PDA

View Full Version : Letter to the Tribune


mdep524
10-27-2004, 02:58 PM
that I wrote this morning about their ever-growing bias. Just thought I'd share in case anyone was interested. If I get a response, I'll post it here.

Dear Mr. McGrath,



My family has been a Tribune subscriber for as long as I can remember, but recently I have become very disappointed with the unprofessional, inequitable coverage in the paperís sports section. Your blatant ignoring of the White Sox and overindulgence in the Cubs has crossed the line from a noticeable but generally mild bias to a full blown unethical, defenseless bout of favoritism. It started after the 2004 regular season ended. During the stretch drive, the Cubs were in contention and the Sox were out of the race, so the Cubs deserved more press as they challenged for a playoff spot. But judging by the Cubs coverage since they were eliminated, you'd think they not only made the playoffs, but won the World Series, cured cancer and achieved world peace!



The first incident that I found completely unfair was the blatant "recruiting" of Carlos Beltran to the Cubs. Both the White Sox and the Cubs are known to be interested in Beltran, the best baseball player on the market this offseason. Both the Sox and the Cubs may be losing their starting rightfielder in the offseason, making it very possible for either team to shuffle their starting outfield to add Beltran in centerfield. Yet all the attention seems to go to the Cubs, as if you are trying to guide him to Wrigley Field (similar to Greg Maddux last year). Among many articles showing this bias, I found Paul Sullivan's October 15 article, "Beltran shows interest in Cubs" especially offensive. To have a reporter ask Carlos Beltran if he wants to play for "their" team, in the middle of the NLCS, and making a front page headline of it is absolutely ludicrous.



The White Sox are further marginalized in today's sports section. Major League Baseball's 2005 schedules were released-- or at least the Cubs' schedule was. There is a front page headline about the Cub interleague match ups and a page 5 pull out schedule with more Cubs coverage, but no articles about the Sox' 2005 schedule. In fact, the only time the White Sox are mentioned at all in the coverage is when they play the Cubs in 2005. To run a front page, above-the-fold story as well as a quarter-page graphic about the Cubs' schedule and not print one single article about the White Sox is beyond biased.



I know and accept that the Cubs are the more popular team in this town. I also accept that the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs, creating a conflict of interest in which the company's media serves to protect the interests of its parent company. I think it is sad that a paper of the Trib's caliber would stoop to such a level in its sports section, while giving a commendable, even-handed account of the presidential election in its news section. Though editorially the paper supports President Bush, the news coverage leading up to November 2 election has been objective, fair and balanced. Is it too much to ask for the same effort in the sports section?



Sincerely,

Michael DePilla

oneil78
10-27-2004, 03:08 PM
Why do people even care about the Trib? They own the Cubs, what do you really expect? If you don't like it, read the Sun Times.

SOXSINCE'70
10-27-2004, 03:14 PM
Why do people even care about the Trib? They own the Cubs, what do you really expect? If you don't like it, read the Sun Times.
A true Sox fan reads the Daily Southtown online.At least that
scum bucket with the initials JM doesn't work for them.:D: :D:

faneidde
10-27-2004, 03:19 PM
A true Sox fan reads the Daily Southtown online.At least that
scum bucket with the initials JM doesn't work for them.:D: :D:
Jerry Manuel works for the Sun Times too? Man, between him and that blowhard on ESPN nobody gives the Sox a fair shake.

depy48
10-27-2004, 04:19 PM
dynamite letter, maybe this can shake things up a bit

rdivaldi
10-27-2004, 04:26 PM
I also have been very disgusted with the extreme Flub cheerleading in the Trib since the regular season ended. You'd think they're in the World Series with all of the ink space they've gotten. It's unbelievable to me that they would put their schedule for the 2005 season on the front page of the sports section.

I'd cancel my subscription, but unfortuately it's important to read it as a professional.

kittle42
10-27-2004, 04:42 PM
I also have been very disgusted with the extreme Flub cheerleading in the Trib since the regular season ended. You'd think they're in the World Series with all of the ink space they've gotten. It's unbelievable to me that they would put their schedule for the 2005 season on the front page of the sports section.

I'd cancel my subscription, but unfortuately it's important to read it as a professional.A professional what? The Sun-Times is just as informative, without giant-snail stories.

Ol' No. 2
10-27-2004, 04:53 PM
dynamite letter, maybe this can shake things up a bitAre you kidding? You probably made their day. And that's NOT in teal.

Foulke29
10-27-2004, 04:57 PM
I also have been very disgusted with the extreme Flub cheerleading in the Trib since the regular season ended. You'd think they're in the World Series with all of the ink space they've gotten. It's unbelievable to me that they would put their schedule for the 2005 season on the front page of the sports section.

I'd cancel my subscription, but unfortuately it's important to read it as a professional.
Anything that's worth reading in their birdcage liner is free online!

:bandance:

kittle42
10-27-2004, 04:59 PM
Are you kidding? You probably made their day. And that's NOT in teal.
Bah. I'm a lifetime Sun-Times reader and always will be. And I'm a professional. I see no need to read the Trib (or the NY Times like many of my colleagues).

John Barrett
10-27-2004, 05:14 PM
so professionals need the trib???? what profession are you in??

Hangar18
10-27-2004, 05:24 PM
After the 1998 Summer of Cub Media Coverage, I finally cancelled
the Tribune. I tried the Sun-Times, but they simply are trying to Out-Cub
the Cubune. Id had enough of Mike Kileys pandering that I stopped that
subscription after 2000. Now I dont get ANY of those Cubpoganda Rags.
I do miss reading the papers on Sunday, but got to draw the line somewhere right?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-27-2004, 05:29 PM
so professionals need the trib???? what profession are you in??
Word up. I can't think of a single thing exclusively available in the Cubune that would be even remotely connected with someone's professional career.

The department store ads?
The classifieds?
The op-ed insights?
The 10 pounds of advertising inserts every Sunday?

Give me a ****ing break...

The Cubune's local business section is a joke. Crain's puts them to shame. As for daily business news, the WSJ is infinitely more thorough and is 100-times more insightful, too. Commercial real estate? Crain's whips the Cubune on that front, too. Advertising agency news? The Cubune's coverage died with George Lazarus.

The only reasons I subscribe to the Cubune have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my career. In fact the moment I took my career seriously was the same day I realized the Cubune was doing nothing for me.

That just leaves their totally unbiased view of the city's baseball teams to keep me coming back for more!
:wink:

rdivaldi
10-27-2004, 05:56 PM
A professional what? The Sun-Times is just as informative, without giant-snail stories.
The real estate section in the Trib is top notch, the Times is awful.

rdivaldi
10-27-2004, 05:58 PM
Word up. I can't think of a single thing exclusively available in the Cubune that would be even remotely connected with someone's professional career.Well now you do.

And your childish, insulting rants are quite tiresome PHG.

Chill out dude....

kittle42
10-27-2004, 06:03 PM
Well now you do.

And your childish, insulting rants are quite tiresome PHG.

Chill out dude....
Trouble's a brewin'.

hold2dibber
10-27-2004, 06:27 PM
The White Sox are further marginalized in today's sports section. Major League Baseball's 2005 schedules were released-- or at least the Cubs' schedule was. There is a front page headline about the Cub interleague match ups and a page 5 pull out schedule with more Cubs coverage, but no articles about the Sox' 2005 schedule. In fact, the only time the White Sox are mentioned at all in the coverage is when they play the Cubs in 2005. To run a front page, above-the-fold story as well as a quarter-page graphic about the Cubs' schedule and not print one single article about the White Sox is beyond biased.
The Cubs did announce their 2005 schedule yesterday, but I don't think all MLBs schedules were released. The Sox announced their home schedule (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20041002&content_id=880120&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp) in early October, but I don't think they've announced their entire schedule yet. So that would explain why the Sox' 05 schedule didn't get any press yesterday. The real question is to what extent the Sox' announcement of their home schedule generated coverage in the Trib.

hellenicsoxfan
10-27-2004, 06:34 PM
that I wrote this morning about their ever-growing bias. Just thought I'd share in case anyone was interested. If I get a response, I'll post it here.

