PDA

View Full Version : Rockford paper takes a dig at Hangar and whitesoxinteractive.com


pssondacubs
06-07-2004, 12:44 AM
This jerk takes a dig at Hangar18 in the Sunday rag.
An article in the Rockford Register Star from Twins fan Matt Trowbridge. I can't find a link so here's the article titled:
Sox Fans wrong to Complain.
White Sox fans have such a chip on their shoulder over a perceived second-rate status with the Cubs that whitesoxinteractive.com keeps a running tally of the number of stories in the Tribune and Sun-Times on the two teams.
The Cubs get 59% of the stories (768 this season and counting) to the White Sox' 41% (531). A web site columnist complains the "Cubune" and other media tout the NL team because "the Flubs sell tickets and the Flubs sell newspapers."
Gee, no kidding. That's not bias. That's news judgment. Just like football getting bigger play than soccer. In a State that has more Cardinal fans than White Sox fans, According to a Sports Illustrated survey, the Sox get more than their fair share of coverage.


I don't understand some of his points. The Cardinals to Sox fans to name one. Isn't St. Louis just over the border? St. Louis is a one team town. His Flubs sell tickets, newspapers garbage is another. He believes that whom ever has the most fans should get the most coverage. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I believe in fair and balanced coverage. He's wrote for this paper forever mainly because that big newspaper in Minneapolis won't hire him. If anyone wants to contact him his email is:mtrowbridge@registerstartower.com

JRIG
06-07-2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
This jerk takes a dig at Hangar18 in the Sunday rag.
An article in the Rockford Register Star from Twins fan Matt Trowbridge. I can't find a link so here's the article titled:
Sox Fans wrong to Complain.
White Sox fans have such a chip on their shoulder over a perceived second-rate status with the Cubs that whitesoxinteractive.com keeps a running tally of the number of stories in the Tribune and Sun-Times on the two teams.
The Cubs get 59% of the stories (768 this season and counting) to the White Sox' 41% (531). A web site columnist complains the "Cubune" and other media tout the NL team because "the Flubs sell tickets and the Flubs sell newspapers."
Gee, no kidding. That's not bias. That's news judgment. Just like football getting bigger play than soccer. In a State that has more Cardinal fans than White Sox fans, According to a Sports Illustrated survey, the Sox get more than their fair share of coverage.


I don't understand some of his points. The Cardinals to Sox fans to name one. Isn't St. Louis just over the border? St. Louis is a one team town. His Flubs sell tickets, newspapers garbage is another. He believes that whom ever has the most fans should get the most coverage. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I believe in fair and balanced coverage. He's wrote for this paper forever mainly because that big newspaper in Minneapolis won't hire him. If anyone wants to contact him his email is:mtrowbridge@registerstartower.com

The Register-Star isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And you'll find many many people in Rockford who agree with me. There's a reason their circulation has been declining each and every year. I know more people who go out of their way to buy the Sun-Times every day rather than subscribe to the Star. I just wish the Times would deliver up here. I'm stuck with the Cubune.

Dadawg_77
06-07-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
This jerk takes a dig at Hangar18 in the Sunday rag.
An article in the Rockford Register Star from Twins fan Matt Trowbridge. I can't find a link so here's the article titled:
Sox Fans wrong to Complain.
White Sox fans have such a chip on their shoulder over a perceived second-rate status with the Cubs that whitesoxinteractive.com keeps a running tally of the number of stories in the Tribune and Sun-Times on the two teams.
The Cubs get 59% of the stories (768 this season and counting) to the White Sox' 41% (531). A web site columnist complains the "Cubune" and other media tout the NL team because "the Flubs sell tickets and the Flubs sell newspapers."
Gee, no kidding. That's not bias. That's news judgment. Just like football getting bigger play than soccer. In a State that has more Cardinal fans than White Sox fans, According to a Sports Illustrated survey, the Sox get more than their fair share of coverage.


I don't understand some of his points. The Cardinals to Sox fans to name one. Isn't St. Louis just over the border? St. Louis is a one team town. His Flubs sell tickets, newspapers garbage is another. He believes that whom ever has the most fans should get the most coverage. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I believe in fair and balanced coverage. He's wrote for this paper forever mainly because that big newspaper in Minneapolis won't hire him. If anyone wants to contact him his email is:mtrowbridge@registerstartower.com

The reason this guy is full of ****, is we aren't talking about the state, but the City of Chicago.

1951Campbell
06-07-2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The reason this guy is full of ****, is we aren't talking about the state, but the City of Chicago.

No doubt. I hate to say it, but...my Palatine born and bred parents imbued me with a strong sense of "anyone close to St. Louis is not a real Illinoisian."

So piss on SI, Trowbridge, etc.

Frankfan4life
06-07-2004, 01:00 AM
Anytime a jerk like that feels that a first place team doesn't deserve the same or better coverage than a fourth place team, should be writing for the Weekly World News.

His next column: Proof that Martians are Cubs Fans!!! Telescopes found trained on Wrigley Field!!

JB98
06-07-2004, 01:01 AM
As a former sportswriter, I have met Matt Trowbridge on several occasions. He is a fool. Don't waste your valuable time writing to him. Ignore him and hope he goes away.

Iwritecode
06-07-2004, 01:18 AM
I've always thought of the Register Star as Cubune light.

Frankfan4life
06-07-2004, 01:21 AM
The thing that bugs me most is that he comes to this board and picks up on something he finds negative that he can print. Unbelievable!! Then he wonders why we complain about the media. Thanks for proving our point! Knucklehead!

Rex Hudler
06-07-2004, 01:47 AM
He believes that whom ever has the most fans should get the most coverage.

Welcome to how the media works everywhere, not just in Chicago. They give the percentage of coverage to what they feel their readers most want to read. The only time papers cover "local teams" like you want them to, is in a small town paper. They have an investment in the community and the type of coverage is different in that situation.

In the case of cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, NY, Indianapolis, or even Birmingham, they cover what the readers want to read. Whether you agree with their judgement of the numbers or not is a different argument. But to expect equal coverage when there is not equal interest is naive in the expectations of what newspapers or other media outlets are about.

TaylorStSox
06-07-2004, 02:04 AM
First of all.........

Yes, there are more Cardinals fans in Illinois. Go anywhere downstate, and they hate the Cubs, because the Cubs are their favorite team's divisional rival. Much of this state doesn't relate to anything Chicago.

I'm also a huge Illini fan. Most of their fans don't understand why Chicago kids don't go to Illinois. Well, they fail to see that the Chicago metropolitan area is almost like it's own state.

Also......

He has a point. The constant bitching about the Cubs and the media is sickening. I'm saying this as a 4th generation Sox fan. I love this site for the information. I love it because it's full of Sox fans. Although, I can't stand that so much of it is devoted to Cubs talk.

I'm very thankful that the Mods make such a huge effort to move the Cubs threads out of the Clubhouse. Keep up the good work boys. There are still some of us who couldn't care less about the Cubs or the media. We care about the White Sox.

Everyone needs to take a step back and really examine the content of some posters. They're obsessive Cubs talk is a real turn off to many outsiders.

We are the sporting minority in this city. Get over it. Worry about what's on the field. That's all that matters.

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
First of all.........

Yes, there are more Cardinals fans in Illinois. Go anywhere downstate, and they hate the Cubs, because the Cubs are their favorite team's divisional rival. Much of this state doesn't relate to anything Chicago.

