PDA

View Full Version : Hangar, looks like someone in the media has heard you


ChiSox14305635
05-21-2004, 03:21 PM
When Mac, Jurko, & Harry came on, Jurko mentioned how he wondered how Sox fans felt with their being so much coverage given to Prior and his start yesterday how Sox fans had to sift through the paper looking for coverage of the Sox-Twins game. Mac commented on it as well. Could the media bias documented quite well on this website finally be seen by some of the media? Would be nice.

C-Dawg
05-21-2004, 03:29 PM
Maybe the media looked in its collective mirrors and realized the Cubs have been getting the lion's share of the coverage, since, well, about 1910.

On second thought, they are probably too jaded to see it. Cubbie-blue tinted glasses will do that to you.

Baby Fisk
05-21-2004, 03:30 PM
...but did they talk about it in a tone of sarcasm or a tone of self-consciousness?

Realist
05-21-2004, 03:32 PM
I was having a few "pops" with Harry a couple of weeks ago and I told him about this site. I told him to ask Willsy about WSI. Harry seemed fairly intrigued and he may be lurking.

It's not just the members of WSI that see the media discrepencey. I have a friend that's s huge Sox fan that has never been here and he wants to write a book about the media bias the Cubs get.

Keep fighting the good fight, Henry!

SoxFan76
05-21-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by C-Dawg
Maybe the media looked in its collective mirrors and realized the Cubs have been getting the lion's share of the coverage, since, well, about 1910.

On second thought, they are probably too jaded to see it. Cubbie-blue tinted glasses will do that to you.

Now I've only been alive during the Cub-Administration, 1985-present, (you know, kind of like a presidency), but I'm pretty sure the Cubs haven't ALWAYS gotten this kind of media bias. In fact, I believe the White Sox have been Chicago's team for a long time now. Hopefully this is just a faze. I think all this nonsense will blow over when Wrigley is finally put to rest. Not to say Sox fans should stand back and take this crap, we do need to step up, and I'm glad some radio personalities see what all the complaining is about.

Hangar18
05-21-2004, 03:42 PM
I know that Media Types "Lurk" here, because of something WE TALK ABOUT IN HERE, somehow ends up as a topic on a radio show, or is mentioned in passing in a newspaper. Its too much of a coincidence that Some of Moronottis Topics Mirror very closely things we talk about, but thats another story.

Also, I mentioned briefly that a person "in the media" asked me some questions about all of this, my thoughts etc, and said He will Lurk from now On .............

Glad I didnt use Jerry Reinsdorfs philosophy on dealing with
Problems (just ignoring them)

C-Dawg
05-21-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76
But I'm pretty sure the Cubs haven't ALWAYS gotten this kind of media bias. In fact, I believe the White Sox have been Chicago's team for a long time now.

Its been this way for as long as I can remember. At least since the 70s.

I'd wager that only the Blackhawks get less coverage than the Sox, if one were to somehow tally up the grand total of articles over the last 20-30 years.

Frater Perdurabo
05-21-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Glad I didnt use Jerry Reinsdorfs philosophy on dealing with
Problems (just ignoring them)

I'm glad you didn't just ignore the problems, either, Hangar, because your incessant coverage of this issue has given me the basis for the first chapter of my doctoral dissertation. It should be done around, say, 2010. :gulp:

:)

Lip Man 1
05-21-2004, 04:26 PM
During the 50's and until Leo Durocher arrived on the North Side the Sox got the lion's share of coverage because they always had winning seasons, were usually in the pennant race and frankly the Cubs were God awful with 90 and 100 loss seasons commonplace (and remember until 61 they only played 154 games!)

Lip

nlentz88
05-21-2004, 04:52 PM
Although the Blackhawks do receive less coverage than the Sox, there is another pro sport team in Chicago that receives almost NO coverage whatsoever: the Fire.

I must say, though, of all the fan groups in Chicago (Bears, Bulls, Cubs, Sox, Hawks, Fire), Fire fans and Hawks fans are most similar to Sox fans. Cub fans remind me of the Bulls fans from the 90s, i.e. lots of bandwagon jumpers.