Dear Mr. McGrath,



My family has been a Tribune subscriber for as long as I can remember, but recently I have become very disappointed with the unprofessional, inequitable coverage in the paperís sports section. Your blatant ignoring of the White Sox and overindulgence in the Cubs has crossed the line from a noticeable but generally mild bias to a full blown unethical, defenseless bout of favoritism. It started after the 2004 regular season ended. During the stretch drive, the Cubs were in contention and the Sox were out of the race, so the Cubs deserved more press as they challenged for a playoff spot. But judging by the Cubs coverage since they were eliminated, you'd think they not only made the playoffs, but won the World Series, cured cancer and achieved world peace!



The first incident that I found completely unfair was the blatant "recruiting" of Carlos Beltran to the Cubs. Both the White Sox and the Cubs are known to be interested in Beltran, the best baseball player on the market this offseason. Both the Sox and the Cubs may be losing their starting rightfielder in the offseason, making it very possible for either team to shuffle their starting outfield to add Beltran in centerfield. Yet all the attention seems to go to the Cubs, as if you are trying to guide him to Wrigley Field (similar to Greg Maddux last year). Among many articles showing this bias, I found Paul Sullivan's October 15 article, "Beltran shows interest in Cubs" especially offensive. To have a reporter ask Carlos Beltran if he wants to play for "their" team, in the middle of the NLCS, and making a front page headline of it is absolutely ludicrous.



The White Sox are further marginalized in today's sports section. Major League Baseball's 2005 schedules were released-- or at least the Cubs' schedule was. There is a front page headline about the Cub interleague match ups and a page 5 pull out schedule with more Cubs coverage, but no articles about the Sox' 2005 schedule. In fact, the only time the White Sox are mentioned at all in the coverage is when they play the Cubs in 2005. To run a front page, above-the-fold story as well as a quarter-page graphic about the Cubs' schedule and not print one single article about the White Sox is beyond biased.



I know and accept that the Cubs are the more popular team in this town. I also accept that the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs, creating a conflict of interest in which the company's media serves to protect the interests of its parent company. I think it is sad that a paper of the Trib's caliber would stoop to such a level in its sports section, while giving a commendable, even-handed account of the presidential election in its news section. Though editorially the paper supports President Bush, the news coverage leading up to November 2 election has been objective, fair and balanced. Is it too much to ask for the same effort in the sports section?



Sincerely,

Michael DePilla

Excellent letter. I doubt you'll get a response other than a form letter thanking you for your inquiry and that your comments will be passed on to the appropriate editors. Then I'm sure you'll hear nothing.

I was especially interested in your comments about Carlos Beltran. It seems as if every time the Cubs are interested in a big name free agent, a reporter is dispatched to ask him how he'd like to play for the Cubs in Wrigley Field in front of the Cub fans. The implied question is how would you like to play for the Cubs in "beautiful, historic" Wrigley Field in front of the "greatest fans in the world", the Cub fans. To my little mind, this is at best borderline tampering. I'm sure the Tribune would say it is just a reporter doing his job, but as a Chicago reporter, why isn't he asking about playing for the Sox? If MLB had a true commissioner, would he be looking into tampering charges? Should the Astros be lodging a tampering complaint? Or am I way off base on this one?

Lip Man 1
10-27-2004, 06:48 PM
Maybe they go out and ask those questions because the Cubs actually seem to sign some of those type players (i.e. Alou, Maddux). When was the last time the Sox signed a 'star' player? Belle in November 96?

That's a long time ago.

Perhaps if the Sox start having a track record of doing the same thing the Tribune will send their reporters out to ask the same question about the Sox.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
10-27-2004, 07:10 PM
Well now you do.

And your childish, insulting rants are quite tiresome PHG.

Chill out dude....
What kind of real estate? The overpriced FSBO variety? Certainly not commercial real estate.

Yeah, I can't imagine living without checking that crap out every day. They cover less than 5 percent of the property for sale. That's because nobody but fly-by-night sellers (or fly-by-night real estate agents) think the time and money spent advertising in the Cubune is effective for moving property.

If you really want to impress your boss and coworkers and get ahead in your career, I strongly recommend you stop wasting time in the Cubune real estate section and learn how to better utilize the MLS. It requires more skill than turning pages and washing your hands when your through. However the rewards are greater.

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 07:17 PM
Well now you do.

And your childish, insulting rants are quite tiresome PHG.

Chill out dude.... I don't think that his rants are childish. I think they're dead on the mark. As a Sox fan, I pride myself on "calling a spade a spade," and I respect other people who do the same. The Cubune is biased. Ignoring that fact won't do anything to change it.

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 07:20 PM
Maybe they go out and ask those questions because the Cubs actually seem to sign some of those type players (i.e. Alou, Maddux). When was the last time the Sox signed a 'star' player? Belle in November 96?

That's a long time ago.

Perhaps if the Sox start having a track record of doing the same thing the Tribune will send their reporters out to ask the same question about the Sox.

Lip
No, they won't. Nothing the Cubune has ever done would convince me that they would bother to write more Sox-related articles in the event that JR went after more high-priced players. If the Sox ever manage to win the World Series, I'm convinced that the Cubune would stick the story somewhere on page five.

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 07:22 PM
Excellent letter. I doubt you'll get a response other than a form letter thanking you for your inquiry and that your comments will be passed on to the appropriate editors. Then I'm sure you'll hear nothing.

I was especially interested in your comments about Carlos Beltran. It seems as if every time the Cubs are interested in a big name free agent, a reporter is dispatched to ask him how he'd like to play for the Cubs in Wrigley Field in front of the Cub fans. The implied question is how would you like to play for the Cubs in "beautiful, historic" Wrigley Field in front of the "greatest fans in the world", the Cub fans. To my little mind, this is at best borderline tampering. I'm sure the Tribune would say it is just a reporter doing his job, but as a Chicago reporter, why isn't he asking about playing for the Sox? If MLB had a true commissioner, would he be looking into tampering charges? Should the Astros be lodging a tampering complaint? Or am I way off base on this one?
No, you're not. NBA coaches and general managers have gotten into trouble for doing much less. I specifically remember former Knicks GM Scott Layden commenting on a hypothetical scenario involving Chris Webber signing with the Knicks during the 2001 off-season. He was slapped with a huge fine the following week.

mdep524
10-27-2004, 09:56 PM
Dan McGrath replied to my email this afternoon. I have to say, I am surprised by the rudeness of his response. Here it is, exactly as he wrote it:


If you're going to criticize our Cubs' "bias," get in line, son. It's a
long one.
The White Sox' schedule has not been released yet, OK? When it is, it
will be given similar treatment. In the meantime, would you like us to
make one up just so we appear even-handed?
The Cubs'schedule is a legitimate story. The last two years, they've had
a remarkably easy month of September. Last year they capitalized, this
year they didn't, and it cost them a playoff berth. They were done with
St. Louis, their biggest rival, in mid-July. Next year's schedule is
remarkably different---six September games with St. Louis and Houston and
a West Coast trip. We would not be doing our jobs if we didn't
acknowledge that.
"Recruiting" Carlos Beltran---that's a crock that doesn't warrant a
reply, but here goes: The Cubs openly expressed interest in him at the
end of the season. By jettisoning Moises Alou and making a couple of
other moves, they're trying to clear payroll space to make a run at him.
Beltran hit .426 with eight homers in 12 games at Wrigley Field this year
... gee, you think he might like to play there? So we asked him, and he
said, yeah, I might. We also asked him about the White Sox and he said he
wouldn't rule anything out, but Kenny Williams "has had to acknowledge
certain realities" when we asked him about Beltran, which we've reported.
That's not recruiting, that's a reality check.
I find your complaints totally without merit, but typical of a whiny Sox
fan and suggest you have a better understanding of facts (and of
journalism) before you accuse us of anything as serious as bias.
Dan McGrath
Chicago Tribune sports

mdep524
10-27-2004, 10:03 PM
By saying the Cubs "openly expressed interest" in Beltran, isn't McGrath basically admitting to tampering, which his paper's article only furthered the seriousness of?

