PDA

View Full Version : Cubune covers Frank... sorta... if you count page 4... with Canseco on p. 1


cburns
03-18-2005, 10:39 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050318cubssoxroids,1,4812131.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Good article about the hearings, a day too late IMHO, but good none the less. I don't know how the layout will be in the Tribune, b/c I just checked it out online.

"I didn't agree with the fine thing. I think one big, big, big punch in the stomach will take care of things instead of a slap on the wrist."

I have to say Frank is right about that. Overall I thought this article made Frank look pretty good. Nice piece.

gobears1987
03-19-2005, 05:12 AM
:weewillie
"Nah, I don't care about that [stuff]," infielder Willie Harris said. "I'm not on steroids. I didn't even look at it."

OMG!!! I believe Willie is lying. Just look at his HR numbers. I suspect he is on the juice.

Vernam
03-19-2005, 07:29 AM
The New York Times also has a story featuring Frank: http://nytimes.com/2005/03/19/sports/baseball/19thomas.html

It's positively glowing. Hard to believe they made Frank sit through nine hours of the hearing and almost completely ignored him. (Though he might have been relieved.) The day after, he had more interesting things to say than most of the panelists.

I haven't seen any WSI discussion of Sam-me's testimony, which seemed to walk a fine line to avoid perjury. He swore he's never used "illegal performance enhancing drugs" and never been injected with them. Not exactly the same as saying he never took ANYTHING. Reading between the lines, I don't think he ruled out taking substances that were/are legal.

McGwire got skewered in the press for his ridiculous behavior in the hearing, and Sosa got a free pass. Because of libel laws, I suppose, reporters are still reluctant to point out the obvious.

Also, wasn't the Trib's coverage restrained in comparison to the Sun-Times'? Couldn't have anything to do with possible liability faced by the Cubs organization that enabled Sosa's assault on records set by honest men . . .

PaleHoseGeorge
03-19-2005, 08:05 AM
The Cubune has no shame. Page 4 for Frank, covered by a staff reporter. Meanwhile Canseco's worthless book signing gets page 1.

Give me a ****ing break.
:mad:

progers0826
03-19-2005, 11:20 AM
I'm not replying so much to this thread as to a post by George Bova which had me missing in action on the day of the hearings. The fact is I covered the hearings inside the room at the Rayburn building, filed a news story for A1 on the Tribune and made an appearance on Nightline afterward. I'm not sure if Frank Thomas was sufficiently covered for your taste, nor Sosa bashed enough (although I'd reference my comments on Nightline) but I definitely was not missing in action. As for the NYT, that was a really good story by Lee Jenkins, and in hindsight the Tribune probably should have assigned a reporter to be by Thomas' side during the hearings. Instead we put our Tucson manpower on the diamond, which is where I think most readers want it to be. FYI, the video screens in the meeting room that had Thomas on were blank after the opening statements (which were followed by a recess before the players were questioned). It seems possible to me that the committee believed he was not longer available. That was my belief. Either way, Frank's impact was definitely limited by his not traveling to Washington.

Lip Man 1
03-19-2005, 12:32 PM
Phil:

Welcome back it's always good to hear from you. I saw your comments on Nightline and also read your column the day after. I thought your points were valid about Sammy and made reference to them in some other threads. I have some serious questions about Sammy's comments and the way they came across but I'll leave that to another time.

As I understand things there was a hook up / technical problem of some sort that screwed up the link to Thomas. I didn't know until today that he sat there for nine hours.

I wish there was some way to get word to the staff of the committee that this happened. It would be nice if the Congressmen at least acknowledged Frank's efforts at sitting there wondering why he was never questioned. I'm not saying to apologize, but at least to acknowledge.

Take care, don't be a stranger!

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
03-19-2005, 12:43 PM
I'm not replying so much to this thread as to a post by George Bova which had me missing in action on the day of the hearings. The fact is I covered the hearings inside the room at the Rayburn building, filed a news story for A1 on the Tribune and made an appearance on Nightline afterward. I'm not sure if Frank Thomas was sufficiently covered for your taste, nor Sosa bashed enough (although I'd reference my comments on Nightline) but I definitely was not missing in action. As for the NYT, that was a really good story by Lee Jenkins, and in hindsight the Tribune probably should have assigned a reporter to be by Thomas' side during the hearings. Instead we put our Tucson manpower on the diamond, which is where I think most readers want it to be. FYI, the video screens in the meeting room that had Thomas on were blank after the opening statements (which were followed by a recess before the players were questioned). It seems possible to me that the committee believed he was not longer available. That was my belief. Either way, Frank's impact was definitely limited by his not traveling to Washington.