I'm also a huge Illini fan. Most of their fans don't understand why Chicago kids don't go to Illinois. Well, they fail to see that the Chicago metropolitan area is almost like it's own state.

Also......

He has a point. The constant bitching about the Cubs and the media is sickening. I'm saying this as a 4th generation Sox fan. I love this site for the information. I love it because it's full of Sox fans. Although, I can't stand that so much of it is devoted to Cubs talk.

I'm very thankful that the Mods make such a huge effort to move the Cubs threads out of the Clubhouse. Keep up the good work boys. There are still some of us who couldn't care less about the Cubs or the media. We care about the White Sox.

Everyone needs to take a step back and really examine the content of some posters. They're obsessive Cubs talk is a real turn off to many outsiders.

We are the sporting minority in this city. Get over it. Worry about what's on the field. That's all that matters.



AMEN!!!!

Navaro's Talent
06-07-2004, 03:12 AM
Wow, this guy should not be a journalist if he thinks that it is okay to give more coverage to one sports team over another because of attendance. He might not realize it, but there was a time not long ago that the Sox had very high attendance numbers. There are many White Sox fans, some who do not go to the games unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that they don't read the papers. Saying that the Cubs deserve more media coverage because they sell more tickets is like saying that one political party deserves more coverage becasue it is the one that more people like. The media need to cover both sides equally, whether it's for politics or sports teams. He's trying to justify giving more coverage to one side, and that is never a good idea in just about any context.

TaylorStSox
06-07-2004, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Navaro's Talent
Wow, this guy should not be a journalist if he thinks that it is okay to give more coverage to one sports team over another because of attendance. He might not realize it, but there was a time not long ago that the Sox had very high attendance numbers. There are many White Sox fans, some who do not go to the games unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that they don't read the papers. Saying that the Cubs deserve more media coverage because they sell more tickets is like saying that one political party deserves more coverage becasue it is the one that more people like. The media need to cover both sides equally, whether it's for politics or sports teams. He's trying to justify giving more coverage to one side, and that is never a good idea in just about any context.

This isn't politics man. It's entertainment. It's not the same.

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
First of all.........

Yes, there are more Cardinals fans in Illinois. Go anywhere downstate, and they hate the Cubs, because the Cubs are their favorite team's divisional rival. Much of this state doesn't relate to anything Chicago.

I'm also a huge Illini fan. Most of their fans don't understand why Chicago kids don't go to Illinois. Well, they fail to see that the Chicago metropolitan area is almost like it's own state.

Also......

He has a point. The constant bitching about the Cubs and the media is sickening. I'm saying this as a 4th generation Sox fan. I love this site for the information. I love it because it's full of Sox fans. Although, I can't stand that so much of it is devoted to Cubs talk.


I think he's talking about you Hangar :o:
I'm very thankful that the Mods make such a huge effort to move the Cubs threads out of the Clubhouse. Keep up the good work boys. There are still some of us who couldn't care less about the Cubs or the media. We care about the White Sox.

Everyone needs to take a step back and really examine the content of some posters. They're obsessive Cubs talk is a real turn off to many outsiders.

We are the sporting minority in this city. Get over it. Worry about what's on the field. That's all that matters.

Navaro's Talent
06-07-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
This isn't politics man. It's entertainment. It's not the same.

I fully understand that politics and sports are entirely different things. My point was not to make politics seem less important, but to show an example of what all media should try to do. If my post reads like that, I apologize because that was not my intention.

I, for one, do not fully believe that it is the intention of all medium forums in Chicago to cover the Cubs more. This Rockford reporter, though, seems to think it is okay to cover one team more because they sell more seats. To him, it's justafiable. I don't look at it that way and neither do many of the journalists I have had the opportunity to talk to. That is why I felt the need to post on this topic; he's going against the opinions of every journalist I've talked to.

As far as the Cubs selling newspapers, I want to see some facts on that before I comment on it. Last time I checked, Sox fans bought newspapers too. And, I do not recall any sort of survey in which this theory that the mere mentioning of the Cubs will sell more papers was proven. If someone knows of a suvery, please let me know.

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
First of all.........

Yes, there are more Cardinals fans in Illinois. Go anywhere downstate, and they hate the Cubs, because the Cubs are their favorite team's divisional rival. Much of this state doesn't relate to anything Chicago.

I'm also a huge Illini fan. Most of their fans don't understand why Chicago kids don't go to Illinois. Well, they fail to see that the Chicago metropolitan area is almost like it's own state.

Also......

He has a point. The constant bitching about the Cubs and the media is sickening. I'm saying this as a 4th generation Sox fan. I love this site for the information. I love it because it's full of Sox fans. Although, I can't stand that so much of it is devoted to Cubs talk.

I'm very thankful that the Mods make such a huge effort to move the Cubs threads out of the Clubhouse. Keep up the good work boys. There are still some of us who couldn't care less about the Cubs or the media. We care about the White Sox.

Everyone needs to take a step back and really examine the content of some posters. They're obsessive Cubs talk is a real turn off to many outsiders.

We are the sporting minority in this city. Get over it. Worry about what's on the field. That's all that matters.


OOOOPPSS I meant to put it here I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT YOU HANGAR :o:

woodenleg
06-07-2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Navaro's Talent
Wow, this guy should not be a journalist if he thinks that it is okay to give more coverage to one sports team over another because of attendance.

The real reason he thinks it's okay is that he, like everyone else who writes for a midwestern paper, would probably like to work for the Tribune some day.

This is just like that article from that kid in Evansville, and that one I posted a while ago from Springfield.

One thing you can say about the Tribune, though, is that at least they don't hire people who write as if they're still working for their high school newspaper. So I think these losers can spare themselves the heartache and give up the brown-nosing.

steff
06-07-2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
First of all.........

Yes, there are more Cardinals fans in Illinois. Go anywhere downstate, and they hate the Cubs, because the Cubs are their favorite team's divisional rival. Much of this state doesn't relate to anything Chicago.

I'm also a huge Illini fan. Most of their fans don't understand why Chicago kids don't go to Illinois. Well, they fail to see that the Chicago metropolitan area is almost like it's own state.

Also......

He has a point. The constant bitching about the Cubs and the media is sickening. I'm saying this as a 4th generation Sox fan. I love this site for the information. I love it because it's full of Sox fans. Although, I can't stand that so much of it is devoted to Cubs talk.

I'm very thankful that the Mods make such a huge effort to move the Cubs threads out of the Clubhouse. Keep up the good work boys. There are still some of us who couldn't care less about the Cubs or the media. We care about the White Sox.

Everyone needs to take a step back and really examine the content of some posters. They're obsessive Cubs talk is a real turn off to many outsiders.

We are the sporting minority in this city. Get over it. Worry about what's on the field. That's all that matters.



Best. Post. Ever.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 09:39 AM
Good catch on that Pssondacub. I read this, and if he
REALLY wanted to make this a good article, he SHOULDVE contacted me. He Didnt. And his article shows WHY he didnt.
This guys a JackAss. The article was meant to be very Kiley-esque in that it was meant to make us look bad without any real reason.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 09:41 AM
and by the way.......its been the "ignoring" of the "bitching" of the media slights (comiskey is dangerous-dont go or wrigleys better-go there instead) that has helped cause this problem.
Im not necessarily complaining anymore......Im Just "Reporting" the "news" also ........