Also, I find this last sentence rather unprofessional of a person in his position:

I find your complaints totally without merit, but typical of a whiny Sox
fan and suggest you have a better understanding of facts (and of
journalism) before you accuse us of anything as serious as bias.He's stereotyping Sox fans as whiny just because we speak our mind? Sorry we don't eat the company line like Cubbie zombies. What an arrogant statement.

nitetrain8601
10-27-2004, 10:16 PM
I say you send the response and original letter to the Sun-Times and the Daily Southtown. They would have a field day with that. It would definately be mentioned. At least Mariotti probably would've stated things in a more grownup matter. McGrath basically said, ****. Immediately after at least the Southtown would start showing more mdeio coverage. You have to get at least 5 people to speak about those issues to go into one paper. Then you'll get a nice big response. SEND IT.

fusillirob1983
10-27-2004, 10:24 PM
Yeah, that was pretty harsh. He even said in the first sentence that a lot of people have complained about the bias, so I don't understand why he doesn't seem to understand you being upset.

SoxFan76
10-27-2004, 10:26 PM
....Dan McGrath
Chicago Tribune sports
Sounds like Dan McGrath is a :dtroll:

Seriously, what a jackass. Nice professional response there Danny boy.

row18
10-27-2004, 10:28 PM
"Beltran hit .426 with eight homers in 12 games at Wrigley Field this year
... gee, you think he might like to play there?"

Call me crazy, but, maybe he hit .426 because he was facing Flub pitching?
I don't think WF has mystical powers to allow him to hit well.
Just my $.02

Lip Man 1
10-27-2004, 10:29 PM
I agree post that sucker to the other media organizations.

I am shocked by McGrath's response. Considering he's supposedly a Sox fan from Harvey who went to St. Leo high school (that from Bob Vanderberg)

Lip

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 10:45 PM
Dan McGrath replied to my email this afternoon. I have to say, I am surprised by the rudeness of his response. Here it is, exactly as he wrote it:


If you're going to criticize our Cubs' "bias," get in line, son. It's a
long one.
The White Sox' schedule has not been released yet, OK? When it is, it
will be given similar treatment. In the meantime, would you like us to
make one up just so we appear even-handed?
The Cubs'schedule is a legitimate story. The last two years, they've had
a remarkably easy month of September. Last year they capitalized, this
year they didn't, and it cost them a playoff berth. They were done with
St. Louis, their biggest rival, in mid-July. Next year's schedule is
remarkably different---six September games with St. Louis and Houston and
a West Coast trip. We would not be doing our jobs if we didn't
acknowledge that.
"Recruiting" Carlos Beltran---that's a crock that doesn't warrant a
reply, but here goes: The Cubs openly expressed interest in him at the
end of the season. By jettisoning Moises Alou and making a couple of
other moves, they're trying to clear payroll space to make a run at him.
Beltran hit .426 with eight homers in 12 games at Wrigley Field this year
... gee, you think he might like to play there? So we asked him, and he
said, yeah, I might. We also asked him about the White Sox and he said he
wouldn't rule anything out, but Kenny Williams "has had to acknowledge
certain realities" when we asked him about Beltran, which we've reported.
That's not recruiting, that's a reality check.
I find your complaints totally without merit, but typical of a whiny Sox
fan and suggest you have a better understanding of facts (and of
journalism) before you accuse us of anything as serious as bias.
Dan McGrath
Chicago Tribune sports
Here is my response to McGrath's response:

First of all, the Tribune could wait until they have both schedules in hand before they release them. Second, they should not be talking about Carlos Beltan becoming a member of the Cubs when the Sox are also going after him, and they also should not have any of their reporters asking questions directly to Beltran regarding his future.

This guy sounds like a complete tool.

Lip Man 1
10-27-2004, 10:52 PM
RK:

I suggest you send that comment to McGrath. It makes sense to me.

Lip

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 10:54 PM
RK:

I suggest you send that comment to McGrath. It makes sense to me.

Lip
Will do. :smile:

RKMeibalane
10-27-2004, 11:05 PM
Here is a copy of the email I sent to McGrath. If I get a response, I'll post it here.


Mr. McGrath,

I realize that your paper has not yet receieved the White Sox schedule for 2005. However, that does not excuse publishing the Cubs schedule first. It would not have been too much trouble for the Tribune to wait until it had both schedules in hand, and then publish both on the same day. That is what we call objective, unbiased journalism. Your paper would do well to follow that particular course of action in the future.

-Ravi Meibalane

illinibk
10-27-2004, 11:07 PM
If you're going to criticize our Cubs' "bias," get in line, son. It's a long one.He does such a good job of refuting the claim of a bias. I am convinced. By placing quotes around bias, he has effectively convinced me that the idea of media bias is just a figment of my imagination.

By jettisoning Moises Alou and making a couple of other moves, they're trying to clear payroll space to make a run at him (Beltran).
So there was a purpose behind firing Wendel Kim and the trainers after all. I knew there was a hidden agenda.

...What a douche

hold2dibber
10-28-2004, 12:10 AM
Here is a copy of the email I sent to McGrath. If I get a response, I'll post it here.

[/font]Mr. McGrath,

I realize that your paper has not yet receieved the White Sox schedule for 2005. However, that does not excuse publishing the Cubs schedule first. It would not have been too much trouble for the Tribune to wait until it had both schedules in hand, and then publish both on the same day. That is what we call objective, unbiased journalism. Your paper would do well to follow that particular course of action in the future.

-Ravi Meibalane Jeez - did anybody read my earlier post in this thread. The Sox already released the home portion of their schedule, and it was reported in the Trib. I completely agree that the Trib is biased, but the two examples that are the subject of this thread (the Beltran question and the reporting of the Cubs schedule) are horrible examples, and just go to foster the image of Sox fans as whiny. I'm not surprised McGrath responded as he did (although it was unprofessional).

(And if the Cubs schedule is released first, why in God's name should the Trib sit on that info and wait until the Sox release their schedule? That makes no sense at all. A newspaper reports the news at it happens. Their job is to not be biased, but reporting that the Cubs schedule is out, regardless of the status of the Sox schedule, isn't bias.)

tebman
10-28-2004, 01:49 AM
Dan McGrath replied to my email this afternoon. I have to say, I am surprised by the rudeness of his response. Here it is, exactly as he wrote it:

<Trib's churlish response snipped>
Yeah, it was rude, but at least you got a response with a heartbeat. I sent an e-mail to Don Wycliff at the Tribune last week after he'd written a column explaining in academic terms how the paper does its candidate endorsements. He quoted the chief editor's reference to the "Tribune Manifesto" (yeah, they really call it that) that guides their decision-making process.

I couldn't take it any more, and I wrote a multi-paragraph e-mail that was reasoned and, if I may say, articulate. My point was that they are self-important cheerleaders for their corporate interests (Republicans, the Cubs, WGN radio & TV, their other newspapers), and that their occasional harrumphing on issues of the day and their choices of stories and their placement proves it.

About four days later I got a one-line response: "Thanks for writing. -DW"

Tribune Manifesto, indeed. You can imagine what it says.

- tebman

gosox41
10-28-2004, 09:28 AM
Dan McGrath replied to my email this afternoon. I have to say, I am surprised by the rudeness of his response. Here it is, exactly as he wrote it:



"Recruiting" Carlos Beltran---that's a crock that doesn't warrant a
reply, but here goes: The Cubs openly expressed interest in him at the
end of the season. By jettisoning Moises Alou and making a couple of
other moves, they're trying to clear payroll space to make a run at him.
Dan McGrath
Chicago Tribune sports

Doesn't the above quote sound like tampering?


Bob

Jerko
10-28-2004, 09:56 AM
Jeez - did anybody read my earlier post in this thread. The Sox already released the home portion of their schedule, and it was reported in the Trib. I completely agree that the Trib is biased, but the two examples that are the subject of this thread (the Beltran question and the reporting of the Cubs schedule) are horrible examples, and just go to foster the image of Sox fans as whiny. I'm not surprised McGrath responded as he did (although it was unprofessional).