Hey, I only wish you would play it straight. If you were in Washington to cover the hearings, why wasn't the fact Frank was there via teleconference the entire afternoon and evening noted for your Chicago readers? Why wasn't it noted that he was never called upon again? Why must Chicago readers go to the NY Times to get these facts?

Why was Sosa's blanket denial of illegal steroids not noted, rather than grouped with Palmeiro's and Thomas's denials of steroids generally?

Also, why was Sosa's "Chico Esquala" routine not noted for your Chicago readers? You more than anyone should know how well he does (or doesn't) understand and speak English. You've covered him as the hometown hero for over six years, correct?

Finally correct me if I'm wrong, but Sosa did have a translator sitting right next to him, didn't he? Did YOU understand the answers he gave to the questions posed? If so, please share. I guarantee nobody else watching those hearings has any clue.
:o:

As for your report in Saturday's edition of the Tribune, please direct me to it. I'll be happy to offer a retraction on the MIA comment about today's edition if in fact I was wrong. I've double-checked and I don't think I am.

hose
03-19-2005, 01:17 PM
As for the NYT, that was a really good story by Lee Jenkins, and in hindsight the Tribune probably should have assigned a reporter to be by Thomas' side during the hearings. Instead we put our Tucson manpower on the diamond, which is where I think most readers want it to be.

Phil the Sox did not play on Thursday and the Cubs were in Phoenix playing
the A's.

Your "manpower" in Tucson could have easily covered Thomas.

Deadguy
03-19-2005, 01:29 PM
Phil the Sox did not play on Thursday and the Cubs were in Phoenix playing
the A's.

Your "manpower" in Tucson could have easily covered Thomas.

If only the Tribune had you on the payroll, we could finally get some straight answers. :thumbsup:

progers0826
03-19-2005, 02:01 PM
George, your reference to me being MIA read to me to be in regard to Friday's Tribune, as you referenced Downey being in Indianapolis and writing off college basketball. If you were talking Friday for Saturday, yes, you're right, I didn't write (space issues w/college basketball and editors opting to cover Canseco's appearance in Chicago). Because I was writing the main news story on Friday, McGwire and the overall tenor of the hearing seemed more important than the Chicago aspects -- Thomas and Sosa -- particularly since this was a news story, not a column. Anyway, I understand that the Tribune's ownership of the Cubs is a conflict of interest but I wish you guys would appreciate our section's efforts to cover baseball, which have grown (in all regards) greatly in the last five-10 years. No media outlet devotes the resources that we do (on both sides of town) during the season and the off-season. I'd point out that the guys in the Chicago media raising the earliest questions about Sosa were myself, Morrissey and, before him, Bayless, all of the Tribune. But when we praise anything to do with the Cubs, we're homers, and when we criticize them, we're involved in some clandestine agenda that comes down from the highest floors of the Tower (witness Mariotti's charges of a Tribster smear campaign when we criticized Sosa and questioned whether he should be re-signed). It's a no-win situation. All I can do is promise that what we want to have every day is the most compelling, most accurate coverage of all 30 teams in major league baseball, and that we are always trying to get better. So now, let me have it. I'm reading.

BRDSR
03-19-2005, 03:31 PM
George, your reference to me being MIA read to me to be in regard to Friday's Tribune, as you referenced Downey being in Indianapolis and writing off college basketball. If you were talking Friday for Saturday, yes, you're right, I didn't write (space issues w/college basketball and editors opting to cover Canseco's appearance in Chicago). Because I was writing the main news story on Friday, McGwire and the overall tenor of the hearing seemed more important than the Chicago aspects -- Thomas and Sosa -- particularly since this was a news story, not a column. Anyway, I understand that the Tribune's ownership of the Cubs is a conflict of interest but I wish you guys would appreciate our section's efforts to cover baseball, which have grown (in all regards) greatly in the last five-10 years. No media outlet devotes the resources that we do (on both sides of town) during the season and the off-season. I'd point out that the guys in the Chicago media raising the earliest questions about Sosa were myself, Morrissey and, before him, Bayless, all of the Tribune. But when we praise anything to do with the Cubs, we're homers, and when we criticize them, we're involved in some clandestine agenda that comes down from the highest floors of the Tower (witness Mariotti's charges of a Tribster smear campaign when we criticized Sosa and questioned whether he should be re-signed). It's a no-win situation. All I can do is promise that what we want to have every day is the most compelling, most accurate coverage of all 30 teams in major league baseball, and that we are always trying to get better. So now, let me have it. I'm reading.