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Navaro's Talent
Wow, this guy should not be a journalist if he thinks that it is okay to give more coverage to one sports team over another because of attendance. He might not realize it, but there was a time not long ago that the Sox had very high attendance numbers. There are many White Sox fans, some who do not go to the games unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that they don't read the papers. Saying that the Cubs deserve more media coverage because they sell more tickets is like saying that one political party deserves more coverage becasue it is the one that more people like. The media need to cover both sides equally, whether it's for politics or sports teams. He's trying to justify giving more coverage to one side, and that is never a good idea in just about any context.

Best Post ..... Ever.

Blueprint1
06-07-2004, 09:44 AM
The sports illustrated sample size for that survey was I believe 200 people and It did not say where the people were from.

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Best Post ..... Ever.

How can you possibly say that the Sox have as many fans(real or fairweather) than the cubs.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by bennyw41
How can you possibly say that the Sox have as many fans(real or fairweather) than the cubs.

well, for one, Ive travelled quite a bit to see the SOX on the road,
and ..........THOUGH WE DONT GET THE MEDIA ATTENTION, the SOX still get a lot of fans on the road. Old Tiger Stadium, there were a TON of sox fans there, as Well as in KC last year.
When the Media was tellling us how "historic" it was for the Yankees to visit Chicago, and how our DeepDish Pizza was different from their Pizza, and How the nitelife in NYC differed from Chicagos .......2000 miles WEST, SOXFANS were filling DODGER stadium up, what a great sight that was. Dont Let
the "man" tell you what to think ............

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 10:22 AM
You're arguments don't hold up. The cubs are a bigger story than the sox, I hate it, but its true. Maybe we should be more concerned about how to make it not the case, rather, than telling Newspapers how to run their business. I just don't get where you think equal coverage is warranted.

I am not advocating, but trying to deal with this realistically.

pssondacubs
06-07-2004, 10:45 AM
Hey Benny, Since when is a fourth place team a bigger story than a first place team? Only in some peoples mind. That team being picked over Houston to win was a joke in the first place. They only made the playoffs last year because of Houston losing to decent teams and the Cubs playing a double A Cincy squad the last couple weeks of the season.

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 10:47 AM
Umm....I'm not a cubs fan.

SEALgep
06-07-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by bennyw41
You're arguments don't hold up. The cubs are a bigger story than the sox, I hate it, but its true. Maybe we should be more concerned about how to make it not the case, rather, than telling Newspapers how to run their business. I just don't get where you think equal coverage is warranted.

I am not advocating, but trying to deal with this realistically. Realistically, the Cubs are a fourth place team, and the Sox are in first.

woodenleg
06-07-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by bennyw41
You're arguments don't hold up. The cubs are a bigger story than the sox, I hate it, but its true. Maybe we should be more concerned about how to make it not the case, rather, than telling Newspapers how to run their business. I just don't get where you think equal coverage is warranted.

Well, there's equal coverage, and there is -fair- coverage.

The Cubs are more popular - well, fair enough.

However, I think the public has every right to expect that fair and accurate statements are made, and the public SHOULD expect things from this particular business.

In this case, it's lazy to get all of your information from a bulletin board and then make a ridiculous generalization based on what you've read there. It's also unprofessional to be unable to write about a team without constantly comparing them to the team across town. The Cubs and their fans do not get this treatment. If people in the media wonder why Sox fans appear to have a 'preoccupation' with the Cubs, perhaps they should look at their own articles.

It's also illogical to say that the White Sox fans' suffer from a false perception, but then turn around and justify the very thing they're supposed to be delusional, or 'paranoid' about.

I DO care about journalistic standards. I busted my butt in journalism classes, and I know that if I had turned some of this lazy crap in, I would have gotten a 'C'.

That's not 'whining'. It's a legitimate demand that a business adhere to it's own claims of objectivity and fairness.

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 11:08 AM
I agree with you. I think the problem is, Hangar, whether he knows it or not, comes off as a whiner. You're right I think that the media is biased against the sox, but not by the mere fact of more stories. I expect there to be more stories.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by bennyw41
I agree with you. I think the problem is, Hangar, whether he knows it or not, comes off as a whiner. You're right I think that the media is biased against the sox, but not by the mere fact of more stories. I expect there to be more stories.

Well, if you think that 90% of the Media think Im a "whiner",
while the other 10% acknowledge the fact that ......YES.....
the MEDIA manipulates "news" to better manufacture a story, just remember Where you got that "Story" from.
Its proven every single day in my little posts. I think the people
that call me a "whiner" simply want their Cake and Eat it too.
I love when the Media is Called out for what they are, they Dont LIke it. One bit. Anyone notice there arent too many
"Comiskey/South-side is violent" stories anymore?

They can call me names all they like, and try to paint me in whatever color they like, but the Unbiased Reader
will see them for what they Really Are............ A bunch of News Manufacturing, Propoganda Spreading, Dusty Butt-Kissing Stooges who are TOO LAZY to provide REAL NEWS.
The Truth Hurts ......... and they dont like it. Too Bad.

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 11:57 AM
I didn't say that 90% of the media think you're a whiner. I said you come off as a whiner on this board. Way to manipulate and propogate.

Stop talking about the cubs.

robertks61
06-07-2004, 11:58 AM
Hanger, when I do meet you the first couple of beers are on me!

kittle42
06-07-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
I didn't say that 90% of the media think you're a whiner. I said you come off as a whiner on this board. Way to manipulate and propogate.

Stop talking about the cubs.

No one's making you read it. Henry is fighting the good fight.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
I didn't say that 90% of the media think you're a whiner. I said you come off as a whiner on this board. Way to manipulate and propogate.

Stop talking about the cubs.

Before we turn this into a "who thinks hangar whines, who doesnt" thread, the point is.........(other team) Fans/Media Types are ALREADY trying to put that out there. That we complain about our park being maligned while the other glorified. All im saying is when the Truth is being put out there like Im trying to do......
The (other team) fan/Media backlash cant say anything except "quit whining" or "why do you always talk about the (insert other team here)?"

Great thing about this bogus article, is that many more SOX fans who arent familiar with this place will come to love it. Other team fan I know, says he lurks here, and though he doesnt like the SOX one way or the other, thinks this place is pretty darn cool and respects us (fans) much more than previously

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
No one's making you read it. Henry is fighting the good fight.

Not another one of these threads. I'm done with this. But for the record, its only called the "good fight" because you were told to call it that.

kittle42
06-07-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
Not another one of these threads. I'm done with this. But for the record, its only called the "good fight" because you were told to call it that.

Am I a victim of anti-media-bias bias?

bennyw41
06-07-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
Am I a victim of anti-media-bias bias?

Perhaps, sorta like the non-comformist conformity dilemna.

Have good day buddy. :smile:

kittle42
06-07-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
Perhaps, sorta like the non-comformist conformity dilemna.

Have good day buddy. :smile:

I will have good day. That's very fortune-cookie-esque of you. :smile:

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 12:19 PM
Or kind of like Choosing To Not make a choice, thus ironically
STill having made a choice? :gulp:

steff
06-07-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
How can you possibly say that the Sox have as many fans(real or fairweather) than the cubs.


He's delusional. Fairweather Cub fans in this city alone outnumber "real" Sox fans 2 to 1.

pssondacubs
06-07-2004, 01:37 PM
He's delusional. Fairweather Cub fans in this city alone outnumber "real" Sox fans 2 to 1.