When I think about media bias I always get stuck on the chicken and the egg riddle. Did the media bias towards the Cubs create the overwhelming popularity of the Cubs in Chicago and the nation, or did the popularity of the Cubs lead towards media bias? I know it's not that simple, and most likely the two fed off each other and grew to the monster it has become. However, this riddle is valid in today's discussion on media bias in Chicago. Sportswriters have been saying that they give the Cubs more press because they're more popular. But why are they more popular? Certainly the Cubs aren't more popular because they win more games. That's just untrue (although lots of idiot Cub fans think the Cubs won 100 games last year and the Sox won maybe 50). So why are the Cubs more popular? Often people claim that Lake View's vast assortment of restaurants and bars are the reason the Cubs are so popular. But really, who chooses to root for a team based on its home field's proximity to bars and restaurants? No, I think that much of the Cubs popularity rests squarely on the shoulders of the media. And who controls much of the media in Chicago and the nation? The Tribune Company.

Did I just answer my own riddle? :)

Go Sox!

MRKARNO
05-21-2004, 04:55 PM
I'm not surprised they picked up on this. It was SOOOOOOO Blatant today. Sorry, but NO rehab start is front page news. I dont care if it's A-Rod, Bonds, Beltran, etc. Stuff like this makes it even more laughable if somehow the Cubs missed the postseason, which is actually quite possibly.

SoxFan76
05-21-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I'm not surprised they picked up on this. It was SOOOOOOO Blatant today. Sorry, but NO rehab start is front page news. I dont care if it's A-Rod, Bonds, Beltran, etc. Stuff like this makes it even more laughable if somehow the Cubs missed the postseason, which is actually quite possibly.

It is VERY possible. Wood and Prior are out, which could cost them a few games right there. Sosa is out.....maybe that's for the best. But who knows how the 2 aces will come back from their injuries?

Palehose13
05-21-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by ChiSox14305635
When Mac, Jurko, & Harry came on, Jurko mentioned how he wondered how Sox fans felt with their being so much coverage given to Prior and his start yesterday how Sox fans had to sift through the paper looking for coverage of the Sox-Twins game. Mac commented on it as well. Could the media bias documented quite well on this website finally be seen by some of the media? Would be nice.

However, I thought I heard one of them say later in the 3 o'clock hour that the media is supposed to REFLECT interest about teams and not CREATE interest about teams and then stated that he believed that Chicago baseball fans were 75% cub fans. Hence, all the prior strories...and even went on to say that it should have been front page news and not front page of the soprts section.

MRKARNO
05-21-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
However, I thought I heard one of them say later in the 3 o'clock hour that the media is supposed to REFLECT interest about teams and not CREATE interest about teams and then stated that he believed that Chicago baseball fans were 75% cub fans. Hence, all the prior strories...and even went on to say that it should have been front page news and not front page of the soprts section.

Well that makes no sense because I'm sure that 90% of the Sun-Times readers really care exactly how Prior did in his Rehab start. Not all Sun-Times readers are Cubs fans and of the ones that were probably 10% of the Cubs fans are probably aware that there is even a Low-Class A level of the minor leagues, let alone what Prior did against hitters in the lowest level of the minor leagues. That's what I call creating interest in a story that otherwise would have had significantly less interest.

I can't imagine what will happen when Prior makes his first start. They'll probably have a seperate overlapping section like they did for the Cubs playoffs last year

Palehose13
05-21-2004, 06:03 PM
I think it was Jurko who said it, so of course it isn't going to make sense. :D:

JohnJeter
05-21-2004, 06:03 PM
And you're not even considering their offense. Alou is on fire, you know what you'll get with Sosa, but you have guys like Lee and Patterson who aren't performing up to expectations. They have some hitters who are either K-prone or exhibit bad plate discipline.