Phil,

I too have been disappointed by the lack of coverage of Frank Thomas' appearance at the Congressional hearings. When he retires I will point to Thursday as one of the highlights of Thomas' illustrious career. The fact that he has played his entire career during an era questioned by the use of steroids and was acknowledged by the United States House of Representatives as a player who never used steroids but still has belted more than 400 home runs is an unprecedented compliment. The Chicago media has not treated this compliment the same as White Sox fans have, who have been very excited this past week with the recognition that Thomas has gotten. As a White Sox fan who began following the team in the early 90s I am disappointed with the way one of my baseball heroes has been treated the past half decade and I believe I will be disappointed with the way he ends his career in Chicago.

On the other hand, I will not label with a blanket term like "homer" when it comes to the Cubs. I will point to a recent article you wrote in Wednesday's Tribune in which you questioned the way that the Cubs have used the starting staff over the past two years. You made some points that sounded as though they came right out of my mouth as I've discussed baseball with friends. "Is it a coincidence that neither has been healthy since that magical season in 2003, when Dusty Baker won a Manager of the Year award on their backs?" and " in fairness to Wood's handlers, it's possible he just might be the most overrated player in the big leagues." are not the words of a completely biased homer. I appreciated the recognition of a fact that I have thought true for over a year and a half. Dusty Baker may be a great "players manager" but he is proving to be a terrible "pitchers manager." As a former high school pitcher myself, I can confidently say that Mark Prior has some of the best stuff and mechanics of any professional pitcher. If he does not turn out an incredibly impressive career it will be Dusty Baker's and Cubs management's fault.

I don't detest the Tribune the way some people do on this site. It is my preferred paper for both news and sports. I wish the White Sox coverage was greater, and I wish the Tribune had treated Frank Thomas better lately but I understand the necessity to turn a profit as well.

Lastly, Mark Buerhle has just completed his 6th perfect inning against the Royals. It is Spring Training and it may only be the Royals, but a feature on Mark would be nice tomorrow. What do you say?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-19-2005, 06:41 PM
George, your reference to me being MIA read to me to be in regard to Friday's Tribune, as you referenced Downey being in Indianapolis and writing off college basketball. If you were talking Friday for Saturday, yes, you're right, I didn't write (space issues w/college basketball and editors opting to cover Canseco's appearance in Chicago). Because I was writing the main news story on Friday, McGwire and the overall tenor of the hearing seemed more important than the Chicago aspects -- Thomas and Sosa -- particularly since this was a news story, not a column. Anyway, I understand that the Tribune's ownership of the Cubs is a conflict of interest but I wish you guys would appreciate our section's efforts to cover baseball, which have grown (in all regards) greatly in the last five-10 years. No media outlet devotes the resources that we do (on both sides of town) during the season and the off-season. I'd point out that the guys in the Chicago media raising the earliest questions about Sosa were myself, Morrissey and, before him, Bayless, all of the Tribune.

Yes I'm talking about Saturday's print edition, the same one that printed the Gonzales piece that this thread is about. I read your front page story in FRIDAY'S Tribune yesterday. I have my copy right here. You bumpered Sosa's denial with Thomas's, Schilling's and Palmeiro's (seventh paragraph) and NEVER clarified that Sosa alone denied taking ILLEGAL steroids, a point many observers beside myself have noted including Dan Patrick on his radio show several times yesterday.

Besides you and Downey, I've also read stories filed by Paul Sullivan from Friday's edition and all of you failed to note Sosa's dramatic inability to speak English though all of you are more familiar with him than any national correspondent could possibly be. Yet as I write this Saturday night I'm not aware of a single mention in the pages of the Chicago Tribune that Sosa suddenly can't speak a discernible sentence of English.

It's been two days and not a word, Phil. It's a shame the Tribune editors couldn't find manpower or column inches to fix these problems. The Sunday edition is usually pretty thick. Let's wait and see.

But when we praise anything to do with the Cubs, we're homers, and when we criticize them, we're involved in some clandestine agenda that comes down from the highest floors of the Tower (witness Mariotti's charges of a Tribster smear campaign when we criticized Sosa and questioned whether he should be re-signed). It's a no-win situation. All I can do is promise that what we want to have every day is the most compelling, most accurate coverage of all 30 teams in major league baseball, and that we are always trying to get better. So now, let me have it. I'm reading.

It's your prerogative to complain about how unfair it is to work for a news conglomerate that owns a baseball team. That's a choice you've made and you're entitled to question the motives of your detractors. However if want to set straight those who find fault in what I personally have no doubt is your sincere best effort to cover the news fairly, you and your editors will do more than just complain about your plight and begin addressing the sort of issues raised above. There is no good excuse why a newspaper like the NY Times covers the Chicago angle to a story better than the Tribune.