(And if the Cubs schedule is released first, why in God's name should the Trib sit on that info and wait until the Sox release their schedule? That makes no sense at all. A newspaper reports the news at it happens. Their job is to not be biased, but reporting that the Cubs schedule is out, regardless of the status of the Sox schedule, isn't bias.)
I have to agree with Dibber here. Yes, the Tribune sucks and all that and it does sound like tampering, but it does sound a little whiny to say "the Cubs should leave Beltran alone because the Sox want him and there's no way we'll get him if the Cubs want him too because they are so much more popular than us". Also, who gives a flying flip that the Tribune published its own team's schedule? They DO own the Cubs, and it does not surprise me that they use every advantage they have as a media giant to pull some strings. After all, they scalp their own tickets, why put anything past them?

Lip Man 1
10-28-2004, 11:02 AM
I sent both letters to Bob Vanderberg the asst. editor of the Tribune, Sox fan and author and friend to WSI. Here is his comment FWIW:

Mark,

Well, after reading both letters, I see the writer's points but kinda agree with Dan's response. I was a little down about the big treatment of the Cub schedule treatment, but Dan made some good points about why the story was important --------We couldn't do anything with the Sox schedule because the dolts have released only the home portion............ but Dan said we'd do the same big schedule format, month-by-month, when the Sox schedule is finally released. We'll hold him to it.........


... and about Beltran: as much as I want to believe the Sox would like to go after him, you and I both know in our heart of hearts that he's not coming to the South SIde ..... and I remember seeing Kenny Williams' quote in our paper (Dan mentions it below) and I remember how down I was when I read it, because I realized once again there was no chance the Sox were gonna get the guy.


But the comment about "the typical whiny Sox fan" probably went too far, altho Dan knows how we are 'cause he's one himself and has been surrounded by them most of his life........ in other words, I am sure that when he wrote it he was including himself in that category. I mean, I might write the same thing, because I know how we are.......

Anyway, I'm still ticked off about having to pay more money to see them next year after they go 83-79..... I can see upping prices after you win something, but after this? Well, they have to get money somewhere to pay for Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and all the rest!

Bob

mdep524
10-28-2004, 11:19 AM
I sent both letters to Bob Vanderberg the asst. editor of the Tribune, Sox fan and author and friend to WSI. Here is his comment FWIW:

Mark,

Well, after reading both letters, I see the writer's points but kinda agree with Dan's response. I was a little down about the big treatment of the Cub schedule treatment, but Dan made some good points about why the story was important --------We couldn't do anything with the Sox schedule because the dolts have released only the home portion............ but Dan said we'd do the same big schedule format, month-by-month, when the Sox schedule is finally released. We'll hold him to it.........


... and about Beltran: as much as I want to believe the Sox would like to go after him, you and I both know in our heart of hearts that he's not coming to the South SIde ..... and I remember seeing Kenny Williams' quote in our paper (Dan mentions it below) and I remember how down I was when I read it, because I realized once again there was no chance the Sox were gonna get the guy.


But the comment about "the typical whiny Sox fan" probably went too far, altho Dan knows how we are 'cause he's one himself and has been surrounded by them most of his life........ in other words, I am sure that when he wrote it he was including himself in that category. I mean, I might write the same thing, because I know how we are.......

Anyway, I'm still ticked off about having to pay more money to see them next year after they go 83-79..... I can see upping prices after you win something, but after this? Well, they have to get money somewhere to pay for Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and all the rest!



Bob



Thanks for sending that, Lip. I don't buy his excuse for the whiny Sox fan comment though. I'm probably going to send my letter and response to the Daily Southtown or the Sun Times, just to see what they say.

About the schedules- I know the Sox entire schedule has not been released yet, but does anybody honestly think when it is it will get anywhere near the same coverage the Cubs' did? A front page, top-of-the-page headline and a quarter-page graphic and continuation inside on page 5? I really doubt it. Also, if the Sox' had been released first, I bet the Trib would have sat on it and not reported it until the Cubs schedule was relased as well, or if they did, there most certainly would have been a blurb or a text box somewhere in the coverage saying "Keep an eye open for the 2005 Cubs schedule, coming XXXday."

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 11:23 AM
Thanks for sending that, Lip. I don't buy his excuse for the whiny Sox fan comment though. I'm probably going to send my letter and response to the Daily Southtown or the Sun Times, just to see what they say.

About the schedules- I know the Sox entire schedule has not been released yet, but does anybody honestly think when it is it will get anywhere near the same coverage the Cubs' did? A front page, top-of-the-page headline and a quarter-page graphic and continuation inside on page 5? I really doubt it. Also, if the Sox' had been released first, I bet the Trib would have sat on it and not reported it until the Cubs schedule was relased as well, or if they did, there most certainly would have been a blurb or a text box somewhere in the coverage saying "Keep an eye open for the 2005 Cubs schedule, coming XXXday."
As Bob says, there's now a pretty easy comparison to be made and sent back to Dan as soon as the Sox schedule is released.

On another note, it'll be very interesting to see if the Tribsters have the same type of questions ready for potential guys the Sox have been rumored ot be after, i.e. SPs - after all, KW's on record as saying he wants a top end SP so isn't it natural that the Trib start asking Pavano, etc whether they want to play on the SS?

rdivaldi
10-28-2004, 04:20 PM
What kind of real estate? The overpriced FSBO variety? Certainly not commercial real estate.

Yeah, I can't imagine living without checking that crap out every day. They cover less than 5 percent of the property for sale. That's because nobody but fly-by-night sellers (or fly-by-night real estate agents) think the time and money spent advertising in the Cubune is effective for moving property.

If you really want to impress your boss and coworkers and get ahead in your career, I strongly recommend you stop wasting time in the Cubune real estate section and learn how to better utilize the MLS. It requires more skill than turning pages and washing your hands when your through. However the rewards are greater.
No, residential real estate. The Trib does have the most comprehensive section out there, and really does have some interesting articles as well in regards to new legal developments.

The MLS is definitely the best tool for identifying properties quickly, but you must realize that the typical home buyer doesn't have access to it. Sites like eRealty and zipRealty are a good first step, but in general Joe HomeBuyer doesn't have full access.

Honestly I'm a rookie at Real Estate business, so I have a lot to learn. Who knows? Maybe I'll find a better source than the Cubune and end up cancelling my membership. I definitely wouldn't shed a tear.

I'm also horrified by the response by Dan McGrath. Completely unprofessional and unexcuseable. I'd be apt to fire a guy who made those kind of comments to a consumer.

oneil78
10-28-2004, 05:38 PM
Dan McGrath replied to my email this afternoon. I have to say, I am surprised by the rudeness of his response. Here it is, exactly as he wrote it:

That's pretty funny. What an idiot.

Vsahajpal
10-28-2004, 06:00 PM
Is there an indication the Sox are really going after Carlos? He was quoted this morning as saying the Cubs and Phillies have been the teams that have expressed interest in him thus far.

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2004, 06:21 PM
On another note, it'll be very interesting to see if the Tribsters have the same type of questions ready for potential guys the Sox have been rumored ot be after, i.e. SPs - after all, KW's on record as saying he wants a top end SP so isn't it natural that the Trib start asking Pavano, etc whether they want to play on the SS?

Wait a minute!!! Didn't Cowley report that the Sox were interested in pursuing Randy Johnson??? I imagine the Trib must have had a 3-page article on that. I guess I missed it.:?:

Lip Man 1
10-28-2004, 09:43 PM
The latest news I heard was when ken Williams went on Comcast and said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that to sign Beltran would be 'very involved,' and would take a 'long time.' Williams said the Sox needed to concentrate on players 'under the radar.'

Does that mean players who work cheap? I don't know...we'll have to see.

Lip

Wealz
10-29-2004, 12:02 AM
White Sox Township's anger apparently has been felt . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000693105

"The Tribune Co. announced this morning that circulation at its two largest papers, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, experienced steep declines . . .
The Tribune reported daily circulation of 591,504 and a Sunday circ of 963,926, or a 2.5% and 4% decline, respectively."