How do you know that. Fairweather fans admit to being fans only in the good times. So it depends on when and who's having a better year. Fairweather fans aren't real fans, and will change teams at the drop of a hat. A few years ago, Sox merchandise was one of the top sellers for sports merchandise. The fairweather fans were in our corner then. Those types of fans change teams like the weather changes. Take your poll today, and maybe your right. A few years ago, your wrong.

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
How do you know that. Fairweather fans admit to being fans only in the good times. So it depends on when and who's having a better year. Fairweather fans aren't real fans, and will change teams at the drop of a hat. A few years ago, Sox merchandise was one of the top sellers for sports merchandise. The fairweather fans were in our corner then. Those types of fans change teams like the weather changes. Take your poll today, and maybe your right. A few years ago, your wrong.

Thats exactly right. If that question was asked in 1983,
WE wouldve been in the drivers seat. Kind of like that inane yet
"scientific" poll Sports Illustrated did recently, when they stood outside Wrigley Field, and asked who they liked as a team.

Lip Man 1
06-07-2004, 01:45 PM
Hangar:

Good job. I appreciate your dedication and zeal perhaps it comes off a little wrong at times, but the intentions are good and I support them.

To those critics of him all I can say is that he cares enough to at least try to make a difference. That's more then a number of folks around here. Hangar is giving up his time in trying to stay on the media's (and ownership's) rear ends. He doesn't have to do that, he could be drinking beer, playing ball, sleeping or doing whatever else he wishes.

Some of what he says may in fact be wrong but he should get props for his dedication.

Lip

Iwritecode
06-07-2004, 01:51 PM
Until the media figures out that the Cubs are popular because they get alot of media coverage and not the other way around, the Sox will never get a fair shake...



One local thing that did floor me just a couple of weeks ago though...

There is a local radio station that for the past couple of years has had a Cubs "Bud Bus Trip" where they bring a group of people on a free trip to Wrigley with free food and beverages provided on the bus. I had made a post once on here that they never had a similair thing for the Sox. Lo and behold they now have a Miller Light White Sox bus trip.

It's not much but hey, it's a start. I'd like to think that my "whining" on this board may have helped out...

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hangar:

Good job. I appreciate your dedication and zeal perhaps it comes off a little wrong at times, but the intentions are good and I support them.

To those critics of him all I can say is that he cares enough to at least try to make a difference. That's more then a number of folks around here. Hangar is giving up his time in trying to stay on the media's (and ownership's) rear ends. He doesn't have to do that, he could be drinking beer, playing ball, sleeping or doing whatever else he wishes.

Some of what he says may in fact be wrong but he should get props for his dedication.

Lip



O.K. I'll give him props just don't complain about the UD or billboards anymore, that's whinning :D:

pssondacubs
06-07-2004, 03:12 PM
O.K. I'll give him props just don't complain about the UD or billboards anymore, that's whinning
Who's whining now? Here's a crazy idea. If you don't like a post or thread, DON'T READ IT.

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
Who's whining now? Here's a crazy idea. If you don't like a post or thread, DON'T READ IT.

What are you talking about :?: relax

steff
06-07-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
How do you know that. Fairweather fans admit to being fans only in the good times. So it depends on when and who's having a better year. Fairweather fans aren't real fans, and will change teams at the drop of a hat. A few years ago, Sox merchandise was one of the top sellers for sports merchandise. The fairweather fans were in our corner then. Those types of fans change teams like the weather changes. Take your poll today, and maybe your right. A few years ago, your wrong.


How do I know... oh.. I don't know. Maybe because Wrigley Field - even when fielding a LOSING TEAM fares better that the Cell. I assume since many of those fans just go to drink and talk on their fans they would be considered fairweather. And not a "few years ago" was Sox merchandise popular.. try a DECADE ago.

steff
06-07-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
To those critics of him all I can say is that he cares enough to at least try to make a difference. That's more then a number of folks around here. Hangar is giving up his time in trying to stay on the media's (and ownership's) rear ends. He doesn't have to do that, he could be drinking beer, playing ball, sleeping or doing whatever else he wishes.




Yea.. I'm sure his boss appreciates all the time he spends posting about the media bias.. :D:

steff
06-07-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
Who's whining now? Here's a crazy idea. If you don't like a post or thread, DON'T READ IT.



Touche...

inta
06-07-2004, 03:57 PM
FYI:

i emailed this joker, simply stating how fans of a first place team are justified in feeling their team should AT LEAST get equal coverage to a 4th place team in the same sport.

he made some goofy analogy that the fire and anneheim angels should then also receive equal coverage. (huh?)

he also stated that he's a twins fan.

so there's the real reason right there.

Rocky Soprano
06-07-2004, 04:25 PM
I also applaud Hangar's efforts.

It is because of him that many of our complaints are now being heard.

:gulp:

Hangar18
06-07-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by steff
How do I know... oh.. I don't know. Maybe because Wrigley Field - even when fielding a LOSING TEAM fares better that the Cell.

Thats why I LOVED reading todays article about Ron Reagans
appearance at Wrigley Field back in 1988. The article
mentions how "there was nobody on the rooftops, and about 9,000 in Attendance" hahahahaahahhaahahahah, and this
is the Same Media that keeps telling us that "Chicagos always been a (insert other team name here) Town!"

Soxboyrob
06-07-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by inta
FYI:

i emailed this joker, simply stating how fans of a first place team are justified in feeling their team should AT LEAST get equal coverage to a 4th place team in the same sport.

he made some goofy analogy that the fire and anneheim angels should then also receive equal coverage. (huh?)



I see his point.
If the Fire are in first place, should they get the same kind and quality of coverage that the Sox and Cub do? They don't have the same fanbase that the Sox and Cubs do (well, maybe that the Cubs do) but do they deserve the same coverage?

The Angels are a team in first place w/ even less fans in the Chicago area than the Sox or Cubs. Still, there are certainly some Angel fans in Chicago. Do they deserve equal treatment?

Personally, as long as I'm getting a nice amount of Sox coverage, I don't care if they fill up the rest of the newspaper w/ Cub crap. It's neither here nor there....just be fair in terms of the CONTENT of the Sox coverage.

This business about the Sox being in first and Cubs in fourth is pretty laughable, considering that things are so bunched up in each league that they are both capable of switching positions within a week's time. I think that the Cubs having stayed fairly close to the top while having all those injuries is a fairly newsworthy story.

inta
06-07-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I see his point.
If the Fire are in first place, should they get the same kind and quality of coverage that the Sox and Cub do? They don't have the same fanbase that the Sox and Cubs do (well, maybe that the Cubs do) but do they deserve the same coverage?

The Angels are a team in first place w/ even less fans in the Chicago area than the Sox or Cubs. Still, there are certainly some Angel fans in Chicago. Do they deserve equal treatment?



the fire are a completely diff't sport.
while i love soccer. this is baseball, the american pastime.
coverage of it should be done so as a sport, not as pop culture/fashion dictates.

the angels are a couple hundred miles away.

Soxboyrob
06-07-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by inta
the fire are a completely diff't sport.
while i love soccer. this is baseball, the american pastime.
coverage of it should be done so as a sport, not as pop culture/fashion dictates.

the angels are a couple hundred miles away.

Well, I certainly won't try to argue that soccer isn't a diff sport. I don't see why it matters. The general belief here seems to be that even though the Chubs are the more popular team and the bigger story, the Sox deserve equal coverage. I tend to disagree w/ that assertion. Bigger mass appeal will always equal more coverage. There's no escaping that. The Fire aren't as popular, thus, less coverage. The Cubs and Bears are more popular than the Sox, thus, more coverage.

