few weeks ago that they gave equal coverage to the Sox?

I won't argue your point on the type of coverage because I am not up there and only read what I get online. But the fact the Cubs get more coverage is the way it is and Sox fans need to get over it. If you want to complain about the quality of coverage, fine. The bottom line is, that when you are on top and more people care about you (in this case, the Cubs are), the coverage you get will be better.

You think you guys get shafted, you should try being UAB. The media here covers them like a red-headed step-child. Alabama is first (45 minutes out of town), Auburn is second (2 hours away) and UAB gets lumped in with everything else.

My point is, media covers where the interest lies, and it is no different in Chicago than many other cities across the US.

daveeym
05-08-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by IA_soxfan


That sounds wonderful Dave, but you forgot to type it in this color


Originally posted by ewokpelts

Are you on crack?
Gene


Ok Number 5 is highly unlikely, but 1-4 is very likely.

fusillirob1983
05-08-2004, 05:40 PM
There's a difference between the White Sox and UAB though. The Sox are a major league baseball team. University of Illinois (Champaign) gets equal, if not more coverage than University of Illinois (Chicago) by Chicago newspapers. Some people may disagree with my view here, and it's just my personal opinion, but I think the UAB thing would be analogous to coverage between the Cubs and a minor league team in the area. I know, for basketball UAB did as well in the tournament as Alabama this year, but it plays in a conference with smaller schools, whereas the Cubs and Sox play on the same level, and thus far neither has shown they're playing better than the other either. It's not like the media has given less coverage to a team that has shown it is clearly worse.

The fact is, both teams are playing opponents at an equal level and neither has shown that they are inferior to the other. There's just as much to say about the Sox as about the Cubs, they're just not doing it. One might argue that there's more Cub fans than Sox fans. Has anyone proven this ever? All attendance proves is that more Cub fans go to games. I'm not saying there definitely aren't more Cub fans, but no test has been done to prove it.

I don't know if you are upset about UAB's lack of coverage media coverage or not, I just thought the analogy wasn't applicable to the Cubs and Sox.

Rex Hudler
05-08-2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by fusillirob1983
There's a difference between the White Sox and UAB though. The Sox are a major league baseball team. University of Illinois (Champaign) gets equal, if not more coverage than University of Illinois (Chicago) by Chicago newspapers. Some people may disagree with my view here, and it's just my personal opinion, but I think the UAB thing would be analogous to coverage between the Cubs and a minor league team in the area. I know, for basketball UAB did as well in the tournament as Alabama this year, but it plays in a conference with smaller schools, whereas the Cubs and Sox play on the same level, and thus far neither has shown they're playing better than the other either. It's not like the media has given less coverage to a team that has shown it is clearly worse.

The fact is, both teams are playing opponents at an equal level and neither has shown that they are inferior to the other. There's just as much to say about the Sox as about the Cubs, they're just not doing it. One might argue that there's more Cub fans than Sox fans. Has anyone proven this ever? All attendance proves is that more Cub fans go to games. I'm not saying there definitely aren't more Cub fans, but no test has been done to prove it.

I don't know if you are upset about UAB's lack of coverage media coverage or not, I just thought the analogy wasn't applicable to the Cubs and Sox.

Like my example or not, the basic premise is the same...... media will cover what they feel is important to the greatest number of their customers. Here college sports is king and UAB, playing in Division I like Alabama and Auburn are treated 2nd class.

The point isn't comparing UAB to the White Sox. The point is comparing an entity that garners less interest in the big picture than someone else. The team that carries more weight in terms of interest will always get the most and best coverage.

That doesn't mean Sox fans have to like it, but until the landscape changes, crowing about the media coverage is a futile endeavor.

Lip Man 1
05-08-2004, 10:17 PM
Rex:

You are exactly correct. In a utopian world things like who draws the most, who shows the most games on national television, who charges the most for tickets, who charges the most for advertising and so forth wouldn't matter.

But the reality is that it does.

Also I'd add treating the media like your enemy and claiming they are responsible for problems that the Sox themselves created and continue to do, doesn't help solve the media / image problem.

Lip

Rex Hudler
05-08-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rex:

You are exactly correct. In a utopian world things like who draws the most, who shows the most games on national television, who charges the most for tickets, who charges the most for advertising and so forth wouldn't matter.

But the reality is that it does.

Also I'd add treating the media like your enemy and claiming they are responsible for problems that the Sox themselves created and continue to do, doesn't help solve the media / image problem.

Lip

No one says they have to like it....... just accept it, and do what you can to change the reason for it...... but bitching and blaming don't help. :)

TornLabrum
05-08-2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
No one says they have to like it....... just accept it, and do what you can to change the reason for it...... but bitching and blaming don't help. :)

If you accept it, you probably would have little reason to want to change it, now would you. Things get changed when people don't accept the status quo.

1951Campbell
05-09-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by daveeym
This is what's going to happen. 1. Some families will decide to go to comiskey to avoid the drunken revelry. Probably not anything significant but it will begin to happen and slowly expand.

2. The city of chicago, cops and cubs will continue on as usual, maybe a week of citations for stumbling drunks in the area but i doubt even that.

3. Another incident occurs, I'm thinking pretty good sized brawl in front of hi tops and someone gets maimed by falling out the 2nd floor windows there, and it's jumped all over by the media.