GiveMeSox
10-29-2004, 05:06 AM
Why do people even care about the Trib? They own the Cubs, what do you really expect? If you don't like it, read the Sun Times.
Becuase the tribune is a national paper, the sun times is not. THe trib is regarded as one of the top 5 newspapers in the country and used and distributed all over the country and region. They knowingly portray the cubs in this superior light as if they are a bigger story then they are. They do this to create nationa attention on the cubs to make a name for themselves. Not to accuratly and fairly cover the sporting news in this city. If this was the daily southtown so be it, but the the cadillac of newspapers acting like 15 year olds. Its ridicolous, freedom of speech shouldn't include bias. There job is to report the news, not create it or persuade stories in one direction or another, which they constantly do.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 08:55 AM
White Sox Township's anger apparently has been felt . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000693105

"The Tribune Co. announced this morning that circulation at its two largest papers, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, experienced steep declines . . .
The Tribune reported daily circulation of 591,504 and a Sunday circ of 963,926, or a 2.5% and 4% decline, respectively."
There you go, Lip. Cubune circulation is down and the suits are being shuffled in the corporate suite. The smartest thing Ann Marie did was finally SHUT UP with her holy innocence schtick last August. She has a new boss and with a little luck the newbie doesn't know too much about how the Cubune's editor became part of a story that smeared the Cubune's journalistic reputation.

Circulation is down and they're looking for scapegoats. When will the other shoe drop? Sooner than you and I might think.
:cool:

Hangar18
10-29-2004, 09:49 AM
[QUOTE=Wealz]White Sox Township's anger apparently has been felt . . .
QUOTE]




Heh hehh hehh hehh, very clever. I was really getting tired
of the Trib outwardly and blatantly promoting its product for years, all but
ignoring the Chicago White Sox, despite the fact that many of those years, the SOX were the better team, yet struggled for media coverage. Reading that paper while spitting up my coffee for the last time, Id had enough, and like
a bad TV Sitcom, I CANCELLED them ....... :smile:

oneil78
10-29-2004, 10:11 AM
Becuase the tribune is a national paper, the sun times is not. THe trib is regarded as one of the top 5 newspapers in the country and used and distributed all over the country and region.
I can see you haven't read many newspapers but...
The New York Times
Wall Street Journal
LA Times
Washington Post
USA Today
Boston Globe

all better papers. The Trib might be a top ten paper. Might.

Kogs35
10-29-2004, 10:28 AM
the sox full schedule will actually be out when boston, the yanks, baltimore, anaheim, and oakland realease there schedule. everything else i have put together and will post in full when i find it.

TDog
10-29-2004, 01:09 PM
There you go, Lip. Cubune circulation is down and the suits are being shuffled in the corporate suite. The smartest thing Ann Marie did was finally SHUT UP with her holy innocence schtick last August. She has a new boss and with a little luck the newbie doesn't know too much about how the Cubune's editor became part of a story that smeared the Cubune's journalistic reputation.

Circulation is down and they're looking for scapegoats. When will the other shoe drop? Sooner than you and I might think.
:cool:
Corporate media groups are not just concerned with turning a profit. They tend to be obsessed with higher profit margins than other industries set as goals, particularly with the industry on the recovery from an extended slump. You can joke about the Tribune's circulation dropping (which means a drop in the rates they can charge for advertising) but the effect has a possibility of rippling down to the baseball product.

The baseball holding, unlike the Internet venture, apparently has pr oven profitable. But when they crunch the numbers, 2003 will have proved more profitable than 2004, mainly due to increased payroll. There are three spending directions the baseball division could take in 2005. The risk may be coming so close that the fans don't accept losing when the team slides.

Increase payroll -- There may not be much more profit available here. There isn't much the team can do to increase attendance. There may be a feeling that spending more money on the product could have a residual effect on the other divisions. They might sell more newspapers and be able to charge more for advertising. Putting the White Sox out of business could improve the fan base.

Maintain payroll -- Whether not winning in 2004 was a fluke or the team just doesn't have enough to win, it was good enough to provide hope for fans.

Cut payroll -- In the long run, is it more profitable to be mediocre (as Connie Mack observed in a different economic time)? Revenues drop, but not nearly at the rate of expenses. The Cubs have demonstrated that they may be one of the few baseball properties that could be profitable losers, although winning could spoil fans and change that.

I would be surprised if the Cubs substantially increase payroll. I think the most likely scenario would be a gradual downward trend re-evaluated on an annual basis.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 02:15 PM
Corporate media groups are not just concerned with turning a profit....
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've written regarding the Flubbies and their profit or payroll. However the point being discussed was the fallout from the Cubune newspaper's public spat with Mayor Daley over falling concrete inside the Urinal this past summer. I've suggested the editor, Ann Marie Lipinski, has damaged her newspaper's credibility and Lip has countered that it is of no consequence.

Events of the past week suggest there is more to come from the Cubune to change the management of their newspaper in Chicago.

As Martha Stewart might say, "It's a good thing."
:cool:

Lip Man 1
10-29-2004, 08:39 PM
George:

I guess we'll just have to see how this plays out. If something happens though say, five years from now, I would state that it hasn't had an effect.

If it happens six months to a year from now, that would give serious weight to your beliefs.

We'll see.

Lip

TDog
10-30-2004, 12:18 AM
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've written regarding the Flubbies and their profit or payroll. However the point being discussed was the fallout from the Cubune newspaper's public spat with Mayor Daley over falling concrete inside the Urinal this past summer. I've suggested the editor, Ann Marie Lipinski, has damaged her newspaper's credibility and Lip has countered that it is of no consequence.

Events of the past week suggest there is more to come from the Cubune to change the management of their newspaper in Chicago.

As Martha Stewart might say, "It's a good thing."
:cool:
Sorry to drift off topic. I just found the circulation numbers particularly interesting, as the numbers don't just reflect the loss of revenue from papers sold but ripple into what the company can charge for advertising, which is where newspapers make their money (if they don't own the Cubs). Actually, I agree with you, PHG.

JKryl
10-31-2004, 12:08 AM
Why do people even care about the Trib? They own the Cubs, what do you really expect? If you don't like it, read the Sun Times.
It's not that easy, "One", the Sun-Times is just as biased toward the Slubs as the Trib is. Try finding front page (sports section) news about the Sox. If you're lucky, it's once a week in the baseball season. At least the Trib has an excuse, they own the other team.

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 08:24 AM
Well, Sox schedule out today - small front page note, and the schedule on p.3. No pullout, no discussion of interleague matchups (which include the last Chicago WS rematch)........"fair and balanced", huh?

jabrch
11-03-2004, 09:21 AM
"Beltran hit .426 with eight homers in 12 games at Wrigley Field this year
... gee, you think he might like to play there?"

Call me crazy, but, maybe he hit .426 because he was facing Flub pitching?
I don't think WF has mystical powers to allow him to hit well.
Just my $.02
Well - Cub pitching had the 2nd or 3rd best ERA in the NL - I forget which... It might just be that Beltran was in a groove in the few ABs he had at Wrigley.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 01:33 PM
Feel free to e-mail McGrath letting him know about it. You can use his own words in that e-mail to that Sox fan against him.

Lip

JB98
11-03-2004, 02:33 PM
As a media professional, I feel the need to chime in on this discussion:

First, there is no good reason for the Trib to wait for the Sox schedule to come out before they publish the Cubs schedule. You publish the information as it becomes available, period. That's the way the newspaper industry has always operated, and it will continue to be that way until the end of time. The Chicago area is a highly-competitive media market. You don't want your competitors to beat you to the punch. How would the Tribune look if it failed to print the Cubs schedule on a day where both the Sun-Times and Southtown published it? They'd look like idiots, and that's exactly what you try to avoid. As Sox fans, we sound stupid when we say the Tribune is not practicing "fair and balanced" journalism for not waiting for our schedule to come out. If both schedules come out the same day, they should run the same day. However, in this case, the Cubs came out first. It's incumbent on members of the media to report what you've got at the precise time you get it. That's what we are trained to do.

Secondly, I didn't see how much play the Cubs schedule got in the Tribune. I have today's Trib, and at least the Sox are on the front page. I can't really speak to whether the teams are getting equal time on this because I didn't see what they did with the Cubs.