As I've always said, just cover my Sox like a blanket and let it all be truthful and accurate and all the rest won't matter to me.

steff
06-07-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Well, I certainly won't try to argue that soccer isn't a diff sport. I don't see why it matters. The general belief here seems to be that even though the Chubs are the more popular team and the bigger story, the Sox deserve equal coverage. I tend to disagree w/ that assertion. Bigger mass appeal will always equal more coverage. There's no escaping that. The Fire aren't as popular, thus, less coverage. The Cubs and Bears are more popular than the Sox, thus, more coverage.

As I've always said, just cover my Sox like a blanket and let it all be truthful and accurate and all the rest won't matter to me.



It's comical that it's so damn hard.


Bravo Rob. Great post.

steff
06-07-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Thats why I LOVED reading todays article about Ron Reagans
appearance at Wrigley Field back in 1988. The article
mentions how "there was nobody on the rooftops, and about 9,000 in Attendance" hahahahaahahhaahahahah, and this
is the Same Media that keeps telling us that "Chicagos always been a (insert other team name here) Town!"


16 years ago - even 8 years ago - the Sox were as, if not more, popular than the Cubs. Is that what you're helping base your cause on Henry..?

pinwheels3530
06-07-2004, 06:15 PM
I think the Sox can be just as popular as the cubs if SOME sox fans would just spend more of their energy and efforts rooting for the sox and instead of talking, hating, etc.... the other team all the time. I love the sox and don't really care about the other team.

TornLabrum
06-07-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
Who's whining now? Here's a crazy idea. If you don't like a post or thread, DON'T READ IT.

Here's a puzzle for you: How do you know whether you like it or not if you don't read it?

mrwag
06-07-2004, 09:17 PM
I live in Rockford and rarely read the Star. It's a worthless POS.

hsnterprize
06-07-2004, 11:49 PM
It's long, folks. But I think you'll like it.

Mr. Trowbridge,

Hello. As a Chicagoan, a member of the Chicago media, and a proud Chicago White Sox fan, I'm taking exception to your notion written in an article saying Sox fans should stop complaining about how much more Cubs coverage there is in local papers and such because they're the more popular team. Sir, I haven't met you nor seen any credentials, but I can tell already you're going down the same route many here in Chicago are taking in light of the massive popularity of the Cubs, and the seeming obscurity of the Sox.

Sir, as a reporter, I can understand to a certain degree that newspapers, TV coverage, talk radio, and other mediums go "where the money is." It is true to a certain extent that the Cubs are more popular than the Sox...but for several reasons, and not just because the Cubs have a strong chance to win this year. Ownership by the Tribune Company, national exposure, constant marketing for the ballpark instead of the team, lack of action by the Sox to counter the Cub marketing blitz, frequently published bad stereotypes about the Sox/U.S. Cellular Field, and other "Sox bad, Cubs good" tactics used throughout the years have led to this current disparity between open love for the Cubs vs. the White Sox. What pains me more about your article, or the portion of it I was able to read through WhiteSoxInteractive.com, was that you came to this site and found a poster writing about favoritism towards the Cubs, and decided to discredit the posters instead of investigate further into the claims to prove/disprove them.

This "columnist" as you say actually helped to do something many of us Sox fans have been doing for years...exposing the Cub bias in the local media for what it is...bias, and not "fair, objective reporting." Let's face it, we all know there are Cubs fans in the media...and that's fine. However, this writer had been writing day after day about how the local press seems to be coddling towards the Cubs at the White Sox' expense. That was proven fact when a young man by the name of Frank Hernandez was shot to death outside the Cubby Bear Lounge across the street from "beautiful Wrigley Field." According to local police, Frank was attending the Cubs game with a friend of his, and after the game, they went lounging around in the Wrigleyville area hanging out. Police reports are sketchy as to what exactly happened, but most officials say Frank and a friend were trying to cross the street when an SUV clipped them. Hernandez struck the vehicle with a souvenir baseball bat, and that's when an altercation ensued. A passenger in the SUV got out and a fight broke out somehow...the police aren't sure whether someone immediately connected with the fight hit the SUV driver with a baseball bat or a bystander. In any case, the passenger allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Hernandez. Frank was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. Now, a shooter is in custody, and the investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

The reason why I'm talking about that is after the events occurred, it was a lead story on almost all the TV news channels. Views of both the car and Wrigley Field were shown in the TV shots. There was no way around it, and I'll give credit to the local media for covering the story fairly. The next morning, the local newspapers got their shots to cover the story. The Sun-Times, Daily Southtown, and Daily Herald all covered the story either at or near the front page. The Chicago Tribune, which by the way is owned by the same company that owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field, conveniently placed that story near the bottom of the 3rd section of the paper with smaller headline print than other major stories of the day. And while that shooting didn't involve the Cubs per se, many in the media know that had the same event happened outside U.S. Cellular Field, it would've been a near-top-headline story in that paper. Who knows...we still would be talking about it today in light of all the incidents that happened at that ballpark.

Far too often, any negative occurrence that happens at or around U.S. Cellular Field is often blown way too much, while events at or around Wrigley Field are done away with quickly. With constant negative press about the ballpark, lack of attendance, and the lack of places to hang out immediately around it, U.S. Cellular Field is often a place where the hip, trendy, and tourist avoid instead of visit. And unfortunately, most of the hype surrounding the goings on around U.S. Cellular Field is simply that...hype. Now I know what you're thinking...what about the guy who ran on the field and attacked the umpire, or the guy who attacked the 1st base coach of the other team? Good points...here's my question...what about the Tribune company employee who snatched a hat off the head off an L.A. Dodgers' player and started a nationally-televised brawl in the stands? What about a crazed fan who ran on the field to try and talk to Cubs' pitcher Randy Myers. And what about Frank Hernandez? His family mourns his death...and for what...being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And unfortunately for Cubbie lovers everywhere...that place was the "friendly confines" of Wrigley Field.

I know this letter is lengthy, but my point is this...Sox fans are tired of the constant negativity conveyed by outside sources like the media. We respect that people are flocking to Wrigley Field in record numbers this year, but as we know, far too many of the "Wrigley faithful" are just going there for the party, and not for the game. U.S. Cellular Field may not be a tourist attraction-style ballpark, but people go there because they love White Sox baseball. We've known for far too long the hip, cool, trendy, and "beautiful people" go to Wrigley, and many of them aren't even into the game. We also know that as long as the Tribune Company owns the team, the marketing of the Cubs will seemingly always make them more popular than their south side counterparts. However, with all due respect to you and your editors, there's one thing to keep in mind...high attendance, ivy on the wall, and bars across the street do not guarantee a winner. The next time you go by Wrigley and see the "L" flag waving above the center field scoreboard, ask yourself, "You mean to tell me this team is so much more popular because of this?" No matter how popular the Cubs get...don't always believe the hype. The Florida Marlins didn't.

Hope you liked it.

RichFitztightly
06-08-2004, 12:01 AM
Nice

SOXPHILE
06-08-2004, 12:09 AM
VERY well written. That pretty much sums it all up right there. Hopefully he reads it and doesn't just disregard it as another "one of those bitter, negative Sox fans".

pinwheels3530
06-08-2004, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
It's long, folks. But I think you'll like it.