Not that the Sox don't have similar issues, ahem. Actually the Sox aren't as much K-prone as they are meaningless groundout/GIDP prone, so I'm being fair. Sort of.

The mantra for the offense (yes, Chip intoned it postgame today) is "once everyone's healthy. . .".

On the positive side, Barrett's a nice surprise, but some of these guys look terrible up there. Doesn't help when The Immortal Sergio Mitre coughs up a ton and makes a stupid defensive play.

Oh well, all will be fine once Prior gets back.

MRKARNO
05-21-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by JohnJeter

Oh well, all will be fine once Prior gets back.

First of all, you do know that this is WHITE SOX interactive, not Cubs Interactive (not that Cubs fans could sustain a board with this level of conversation) and second of all, this is a thread about Media Bias, not about the Cubs offense. Talk about the Cubs offense belongs in the Parking Lot.

JohnJeter
05-21-2004, 06:39 PM
My post was a natural outgrowth of what was being discussed, but I appreciate your hall-monitor vigilance.

The topic should have been moved much earlier by your criteria.

Yeesh.

bigdommer
05-21-2004, 06:49 PM
I just assume put up with the newspaper bias. It's a lost cause. But I was surprised to see Wood and Prior get so much pub on Sportscenter last night. They got more pub and earlier pub then the Sox-Twins game. Hmm....a battle for first place in the division or two guys who aren't pitching in the majors...the average fan could give a steaming poo about two guys on the DL.

Hangar18
05-22-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by nlentz88

When I think about media bias I always get stuck on the chicken and the egg riddle. Did the media bias towards the Cubs create the overwhelming popularity of the Cubs in Chicago and the nation..............

Did I just answer my own riddle? :)


In answer to your question, YES. The Corporate Media Behemoth that owns the other Team up north, gave 2 and 3 times MORE Coverage in hopes of, and Inevitably Succeeding, in Creating an Overwhelming "interest" in that team. They've successfully done this for over 20 years. To hear some "media" types alternately say There-Isnt-a-Media-Slant favoring the other team to Well-we-cover-them-because-theyre-more-popular.

The Tribune article from early in the Week is a Prime Example.
The article tells everyone that a certain Messiah is going to be making a spot start, and explains to everyone WHO the Team is, WHAT theyre association is to other team, WHEN the game was to take place, WHERE the game was, complete with directions and drive times from Chicago, WHY the game was being played, and HOW to get tickets, complete with ph numbers, prices and seating capacity charts. Tribune went one step further by inserting a classic "Kiley-ism" by suggesting
that Tickets would go FAST, implying readers to hurry up, call for tickets, fill the tank, and HELP CREATE A STORY.

Another Unbelievable effort on the part of a Media Giant trying to PROMOTE its product, blurring the lines between REFLECTING the news and CREATING the news.

TornLabrum
05-22-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
In answer to your question, YES. The Corporate Media Behemoth that owns the other Team up north, gave 2 and 3 times MORE Coverage in hopes of, and Inevitably Succeeding, in Creating an Overwhelming "interest" in that team. They've successfully done this for over 20 years. To hear some "media" types alternately say There-Isnt-a-Media-Slant favoring the other team to Well-we-cover-them-because-theyre-more-popular.

The Tribune article from early in the Week is a Prime Example.
The article tells everyone that a certain Messiah is going to be making a spot start, and explains to everyone WHO the Team is, WHAT theyre association is to other team, WHEN the game was to take place, WHERE the game was, complete with directions and drive times from Chicago, WHY the game was being played, and HOW to get tickets, complete with ph numbers, prices and seating capacity charts. Tribune went one step further by inserting a classic "Kiley-ism" by suggesting
that Tickets would go FAST, implying readers to hurry up, call for tickets, fill the tank, and HELP CREATE A STORY.

Another Unbelievable effort on the part of a Media Giant trying to PROMOTE its product, blurring the lines between REFLECTING the news and CREATING the news.

And don't forget the 50 press passes that were issued for that game. I'll bet a whole bunch of them were from rival newspapers.