Thirdly, on the Beltran issue, I don't mind that they had a reporter ask Beltran about his impending free agency and the possibility of coming to Chicago. However, I do think it was unethical that they splashed it across the front page with the headline, "Beltran interested in Cubs" or whatever. I think Beltran would have gave the exact same remarks if he were asked directly about 10 or 12 other teams. The placement of the article was what I took exception to. They blew that way out of proportion in an attempt to drum up more pro-Cub hysteria. That article should have been a sidebar on an inside page somewhere.

Last, McGrath's response to the original letter was totally unprofessional. I've had disagreements with readers many times before, but you should never talk down to a customer like that. As journalists, we are educated, degreed people, and we should act like it. You simply explain to the reader why you did what you did and hope the person accepts your answer. If not, you agree to disagree and move on. McGrath makes a fool of himself and the company he works for with his childish response. I can only assume they have received a number of letters like that. They've grown tired of it, and now they are lashing out. However, that's no excuse.

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 02:49 PM
Feel free to e-mail McGrath letting him know about it. You can use his own words in that e-mail to that Sox fan against him.

Lip
I emailed this to DMcGrath@tribune.com a few minutes ago.


Dan,

I am a White Sox fan and member of the fan community at White Sox Interactive (www.whitesoxinteractive.com (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/www.whitesoxinteractive.com)). Last week, another member, Micahel DePilla, wrote you with some concerns about the coverage of the release of the Cubs schedule and potential media bias by the Trib in favor of the Northsiders. Your response included this comment: "The White Sox' schedule has not been released yet, OK? When it is, it will be given similar treatment. In the meantime, would you like us to make one up just so we appear even-handed?" (See http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=518376&postcount=24 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=518376&postcount=24)).

At the time, I was excited in anticipation of stories about the rematch of the 1959 World Series (the last one played in Chicago), the first ever appearance of the Dodgers in New Comiskey/USCF, what the schedule implied for the Sox chances at a division title, and a pullout schedule. Imagine my surprise to see a very short piece that basically says "they play the Central division early", and a copy of the whole schedule amid other stories on p.3. No mention of anything else, no discussion of interesting matchups or division title prospects, nothing.

I'm curious as to how you would characterize that as "similar treatment" or "even handed", when one team's marquee matchups get front-page coverage and in depth discussion, along with articles on what the triumph of the Red Sox means for their title hopes while the other team (coincidentally, not owned by the same corporate parent as the Trib) gets minimal coverage. Where is the fairness and objectivity in coverage that the Tribune is supposedly known for? Is it any wonder that Sox fans feel treated like second class citizens by local media? And have the standards of journalism become so tainted by corporate finances that a world-renowned newspaper stoops to such obvious marketing for a corporate partner?

All we as Sox fans want is the same balanced coverage of sports that the Trib provides in the news sections. Is that so much to ask of a local newspaper?

mdep524
11-03-2004, 05:09 PM
I emailed this to DMcGrath@tribune.com a few minutes ago.
Excellent letter, Flight! I wrote him one today too that commented on the Schedulegate. I also called him out for his editorial piece for Sunday's paper in which he defended the Cubs in the whole Stonegate scandal. Did anyone read that column? It was probably a mandate from the Trib to slander Steve Stone and tell their readers not to blame the Cubs and to move on from the whole ordeal. Pure fluff piece. I found it inaccurate and self serving. (So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.)

Anyway, thanks for defending me, Flight.

nitetrain8601
11-03-2004, 05:30 PM
I emailed this to DMcGrath@tribune.com a few minutes ago.
fantastic letter. I'd like to hear the response to this bad boy.

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 05:31 PM
Excellent letter, Flight! I wrote him one today too that commented on the Schedulegate. I also called him out for his editorial piece for Sunday's paper in which he defended the Cubs in the whole Stonegate scandal. Did anyone read that column? It was probably a mandate from the Trib to slander Steve Stone and tell their readers not to blame the Cubs and to move on from the whole ordeal. Pure fluff piece. I found it inaccurate and self serving. (So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.)

Anyway, thanks for defending me, Flight.
No problemo, and FWIW - I did see the editorial and felt like you, that it was blatant protectionism at the expense of journalistic integrity.

maurice
11-03-2004, 06:13 PM
As a media professional, I feel the need to chime in on this discussion . . . . McGrath makes a fool of himself and the company he works for with his childish response. . . .Excellent post. While I disagree with much of the content of the original letter, it was well-written and extremely polite. McGrath's response was worse than bushleague. Most high school newspaper editors demonstrate greater professionalism.

The entity that prides itself as the World's Greatest Newspaper should be ashamed to employ a hack like McGrath. His unprovoked attack ironically bolsters the widespread belief that the Trib demonstrates bias against their property's cross-town competition. Once again, the lady doth protest too much.

maurice
11-03-2004, 06:17 PM
And have the standards of journalism become so tainted by corporate finances that a world-renowned newspaper stoops to such obvious marketing for a corporate partner?Well done, Flight. The snail strikes again.
:giantsnail

BTW, for rhetorical purposes, I like to refer to the two Chicago teams as "the second-place White Sox" and "the third-place Cubs."
:gulp:

Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 08:15 PM
Flight:

Very nicely done. Kudos to you.

Lip

mdep524
11-03-2004, 08:57 PM
More from McGrath. Man, I think I really pissed this guy off. Here's what he wrote back to me today, in response to an email I wrote him about his Steve Stone editorial:

Look, pal, disagree with the Stone piece all you want. It's was an
opinion piece. I'm entitled to an opinion, just as you are entitled to
disagree with it. The point most people got is that the situation was
mishandled on both sides, and that the Cubs are in deep trouble unless
they replace Stone with an analyst of comparable talent.
Then again, most people aren't Northwestern-educated geniuses.
Disagree with or dislike the piece, fine. Question my "journalistic
integrity" because you do and we've got real problems. I've been in this
business longer than you've been alive, and I didn't get to the position
I'm in by taking short cuts with integrity--never. I worked my ass off,
and I still do. And I'm not going to have my integrity questioned by some
smart-ass Northwestern punk who knows a few big words and thinks he can
write fancy sentences.
If I were you I'd be really careful about insulting people I do not know.
I'd tell you what you can do with the critique you'd be "remiss in not
offering"---my God, how arrogant are you?---but in personal communication
I try to maintain the same family newspaper standards the the Tribune
insists on. Not that I'm not thinking what you can do with said critique.
I'm a nice person, but you've pushed me so far over the edge I'm tempted
to write things nice people should never say. So do us both a favor and
cease and desist communication. I have no time for and zero interest in
you or your smarmy opinions.
Dan McGrath

mdep524
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM
I just got another email from McGrath, this one in response to me questioning the even-handedness of the Cubs/Sox schedule coverage.

Yep, you got us. We wrote more on the Cubs' schedule than we did on the
Sox. Five paragraphs. At least 150 words, by my unscientific count, maybe
more.
Never mind Page 1 placement of both stories or an exact duplication
of the schedules thremselves. Those five paragraphs are yet another
egregious example of the Tribune's pro-Cub, anti-White Sox bias. It's
like a disease we recognize but are powerless to cure. Pray for us.
Didn't the White Sox and Dodgers reprise the 1959 World Series last
year? So 2005 is the one-year anniversary of that re-enactment? There's
five paragraphs right there. What were we thinking?
Dan McGrath
Chicago Tribune sports
p.s. I explained to you last week why the Cubs' schedule was a story:
It was markedly different from the favorable late-season schedules they
had in 2003 and 2004, one of which they took advantage of, one of which
they failed to.
This is a rather silly argument, sir, and this will be my last
statement on it.
Man, this guy must've had a really bad week or something, and is taking it all out on me. All I did was write him a letter.

jabrch
11-03-2004, 09:04 PM
All I can say is...WOW.

Take the bias or the jouralistic integrity out of the equation - his communication is still unprofessional and speaks bad of his employer and his profession. If my employees used my company's e-mail to write a letter like that to a "client" I'd do everything I could to have that person's employment immediately terminated.

I wonder if the Tribune Company knowingly condones that sort of behaviour from it's employees?

tebman
11-03-2004, 09:44 PM
I just got another email from McGrath, this one in response to me questioning the even-handedness of the Cubs/Sox schedule coverage.