Mr. Trowbridge,

Hello. As a Chicagoan, a member of the Chicago media, and a proud Chicago White Sox fan, I'm taking exception to your notion written in an article saying Sox fans should stop complaining about how much more Cubs coverage there is in local papers and such because they're the more popular team. Sir, I haven't met you nor seen any credentials, but I can tell already you're going down the same route many here in Chicago are taking in light of the massive popularity of the Cubs, and the seeming obscurity of the Sox.

Sir, as a reporter, I can understand to a certain degree that newspapers, TV coverage, talk radio, and other mediums go "where the money is." It is true to a certain extent that the Cubs are more popular than the Sox...but for several reasons, and not just because the Cubs have a strong chance to win this year. Ownership by the Tribune Company, national exposure, constant marketing for the ballpark instead of the team, lack of action by the Sox to counter the Cub marketing blitz, frequently published bad stereotypes about the Sox/U.S. Cellular Field, and other "Sox bad, Cubs good" tactics used throughout the years have led to this current disparity between open love for the Cubs vs. the White Sox. What pains me more about your article, or the portion of it I was able to read through WhiteSoxInteractive.com, was that you came to this site and found a poster writing about favoritism towards the Cubs, and decided to discredit the posters instead of investigate further into the claims to prove/disprove them.

This "columnist" as you say actually helped to do something many of us Sox fans have been doing for years...exposing the Cub bias in the local media for what it is...bias, and not "fair, objective reporting." Let's face it, we all know there are Cubs fans in the media...and that's fine. However, this writer had been writing day after day about how the local press seems to be coddling towards the Cubs at the White Sox' expense. That was proven fact when a young man by the name of Frank Hernandez was shot to death outside the Cubby Bear Lounge across the street from "beautiful Wrigley Field." According to local police, Frank was attending the Cubs game with a friend of his, and after the game, they went lounging around in the Wrigleyville area hanging out. Police reports are sketchy as to what exactly happened, but most officials say Frank and a friend were trying to cross the street when an SUV clipped them. Hernandez struck the vehicle with a souvenir baseball bat, and that's when an altercation ensued. A passenger in the SUV got out and a fight broke out somehow...the police aren't sure whether someone immediately connected with the fight hit the SUV driver with a baseball bat or a bystander. In any case, the passenger allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Hernandez. Frank was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. Now, a shooter is in custody, and the investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

The reason why I'm talking about that is after the events occurred, it was a lead story on almost all the TV news channels. Views of both the car and Wrigley Field were shown in the TV shots. There was no way around it, and I'll give credit to the local media for covering the story fairly. The next morning, the local newspapers got their shots to cover the story. The Sun-Times, Daily Southtown, and Daily Herald all covered the story either at or near the front page. The Chicago Tribune, which by the way is owned by the same company that owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field, conveniently placed that story near the bottom of the 3rd section of the paper with smaller headline print than other major stories of the day. And while that shooting didn't involve the Cubs per se, many in the media know that had the same event happened outside U.S. Cellular Field, it would've been a near-top-headline story in that paper. Who knows...we still would be talking about it today in light of all the incidents that happened at that ballpark.

Far too often, any negative occurrence that happens at or around U.S. Cellular Field is often blown way too much, while events at or around Wrigley Field are done away with quickly. With constant negative press about the ballpark, lack of attendance, and the lack of places to hang out immediately around it, U.S. Cellular Field is often a place where the hip, trendy, and tourist avoid instead of visit. And unfortunately, most of the hype surrounding the goings on around U.S. Cellular Field is simply that...hype. Now I know what you're thinking...what about the guy who ran on the field and attacked the umpire, or the guy who attacked the 1st base coach of the other team? Good points...here's my question...what about the Tribune company employee who snatched a hat off the head off an L.A. Dodgers' player and started a nationally-televised brawl in the stands? What about a crazed fan who ran on the field to try and talk to Cubs' pitcher Randy Myers. And what about Frank Hernandez? His family mourns his death...and for what...being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And unfortunately for Cubbie lovers everywhere...that place was the "friendly confines" of Wrigley Field.

I know this letter is lengthy, but my point is this...Sox fans are tired of the constant negativity conveyed by outside sources like the media. We respect that people are flocking to Wrigley Field in record numbers this year, but as we know, far too many of the "Wrigley faithful" are just going there for the party, and not for the game. U.S. Cellular Field may not be a tourist attraction-style ballpark, but people go there because they love White Sox baseball. We've known for far too long the hip, cool, trendy, and "beautiful people" go to Wrigley, and many of them aren't even into the game. We also know that as long as the Tribune Company owns the team, the marketing of the Cubs will seemingly always make them more popular than their south side counterparts. However, with all due respect to you and your editors, there's one thing to keep in mind...high attendance, ivy on the wall, and bars across the street do not guarantee a winner. The next time you go by Wrigley and see the "L" flag waving above the center field scoreboard, ask yourself, "You mean to tell me this team is so much more popular because of this?" No matter how popular the Cubs get...don't always believe the hype. The Florida Marlins didn't.

Hope you liked it.


hsnterprize great post I would buy you a beer if I ever meet you at a game but I know you don't drink, so how about a Kosher dog. :smile:

I hope hangar was taking notes now this is how you do it!

Realist
06-08-2004, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
It's long, folks. But I think you'll like it.

Mr. Trowbridge,

Hello. As a Chicagoan, a member of the Chicago media, and a proud Chicago White Sox fan, I'm taking exception to your notion written in an article saying Sox fans should stop complaining about how much more Cubs coverage there is in local papers and such because they're the more popular team. Sir, I haven't met you nor seen any credentials, but I can tell already you're going down the same route many here in Chicago are taking in light of the massive popularity of the Cubs, and the seeming obscurity of the Sox.

Sir, as a reporter, I can understand to a certain degree that newspapers, TV coverage, talk radio, and other mediums go "where the money is." It is true to a certain extent that the Cubs are more popular than the Sox...but for several reasons, and not just because the Cubs have a strong chance to win this year. Ownership by the Tribune Company, national exposure, constant marketing for the ballpark instead of the team, lack of action by the Sox to counter the Cub marketing blitz, frequently published bad stereotypes about the Sox/U.S. Cellular Field, and other "Sox bad, Cubs good" tactics used throughout the years have led to this current disparity between open love for the Cubs vs. the White Sox. What pains me more about your article, or the portion of it I was able to read through WhiteSoxInteractive.com, was that you came to this site and found a poster writing about favoritism towards the Cubs, and decided to discredit the posters instead of investigate further into the claims to prove/disprove them.

This "columnist" as you say actually helped to do something many of us Sox fans have been doing for years...exposing the Cub bias in the local media for what it is...bias, and not "fair, objective reporting." Let's face it, we all know there are Cubs fans in the media...and that's fine. However, this writer had been writing day after day about how the local press seems to be coddling towards the Cubs at the White Sox' expense. That was proven fact when a young man by the name of Frank Hernandez was shot to death outside the Cubby Bear Lounge across the street from "beautiful Wrigley Field." According to local police, Frank was attending the Cubs game with a friend of his, and after the game, they went lounging around in the Wrigleyville area hanging out. Police reports are sketchy as to what exactly happened, but most officials say Frank and a friend were trying to cross the street when an SUV clipped them. Hernandez struck the vehicle with a souvenir baseball bat, and that's when an altercation ensued. A passenger in the SUV got out and a fight broke out somehow...the police aren't sure whether someone immediately connected with the fight hit the SUV driver with a baseball bat or a bystander. In any case, the passenger allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Hernandez. Frank was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. Now, a shooter is in custody, and the investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

The reason why I'm talking about that is after the events occurred, it was a lead story on almost all the TV news channels. Views of both the car and Wrigley Field were shown in the TV shots. There was no way around it, and I'll give credit to the local media for covering the story fairly. The next morning, the local newspapers got their shots to cover the story. The Sun-Times, Daily Southtown, and Daily Herald all covered the story either at or near the front page. The Chicago Tribune, which by the way is owned by the same company that owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field, conveniently placed that story near the bottom of the 3rd section of the paper with smaller headline print than other major stories of the day. And while that shooting didn't involve the Cubs per se, many in the media know that had the same event happened outside U.S. Cellular Field, it would've been a near-top-headline story in that paper. Who knows...we still would be talking about it today in light of all the incidents that happened at that ballpark.

