PDA

View Full Version : cubtastic media strikes again


maurice
12-10-2004, 11:25 AM
You'd think that after the cubs failed to meet expectations, embarassingly finished in third place, and failed to add any players so far this offseason, the Chicago media would lay off the cubbie coolaid for awhile. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the pro-cub propaganda they will put forth in the name of "journalism." In the last two days, the Sox have signed good-but-not-great free agents and the cubs did nothing. To an unbiased journalist, the direction of the coverage would be obvious. The Chicago media, of course, goes in the opposite direction.

The back cover of yesterday's Cub-Times contained a full-page cubbie picture with a tiny picture of Hermanson in the lower-left quadrant. The back cover of today's Cub-Times contains a full-page picture of Ordonez and the headline "Maggs takes his cuts." None of the five items on the back page mention the Dye signing (though the front page of the "news" section contains another Maggs picture, noting "deal with the cubs would be 'really, really nice'"). The Dye signing is not mentioned until page 4, opposite another Couch article bashing the Sox (for the second day in a row).

Before I go on, I should point out that this Couch article is vastly superior to the previous one, probably due to the contributions of Doug Padilla. The article contains substantial evidence that Ordonez and Boras are lying in the press. In this context, I cannot blame Couch for quoting the lies. (The Trib article, of course, reports only the lies.)

The cover of today's Trib sports section reads: "Why not the Cubs?" The article tries to sell Ordonez as a replacement for Sosa, though Jim Hendry has repeatedly stated that he's not likely to be able to move Sosa. Though there are four other articles on the page and three teases re. what appears "inside," not one of these eight items even mentions that the Sox just signed Jermaine Dye. In fact, the signing is not mentioned at all until page 3, and it appears next to another cub article -- this one making excuses for their lack of activity ("For cubs, dealing Sosa not so easy").

Finally, the WGN news at nine teased the Dye signing, but when the sports segment came around, it wasn't one of the top stories. Roan mentioned it for about ten seconds, showed a clip of Dye batting against the Sox, and then quickly shifted to an inteview with Hendry to talk about all the stuff the cubs didn't do. The only other TV news coverage I caught was the NBC news at ten, which (surprisingly) appeared to handle the signing appropriately.

:giantsnail

ode to veeck
12-10-2004, 11:40 AM
where's Henry when we need him

cheeses_h_rice
12-10-2004, 12:04 PM
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The Sox didn't contend last year, the Cubs did. The Sox have a lot of holes yet to fill while the Cubs are closer to playoff contention again.

I would much rather the Sox be seen as the underdog going into 2005 and surprising people than going in as the favorites and falling on their faces, as the Flubs did in 2004.

I accept that this is a "Cubs town" and that my team will always be the proverbial redheaded stepchild, at least until they win something in the postseason. It isn't worth getting your blood pressure elevated over.

maurice
12-10-2004, 12:47 PM
It isn't worth getting your blood pressure elevated over.
Honestly, the two things that really burn me are: (1) the fact that the media usually denies any bias, and (2) the fact that I can't buy a major daily newspaper in this town without subsidizing the cubs' avdvertising campaign.

cheeses_h_rice
12-10-2004, 12:49 PM
Honestly, the two things that really burn me are: (1) the fact that the media usually denies any bias, and (2) the fact that I can't buy a major daily newspaper in this town without subsidizing the cubs' avdvertising campaign. 1. We all know the truth.

2. I don't buy Chicago papers; I just go to their websites. They don't get a dime from me.

:moron

Bastard.

maurice
12-10-2004, 12:54 PM
I don't buy Chicago papers; I just go to their websites. They don't get a dime from me.
Actually, I think they do. They likely record "hits" on their site and use the information to sell pop-up ads. If they count "hits" the same way they count their circulation (and as ethically as they report the news), every time you read an article they tell their advertisers that three people read it.