<stupor-induced rant snipped>

Man, this guy must've had a really bad week or something, and is taking it all out on me. All I did was write him a letter.Jeez. What's going on over there? Maybe McGrath didn't get invited to the Col. McCormick seance -- you know, that's the one where the editors all dress up in jodhpurs and safari hats and say "Bully!" and the Colonel appears and says, "Take good care of my properties, lads! I'm off to fight the Huns!"

This attitude is all over the paper. That's why we cancelled our subscription a long time ago.

- tebman

RichFitztightly
11-03-2004, 09:57 PM
All I can say is...WOW.

Take the bias or the jouralistic integrity out of the equation - his communication is still unprofessional and speaks bad of his employer and his profession. If my employees used my company's e-mail to write a letter like that to a "client" I'd do everything I could to have that person's employment immediately terminated.

I wonder if the Tribune Company knowingly condones that sort of behaviour from it's employees?
I don't think the Tribune Company cares. I get the feeling that they don't regard the readers as "clients" but save that designation for the advertisers.

TornLabrum
11-03-2004, 09:59 PM
I don't think the Tribune Company cares. I get the feeling that they don't regard the readers as "clients" but save that designation for the advertisers.
Tribune Tower is the illustration in Webster's for the word hubris.

tebman
11-03-2004, 10:02 PM
I just got another email from McGrath, this one in response to me questioning the even-handedness of the Cubs/Sox schedule coverage.

<stupor-induced rant snipped>

Man, this guy must've had a really bad week or something, and is taking it all out on me. All I did was write him a letter.Jeez. What's going on over there? Maybe McGrath didn't get invited to the Col. McCormick seance -- you know, that's the one where the editors all dress up in jodhpurs and safari hats and say "Bully!" and the Colonel appears and says, "Take good care of my properties, lads! I'm off to fight the Huns!"

This attitude is all over the paper. That's why we cancelled our subscription a long time ago.

- tebman

A.T. Money
11-03-2004, 10:20 PM
McGrath said he won't further reply, yet he does.

I think he's angry, but he enjoys fighting with Mike. Funny stuff!

Mike....you should have just replied to him with the easy, to the point "Yo Mamma!"

NUCatsFan
11-03-2004, 10:54 PM
To those who have written to this man (and I use the term loosely, based on what I've read here), has he responded to when to expect OUR six page pullout section? No? Didn't think so.

JB98
11-03-2004, 11:18 PM
I don't think the Tribune Company cares. I get the feeling that they don't regard the readers as "clients" but save that designation for the advertisers.

Maybe the higher-ups don't care, but I'll bet the people who run the editorial department would. Generally, people who work in editorial in any capacity consider the readers to be their customers. They don't give a crap about advertisers. The bean-counters are the ones that worry about the advertisers.

Ol' No. 2
11-03-2004, 11:26 PM
I just got another email from McGrath, this one in response to me questioning the even-handedness of the Cubs/Sox schedule coverage.

Man, this guy must've had a really bad week or something, and is taking it all out on me. All I did was write him a letter.So...are you going to go for the trifecta????

mdep524
11-04-2004, 12:07 AM
Hey, I was just trying to engage him in conversation, have him defend himself and the Trib against the inherent conflict of interest with the Cubs. But he won't even converse is a civilized, constructive way. I don't understand what the hell this guy's problem is that he has to be so arrogant and insulting. The fact that he is making such sour grapes out of this really reflects poorly on the Tribune, and does NOTHING to convince any readers he gives a damn about acknowledging legitimate bias critiques.

I'm not going to have my integrity questioned by some
smart-ass Northwestern punk who knows a few big words and thinks he can
write fancy sentences.
Those five paragraphs are yet another
egregious example of the Tribune's pro-Cub, anti-White Sox bias. It's
like a disease we recognize but are powerless to cure. Pray for us.

I have no time for and zero interest in
you or your smarmy opinions.

What the hell is he trying to prove here?

Ol' No. 2
11-04-2004, 12:14 AM
Hey, I was just trying to engage him in conversation, have him defend himself and the Trib against the inherent conflict of interest with the Cubs. But he won't even converse is a civilized, constructive way. I don't understand what the hell this guy's problem is that he has to be so arrogant and insulting. The fact that he is making such sour grapes out of this really reflects poorly on the Tribune, and does NOTHING to convince any readers he gives a damn about acknowledging legitimate bias critiques.

What the hell is he trying to prove here?I'm jealous. No one's called me "smarmy" in ages.

gosox41
11-04-2004, 12:34 AM
I just got another email from McGrath, this one in response to me questioning the even-handedness of the Cubs/Sox schedule coverage.

Man, this guy must've had a really bad week or something, and is taking it all out on me. All I did was write him a letter.
The reply I would make to that letter is in regards to the Sox playing LA 2 years ago. I would have said something like: "You wouldn't have realized the Sox played the Dodgers 2 years ago by the coverage in your paper. It was all Yankees/Cubs that weekend."

Is htere a way to forward his responses on to his superiors. His repsonses seem rather terse and insulting at times. I'msure someone there would like to know how he is representing his paper.


Bob

maurice
11-04-2004, 01:04 PM
What a fool. He can't write two consecutive sentences without contradicting himself but has the gall to criticize the superior writing skills of others.

He apparently thinks that a top-notch education is a bad thing. I guess NU has nothing on the journalism program at Southwest Missouri JuCo or whatever "college" McGrath hails from.

He promises to give the Sox equal coverage on the schedule issue, but when that's exposed as a lie, he claims that five paragraphs = zero paragraphs.

He says that he has "zero interest" in mdep's well-stated opinions and no time, but can't stop himself from continually responding in writing.

He says that mdep is "entitled to disagree" with his opinion, then trashes mdep for disagreeing with his opinion.

He claims that he and mdep have "got real problems" because mdep pointed out his lack of integrity, and then acts like a vulgar, spoiled sixth grader.

He says that he's "really careful about insulting people I do not know," while concurrently insulting a person he does not know.

He thinks that six-letter words like "remiss" are big words, yet some idiot is paying him to write.

He claims that "in personal communication I try to maintain the same family newspaper standards the the Tribune insists on" after repeatedly swearing at a customer.

He claims that mdep is "arrogant" and "smarmy." That's a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Who among us remains unconvinced by such a compelling argument demonstrating the superior integrity of the Trib!

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Go to the Tribune web site and look for the area that lists all e-mail addresses. Then go to anyone that lists owner / publisher / managing editor and send them a copy.


Lip

maurice
11-04-2004, 01:16 PM
BTW, two Trib employees recently claimed that it would ignore reality to write that the Sox are interested in acquiring Beltran. So, why does today's Trib (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041103sox,1,3657646.story?coll=cs-home-headlines) state that "Sox [] winter plans [] include free agents such as Carlos Beltran"? I guess they made an editorial decision to officially acknowledge their own idiocy.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 01:41 PM
I just sent my comments to the higher up's at the Tribune. I enclosed the kid's original e-mails plus McGrath's replies. I mentioned the 'family values' the Tribune esposes and asked if this was an example of it.

I said it sounded to me that McGrath has a Jay Mariotti complex and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are customers to be treated the way that he did.

I also mentioned that I've been in the business myself since 1979 and you simply can not allow yourself to get personally involved with comments praising or criticizing what you do.

Again I'd encourage all of you to tell the powers that be what you think. You can find e-mail addresses under the link entitled 'newsroom staff/ e-mails.'

Lip

Dan H
11-04-2004, 02:50 PM
I just sent my comments to the higher up's at the Tribune. I enclosed the kid's original e-mails plus McGrath's replies. I mentioned the 'family values' the Tribune esposes and asked if this was an example of it.

I said it sounded to me that McGrath has a Jay Mariotti complex and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are customers to be treated the way that he did.

I also mentioned that I've been in the business myself since 1979 and you simply can not allow yourself to get personally involved with comments praising or criticizing what you do.

Again I'd encourage all of you to tell the powers that be what you think. You can find e-mail addresses under the link entitled 'newsroom staff/ e-mails.'

Lip
I don't know if the powers that be care one way or the other. This is a typical McGrath. He acted in a similar fashion when he was criticized for completely ignoring SoxFest a few years ago after the Trib ran long articles on the Cub fan convention a few weeks earlier.