Far too often, any negative occurrence that happens at or around U.S. Cellular Field is often blown way too much, while events at or around Wrigley Field are done away with quickly. With constant negative press about the ballpark, lack of attendance, and the lack of places to hang out immediately around it, U.S. Cellular Field is often a place where the hip, trendy, and tourist avoid instead of visit. And unfortunately, most of the hype surrounding the goings on around U.S. Cellular Field is simply that...hype. Now I know what you're thinking...what about the guy who ran on the field and attacked the umpire, or the guy who attacked the 1st base coach of the other team? Good points...here's my question...what about the Tribune company employee who snatched a hat off the head off an L.A. Dodgers' player and started a nationally-televised brawl in the stands? What about a crazed fan who ran on the field to try and talk to Cubs' pitcher Randy Myers. And what about Frank Hernandez? His family mourns his death...and for what...being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And unfortunately for Cubbie lovers everywhere...that place was the "friendly confines" of Wrigley Field.

I know this letter is lengthy, but my point is this...Sox fans are tired of the constant negativity conveyed by outside sources like the media. We respect that people are flocking to Wrigley Field in record numbers this year, but as we know, far too many of the "Wrigley faithful" are just going there for the party, and not for the game. U.S. Cellular Field may not be a tourist attraction-style ballpark, but people go there because they love White Sox baseball. We've known for far too long the hip, cool, trendy, and "beautiful people" go to Wrigley, and many of them aren't even into the game. We also know that as long as the Tribune Company owns the team, the marketing of the Cubs will seemingly always make them more popular than their south side counterparts. However, with all due respect to you and your editors, there's one thing to keep in mind...high attendance, ivy on the wall, and bars across the street do not guarantee a winner. The next time you go by Wrigley and see the "L" flag waving above the center field scoreboard, ask yourself, "You mean to tell me this team is so much more popular because of this?" No matter how popular the Cubs get...don't always believe the hype. The Florida Marlins didn't.

Hope you liked it.

Bravo. Dynamite article. Just dynamite.

patbooyah
06-08-2004, 04:37 AM
this guy is writing from and for rockford, right?

pssondacubs
06-08-2004, 07:57 AM
Touche...
Is that French?

white sox bill
06-08-2004, 08:16 AM
This was a very good read w/great posts. Henry, if and when I make it to the Cell this yr, yoour next beers on me. Those of you from Illinois, remember a team that lost something like 64 high school football games in a row? It was Savanna. They have now merged with another HS. Were they heralded as "lovable losers"?
No...There was an Ivy League team (also football), I think it was Yale who lost every game for how many seasons straight? Lovable losers? Hardly..

Not sure my point here, but ANYTHING we can do as Sox fans to derail the media can only help. I'm working on local media as we speak. Henry (hanger) has been my inspiration. The predjudism must be stopped

hsnterprize
06-08-2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
hsnterprize great post I would buy you a beer if I ever meet you at a game but I know you don't drink, so how about a Kosher dog. :smile:

I hope hangar was taking notes now this is how you do it! A regular hot dog is good for me. Thanks for the kudos.

Hangar18
06-08-2004, 09:19 AM
To all who want to buy me a beer, i'll be at the game tonite...
Heh heh ......

JRIG
06-08-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by patbooyah
this guy is writing from and for rockford, right?

Yes, that is correct.

hsnterprize
06-08-2004, 11:46 PM
Thanks for your lengthy e-mail. First of all, if you had seen my entire Sunday column through WhiteSoxinteractive.com you would have also noticed that I did a quick shot on the Cubs taking one PR mishap after another the last year, from Sammy's corked bat to Mosies Alou's and Kerry Wood's disgusting treatment for blisters to Dusty Baker's "McCarthyism" quotes to Mark Prior's hissy fit at a paid autograph signing to sitting in fourth place.

Second of all, your complaint about the murder outside Wrigley is weak, very weak. As you said, everybody else gave it major play except the Chicago Tribune. What's your complaint? Do you expect the Trib to attack its own interests? If the Tribune downplays things like the murder outside Wrigley, the battle with the rooftop owners and the Cubs serving as their own ticket brokers, the Sun-Times, also understandably, overplays the same incidents. Any time it can get in a shot against its rival the Trib, it takes it, and the easiest shot is attacking the management of the Cubs.

Finally, the one thing I agree with you about is that the media has consistently portrayed the Cubs as cuddly and the White Sox as dysfunctional. I've got no real ties to either team -- I grew up in Minnesota and am a Twins fans -- but I was originally hired here as our Cubs/White Sox beat writer in 1991 and covered both teams' home games that year, the last time we had a full-time Cubs and Sox writer. I'll always remember Frank Thomas sitting in the dugout and giving a 15-minute interview to some 12-year-old kid who was writing a piece for a card magazine. I've consistently defended Frank over the years for the asinine attacks on him leaving the All-Star game early to get ready for a big series against Cleveland (he asked for permission and got it from the manager), for complaining about batting practice times being switched so fans could watch him (Ron Schueler, in the stupidest utterance ever by a GM, said Frank hit .360 at home and .320 on the road and they'd be perfectly happy with .320) to his squabbles with Paul Konerko a couple of years ago. Frank is the most underappreciated superstar since Ted Williams. Like Ted, he probably won't get his due until after he retires. I also wrote about how idiotic it was for the media to run down the White Sox for signing Will Cordero a few years ago. They said the Cubs would never sign a wife beater. I wrote a Quick Shot about the signature face of the Cubs, Sammy Sosa, being denied a visa for awhile one year early in his career because he had been charged with beating his then-wife.

But I digress. The vast majority of complaints I hear about White Sox coverage is not about how it is overtly negative, but rather the amount. The Cubs get more. The Cubs get more. That's all I heard. So? I'd bet the Dodgers get more coverage in California, even though they haven't won a playoff series since 1988 while the Angels won the World Series just a couple of years ago. The Dodgers have more fans, period. More interest. And it's not like the Chicago papers ignore the White Sox. On a normal day, I see three stories on the White Sox in both papers. At least two, but usually three. The Minnesota papers rarely write more than two stories a day on the Twins. The Sox get more coverage than most Major League teams do. Yet their fans complain about the media more than any fans I've ever seen. -- Matt Trowbridge.

hsnterprize
06-08-2004, 11:50 PM
Matt,

First of all, thanks for the response. I promise this won't be as lengthy. First of all, I was unable to find a link to your article, so I went off of what I'd read. Secondly, as far as my "weak argument" is concerned, I expect the Chicago Tribune to cover a story, not protect its interests at a story's expense. Every other newspaper, TV news show, and radio news shop either led with that story or had it close to the lead. I don't think it's too much to expect the Tribune to do the same. However, with all the complaints about "bias" from the Trib, the way that series of events was covered simply proved what many of us already knew. The shooting took place on a Thursday. Over the next couple of days, every sports-talk radio host not connected with the Trib blasted the paper's coverage using the points I made. Simply put, since the event, and other events involving rowdy, drunk fans happened around Wrigley Field, coverage of such gets little or no play. However, if the same incidents happen at U.S. Cellular Field, they'd get major play, and further portray the stereotype that it's "all things good" at Wrigley, and "all things bad" on the south side.