4. The cubs start tanking, the city says ok they're not making it to the playoffs, and starts ARRESTING stumbling drunks that offer any problem after games.

5. The Cubbie Heaven has ended the sox make the playoffs, build new officespace above a strip of bars and restaurants in the parking lot off of 35th, unfortunately lose in the early rounds, but have changed the tide and go on to 3 WS wins in the next 5 years with sellout crowds.

Now, I may be far away, but even 3 through 5 seem unlikely.

Rex Hudler
05-09-2004, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
If you accept it, you probably would have little reason to want to change it, now would you. Things get changed when people don't accept the status quo.

What part of "just accept it, and do what you can to change the reason for it" was not clear or did you just not read that far? I'll try again.........

Accept the fact it is the way it is and will remain that way unless it gets changed. But it will only change if the underlying reasons for the imbalance change, not because people whine. Complaining that you don't like it will do NO good.

TornLabrum
05-09-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
What part of "just accept it, and do what you can to change the reason for it" was not clear or did you just not read that far? I'll try again.........

Accept the fact it is the way it is and will remain that way unless it gets changed. But it will only change if the underlying reasons for the imbalance change, not because people whine. Complaining that you don't like it will do NO good.

No, acceptance implies resignation. If you accept something as being the case, usually you do nothing to change it. Perhaps the word you should be suing is acknowledge.

Furthermore, the medias scurrying to change their story is tacit acknowledgement on their part that Hangar is indeed right. Had he accepted this as being the way it is, none of this would be going on now. So apparently you are unaware of the recent hoopla in the media since, as you admit, you are not in the area.

Rex Hudler
05-09-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
No, acceptance implies resignation. If you accept something as being the case, usually you do nothing to change it. Perhaps the word you should be suing is acknowledge.

Furthermore, the medias scurrying to change their story is tacit acknowledgement on their part that Hangar is indeed right. Had he accepted this as being the way it is, none of this would be going on now. So apparently you are unaware of the recent hoopla in the media since, as you admit, you are not in the area.

Fine, go ahead and pick apart my word usage...... I still think how I worded it was "acceptable", but hey, to each their own.

This is no secret. The media will certainly acknowledge there is an imbalance. They will also tell you why. Again, whining about it will not change it, because they feel the imbalance is justified. What will change things is the landscape changing, not whining and bitching that "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. Get over it!

voodoochile
05-09-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Fine, go ahead and pick apart my word usage...... I still think how I worded it was "acceptable", but hey, to each their own.

This is no secret. The media will certainly acknowledge there is an imbalance. They will also tell you why. Again, whining about it will not change it, because they feel the imbalance is justified. What will change things is the landscape changing, not whining and bitching that "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. Get over it!

Honestly, why should we? Why should Sox fans accept the discrepancy?

You can see this is working. Papers are changing their coverage. Reporters are openly admitting the bias. Now is NOT the time to back off.

Push harder, Hangar. Fight the good fight. Sox fans everywhere salute you - well, maybe not Rex, but the rest of us are on your side.

TornLabrum
05-09-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Honestly, why should we? Why should Sox fans accept the discrepancy?

You can see this is working. Papers are changing their coverage. Reporters are openly admitting the bias. Now is NOT the time to back off.

Push harder, Hangar. Fight the good fight. Sox fans everywhere salute you - well, maybe not Rex, but the rest of us are on your side.

Rex himself admitted earlier that he's speaking as an out-of-towner. Apparently he is unaware of the changes we're seeing in just the past couple of days.

I just had a terrible thought. Perhaps the reason the Cubune is changing its tone has a whole lot to do with last week's shooting. Perhaps they're thinking that by praising The Cell and the Sox, maybe the undesirable element will make their way south and leave The Shrine alone.

hsnterprize
05-09-2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Rex himself admitted earlier that he's speaking as an out-of-towner. Apparently he is unaware of the changes we're seeing in just the past couple of days.

I just had a terrible thought. Perhaps the reason the Cubune is changing its tone has a whole lot to do with last week's shooting. Perhaps they're thinking that by praising The Cell and the Sox, maybe the undesirable element will make their way south and leave The Shrine alone. GASP!!!!!! Perish the thought...you mean there's a conspiracy to make the "evil", "vile", and "undesirable" element come down to the south side? I thought they were already here!!!!!

I tell ya, Hal...IT'S A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE REVOLUTION!!!!! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!!!!

Hangar18
05-10-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The reason the Cbus get more coverage than the Sox is that there is more interest in the Cubs, plain and simple. Don't blame the media, blame the lesser interest in the Sox.

And how did there come to be "more" cub "fans"? BY DRAMATICALLY PRINTING TWICE as many stories on the CUBS. By Overstating how great Wrigley is. By telling people how bad going to the other park is. By constantly showing the parties on the roofs and in the park at Wrigley. By telling people constantly how historic WRigley is. Do this for a number of years, and "fans" start to believe it..........and start going to the games, even though most have No Idea whats going on at the park (evidenced numerous times)

When something "Bad" happens to the cubs, or wrigley, DOWNPLAY the story, and "bury" the story. The Fact that CNN, ESPN, And OTHER major market news outlets were Covering this story and the Trib/SunTimes were Covering it up.............ONLY PROVED whats been happening in chicago for quite some time.
Now.......theyre in damage control......."isolated incident" "doesnt reflect cub fans" "sox fan was involved" "its still safer here" "incident being overhyped"