His personal insults are of no surprise to me. The media treats the Chicago sports fan with contempt in this town, especially Sox fans. Talk sports radio does it more with its constant riducule and unprofessional behavior. McGrath is just part of the mix.

Sportswriters like Bill Gleason used to be fan advocates. No longer.

tebman
11-04-2004, 03:00 PM
I don't know if the powers that be care one way or the other. This is a typical McGrath. He acted in a similar fashion when he was criticized for completely ignoring SoxFest a few years ago after the Trib ran long articles on the Cub fan convention a few weeks earlier.

His personal insults are of no surprise to me. The media treats the Chicago sports fan with contempt in this town, especially Sox fans. Talk sports radio does it more with its constant riducule and unprofessional behavior. McGrath is just part of the mix.

Sportswriters like Bill Gleason used to be fan advocates. No longer.I don't know anything about McGrath, but I know that the Tribune is in the advertising business, not the news business. In its company announcements it describes itself as a media company (radio, TV, newspapers, syndication, etc.), where the customers are the advertisers. The readers/viewers/listeners are the "product" that's sold to the customers.

McGrath's ranting and the paper's transparent shilling for the Cubs and WGN are just examples that illustrate where their focus really is.

- tebman

ChiSox14305635
11-04-2004, 03:30 PM
Wasn't it earlier this week in the Sunday Tribune that McGrath wrote the piece about Cub fans needing to get over the "loss" of Steve Stone. Boers and Bernstein lit him up like a Christmas tree on the Score on Monday, so much to the point that McGrath called to "defend" himself. Seems like he can't handle the criticism of some of his pieces.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 05:02 PM
Folks:

For what it's worth. I've been in touch with some of my contacts at the Trib. In my opinion they are good people and good journalists.

I sent them McGrath's comments and the e-mail from the reader. Basically they were surprised at McGrath's comments. I told them that Sox fans here at WSI were considering sending those e-mails to the people who run the paper. One of the folks I spoke with expressed concern about that, adding that he hoped it wouldn't lead to his firing.

They also expressed surprise at how Sox fans seem to pick out one or two things and use them as an example of 'biasness.' It was mentioned that the Tribune did a story in June about the Sox playing the Dodgers for the first time. They honestly expressed surprise about the anger over this.

My response was that 'that was then,this is now...' (with respects to The Monkees!) and that Sox fans felt they had as much right to see a big deal made over L.A. coming TO Chicago for the first time since 1959 as the Tribune made about the Red Sox coming to Chicago for the first time since 1918. (Frankly I was surprised that this comment was made in the first place to me it was obvious.)

I explained about the reports on the web site that the Cubs story was above the fold, the Sox below and that apparently the Cubs had some type of a pullout section and the Sox didn't.

Finally I just suggested that with the announcement the Tribune has lost readership, that they could not afford to alienate ANY readers and that probably in this case, the guy who sent the e-mail to McGrath will never buy the Tribune again. I felt his response was unprofessional and way out of line considering that fact that no swear words were used and that the e-mail was signed.

We'll see what happens but I'd again encourage you to make your views known to the people who run the newspaper...the editor, managing editor and publisher(s).

Lip

Ol' No. 2
11-04-2004, 06:43 PM
I don't know anything about McGrath, but I know that the Tribune is in the advertising business, not the news business. In its company announcements it describes itself as a media company (radio, TV, newspapers, syndication, etc.), where the customers are the advertisers. The readers/viewers/listeners are the "product" that's sold to the customers.

McGrath's ranting and the paper's transparent shilling for the Cubs and WGN are just examples that illustrate where their focus really is.

- tebmanBingo!!! And as long as the advertisers believe that Cubs fans are more numerous and/or more desirable from a marketing standpoint (i.e. a more valuable "product" in this sense), the media will continue to shill for the Cubs to try to attract more of their fans.

Frankfan4life
11-05-2004, 12:28 AM
Bingo!!! And as long as the advertisers believe that Cubs fans are more numerous and/or more desirable from a marketing standpoint (i.e. a more valuable "product" in this sense), the media will continue to shill for the Cubs to try to attract more of their fans.Still, is it smart business to alienate a smaller but still sizable readership? It seems to me that the Trib is being more exclusive than inclusive. That just doesn't seem too bright. You want as many readers as possible buying your product. I'm sorry but I don't see how giving equal time to the Sox can hurt your circulation.

Also, I found it interesting that before McGrath responded to the second post, he came on WSI and looked up mdep's info. I'm sure he's been reading this thread and knows exactly what we're saying.

So, here is my smarmy comment McGrath... :kukoo:

NWSox
11-05-2004, 02:41 AM
One of the few benefits of living so far from Chicago is that I read the Trib and Sun-Times online. I go directly to the Sox articles. I never have to look at a Cubs story. I can't remember when I've ever clicked on that annoyingly blue Cubs link on the Trib site. I'm sure there's more content on the Cubs page, but I get what I need and move on (and the Trib doesn't get any of my money).

I do miss the Italian beef though.

mjharrison72
11-05-2004, 10:05 AM
I can see you haven't read many newspapers but...
The New York Times
Wall Street Journal
LA Times
Washington Post
USA Today
Boston Globe

all better papers. The Trib might be a top ten paper. Might.
I agree with all the papers in your list... except USA Today. Have you ever read it? The Trib easily squeezes in ahead of USAT, and probably the LAT as well.

mjharrison72
11-05-2004, 10:20 AM
One of the few benefits of living so far from Chicago is that I read the Trib and Sun-Times online. I go directly to the Sox articles. I never have to look at a Cubs story. I can't remember when I've ever clicked on that annoyingly blue Cubs link on the Trib site. I'm sure there's more content on the Cubs page, but I get what I need and move on (and the Trib doesn't get any of my money).

I do miss the Italian beef though.
I do the same thing... except I thoroughly enjoyed the articles about the Flubs' meltdown at the end of the year and the subsequent Sosa scandal in the S-T. What a whiner that guy turned out to be. I certainly hope if he gets elected to the HOF, we don't let him do it in a Sox uni.

And there is NOTHING like Chicago Italian beef.

SoxFan14
11-05-2004, 12:16 PM
I do the same thing... except I thoroughly enjoyed the articles about the Flubs' meltdown at the end of the year and the subsequent Sosa scandal in the S-T. What a whiner that guy turned out to be. I certainly hope if he gets elected to the HOF, we don't let him do it in a Sox uni.


Why would Sosa even consider going into the HOF wearing a Sox hat? He accomplished nothing in a Sox uniform. That's one thing you don't have to worry about.

mdep524
11-05-2004, 01:22 PM
Wasn't it earlier this week in the Sunday Tribune that McGrath wrote the piece about Cub fans needing to get over the "loss" of Steve Stone. Boers and Bernstein lit him up like a Christmas tree on the Score on Monday, so much to the point that McGrath called to "defend" himself. Seems like he can't handle the criticism of some of his pieces.
Yes, that editorial was in Sunday's sports ection. I think it was pretty clear to almost everyone who read it- me, several others from this site, Cubs fans friends of mine, radio sow hosts- that the article was nothing more than a transparent spin control/damage control piece for the Tribune Company. Or as our own Flight #24 put it: "blatant protectionism at the expense of journalistic integrity."

I tried to raise these concerns with him, but I got nothing but a tactless response back.

Flight #24
11-05-2004, 01:26 PM
Yes, that editorial was in Sunday's sports ection. I think it was pretty clear to almost everyone who read it- me, several others from this site, Cubs fans friends of mine, radio sow hosts- that the article was nothing more than a transparent spin control/damage control piece for the Tribune Company. Or as our own Flight #24 put it: "blatant protectionism at the expense of journalistic integrity."

I tried to raise these concerns with him, but I got nothing but a tactless response back.
FWIW - I got zip, zippo, bupkus in response.

I want Mags back
11-11-2004, 09:34 PM
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

WE ALL HATE THE TRIB


WE ALL HATE REINSDORF


SOLUTION, SUN-TIMES BUYS SOX, CREATES EVEN MORE WARS IN THIS TOWN, WHICH WOULD BE ALOT MORE FUN FOR US, AND PISS MORE STUPID FLUBS FANS OFF