I appreciate your writing about Sox related issues, and for sticking up for guys like Frank Thomas. I honestly wanted to read you whole article, but was unable to find a link. In closing, just keep this in mind...because of sites like WhiteSoxInteractive.com, fans can check up on the media to make sure their team is getting legit coverage. Granted, the Cubs are more popular right now. But, columnists and other members of the media are noting what Sox fans had been saying for years...the local coverage hasn't been too kosher for quite some time, and Sox fans aren't taking it anymore. I know the complaints can be tiring, but most of them are legit. Even if the Cubs are "where the money is", there are Sox fans who'd like strong coverage of their squad.

Thanks.

TornLabrum
06-09-2004, 12:08 AM
One thing you could have added...Even the Cubs own flagship station, also owned by the Tribune Co., led with the weather (severe storm watch) but followed with the shooting story. So once again, the columnist is wrong.

white sox bill
06-11-2004, 09:57 AM
Yes indeed the Trib. does protect its own intersts..but what ever happended to fair reporting? This is just irresponsible reporting and they should be called "out" on it

Iwritecode
06-11-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Yes indeed the Trib. does protect its own intersts..but what ever happended to fair reporting? This is just irresponsible reporting and they should be called "out" on it

Which is why I think it is wrong for a national newspaper to own a baseball team in a 2-team city...

bennyw41
06-11-2004, 03:35 PM
Rockford sucks and so does this thread.




:threadsucks

Iwritecode
06-11-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Those of you from Illinois, remember a team that lost something like 64 high school football games in a row? It was Savanna.

The HS I went to (which is covered by the RRStar no less) is tied for the longest losing streak in the state of Illinois.

They managed to win the very first game of the season during my senior year thus breaking the streak and failing to take sole possesion of the record. Of course that's the only game they won all season long.

We couldn't even lose right...

We never exactly embraced our losing, but we did laugh about it all the time. Honestly, what else could we do? We sucked, we knew it and there wasn't any hope in sight for the near future.

Of course they went down-state just a couple of years later...

Iwritecode
06-11-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by bennyw41
Rockford sucks and so does this thread.




:threadsucks

At least the baseball team is in first... :D:

bennyw41
06-11-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
At least the baseball team is in first... :D:


But they are in Rockford.....

Frankfan4life
06-11-2004, 03:53 PM
hsnterprize, I liked the letter. Most of all, I liked the fact that you responded. I don't think that guy would have gone to a Cub board and picked out something negative he could report on (and like all boards, there are some negative things there). I'm certain he would have picked a thread that he thought was "cuddly" and supportive. I'm tired of reporters and columnists seemingly not being able to find a positive story about the White Sox. It's not that there aren't any, I know it's because they're just not looking for them.

hsnterprize
06-11-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Frankfan4life
hsnterprize, I liked the letter. Most of all, I liked the fact that you responded. I don't think that guy would have gone to a Cub board and picked out something negative he could report on (and like all boards, there are some negative things there). I'm certain he would have picked a thread that he thought was "cuddly" and supportive. I'm tired of reporters and columnists seemingly not being able to find a positive story about the White Sox. It's not that there aren't any, I know it's because they're just not looking for them. Well...here's something else to chew on. Matt wrote me again after I replied to his first e-mail to me. To tell you the truth, I deleted the letter after I read it. I forgot exactly what he said, but he pretty much went along the same "I just notice the Sox fans are being whiny about coverage when they get more coverage than some other teams" line. But at least he wrote back.

He said something about checking out his paper's website on Sunday for some article he wrote that Sox fans should like.

Rockford Star Register (http://www.rrstar.com)

Jeremy
06-12-2004, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by pssondacubs
How do you know that. Fairweather fans admit to being fans only in the good times. So it depends on when and who's having a better year. Fairweather fans aren't real fans, and will change teams at the drop of a hat. A few years ago, Sox merchandise was one of the top sellers for sports merchandise. The fairweather fans were in our corner then. Those types of fans change teams like the weather changes. Take your poll today, and maybe your right. A few years ago, your wrong.

Fairweather fans are easy to spot... they show up in their designer clothes and $300 shoes. Usually they have their cell phones with them, and don't hesitate to use them during the game. They will never be wearing a mit or their teams hat. And they will most likely leave after the 6th inning, but not before they take many group photos (you know, just to say they were there). Sox merchandise was hot because a lot of the rappers used to wear it in their videos. A lot of gangbangers will wear it even though they wouldnt be able to name a player on the team. A long time ago my buddy had a SOX hat that he bought, and he took a marker and blacked out the lower right portion of the O and he made it say SeX... so you can't really base merch sales on the number of true fans.

nasox
06-12-2004, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Which is why I think it is wrong for a national newspaper to own a baseball team in a 2-team city...

Then again, who are you (or for that matter, who is anyone) to decide who can own a team or not. As long as you have the Washingtons, or in this case Benjamins, Bud Selig'll say to you, "You're in."

I must say though, if Bud Selig as a kid looked like anything remotely similar to what he looks like (or acts like for that matter) today, I would NEVER want to be near him at all, much less be seen with him. UGH!

Iwritecode
06-14-2004, 02:36 AM
Well...here's something else to chew on. Matt wrote me again after I replied to his first e-mail to me. To tell you the truth, I deleted the letter after I read it. I forgot exactly what he said, but he pretty much went along the same "I just notice the Sox fans are being whiny about coverage when they get more coverage than some other teams" line. But at least he wrote back.

He said something about checking out his paper's website on Sunday for some article he wrote that Sox fans should like.

Rockford Star Register (http://www.rrstar.com/)
I don't know if it's online or not but I did read his article today. He basically says that Frank doesn't get the kudos that he should and that a lot of people would probably be surprised when they see that Frank Thomas has better numbers than the "sure-fire lock for the hall of fame" Shammy Sosa.

In other words, it's nothing any of us here didn't already know...

Iwritecode
06-14-2004, 02:39 AM
Then again, who are you (or for that matter, who is anyone) to decide who can own a team or not. As long as you have the Washingtons, or in this case Benjamins, Bud Selig'll say to you, "You're in."
True, but when they have an obligation to cover two sports teams yet have an obvious interest in promoting one over the other, it gets a little iffy.

It'd be like ESPN owning a team. Gee, guess which one would get the most highlights?

TheBull19
06-14-2004, 06:55 AM
Welcome to how the media works everywhere, not just in Chicago. They give the percentage of coverage to what they feel their readers most want to read. The only time papers cover "local teams" like you want them to, is in a small town paper. They have an investment in the community and the type of coverage is different in that situation.

In the case of cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, NY, Indianapolis, or even Birmingham, they cover what the readers want to read. Whether you agree with their judgement of the numbers or not is a different argument. But to expect equal coverage when there is not equal interest is naive in the expectations of what newspapers or other media outlets are about.That's pretty naive. The media primarily prints or broadcasts what big business wants its readers to see.