Frank Thomas sat before a camera for hours by order of a congressional panel without a question being posed to him. That's your beat, Phil. Stop complaining and start covering it. As subscriber to your paper, I shouldn't have to get the Chicago baseball news from the NY Times.

Oh and just for the record, nearly everyone at WSI has complete contempt for that windsock idiot working at that other Chicago newspaper. The mere mention of his name gets whole threads swept into our dumping ground message board. We won't legitimize the nonsense he writes and we treat him like any other troll who might visit. I wouldn't worry over what he writes about you or your paper. We certainly don't give a damn here at WSI.
:cool:

Vernam
03-20-2005, 01:15 AM
. . . It's a no-win situation. All I can do is promise that what we want to have every day is the most compelling, most accurate coverage of all 30 teams in major league baseball, and that we are always trying to get better. So now, let me have it. I'm reading.

Mr. Rogers, I want to commend your willingness to engage us fanatical Sox fans. It must be uncomfortable for you, being employed by an institution whose conflict of interest (as you call it) is a factor in 90 percent or more of your paper's baseball coverage.

Go to http://www.chicagotribune.com and search for "steroids." The top three hits are sponsored links that claim to sell legal steroids! Perhaps these were what Sammy used, since he swore under oath to have avoided the illegal kind. It's quite ironic that the Trib's moral outrage over steroids evidently hasn't extended to the paper's own advertising department. Do you suppose those advertisers sell their wares to teenagers, or has the Trib found scrupulous steroid vendors with which to do business?

Yes, those ads are ironic, but not surprising, since the newspaper's hypocrisy certainly doesn't begin or end with the Sports section. I'll state this as plainly as I can: The Tribune as a company was and is complicit in the MLB steroids scandal, no less so than any of the metabolic freaks who were paraded before Congress this week. Others here on WSI have already eloquently pointed out the Trib's shameful disregard for how Frank Thomas was honored by Congress. Far worse, your employers directly enabled Sosa's progression to what he is today, while continually denigrating the legitimate, clean superstar playing on the South Side. There's no denying the fact that Tribune Company turned a healthy profit on Sosa's unhealthy habits. Even setting aside the issue of steroids, I think a clear disservice has been done on a personal level to Frank, who for years was unfairly painted as a bad guy to have in the clubhouse when it is now apparent that Sosa's truly anti-social, anti-team behavior was papered over by the Trib.

Today's lead editorial in the Trib begins:

It was the summer of 1998 and baseball yearned for magic, a magic that was supplied by two sluggers, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. They chased a single-season home run record. McGwire won.

Or did he? On Thursday, Sosa and McGwire were back on stage, though a different stage. They appeared at the congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball. Sosa testified under oath that he competed fairly in that season when he hit 66 home runs. Sosa told Congress he has never used performance-enhancing steroids.

Is the Trib apologetic for its role in the steroids scandal? Of course not. The editorial says Selig, Fehr, and Co. are out to lunch. But the way I read those two paragraphs, the Trib op-ed people think Sammy got robbed in 1998 because he was clean and McGwire wasn't. Who's out to lunch?

We Sox fans have long since stopped expecting fair treatment from the Trib or WGN. It wasn't a level playing field before the Trib bought the Cubs, so only a fool would pretend it could be anything but one-sided now. I do appreciate that you, at least in your post to WSI, didn't insult our intelligence by claiming the Trib Sports section is impartial.

Vernam

PaleHoseGeorge
03-20-2005, 08:12 AM
Mr. Rogers, I want to commend your willingness to engage us fanatical Sox fans. It must be uncomfortable for you, being employed by an institution whose conflict of interest (as you call it) is a factor in 90 percent or more of your paper's baseball coverage. ....

We Sox fans have long since stopped expecting fair treatment from the Trib or WGN. It wasn't a level playing field before the Trib bought the Cubs, so only a fool would pretend it could be anything but one-sided now. I do appreciate that you, at least in your post to WSI, didn't insult our intelligence by claiming the Trib Sports section is impartial.

Three points.

1.) I completely agree that Phil coming here shows a lot of personal courage and it ought to be commended. WSI has several "celebrity" posters and we won't allow them to be trolled because we know it takes courage for them to speak out in a forum like this.

2.) I read Saturday's Cubune editorial and share you're indignation. You've captured the essence of their editorial board's nonsense quite well. This is no reflection on Phil Rogers who clearly has no input into what Ann Marie Lipinski and her ilk delude themselves to opine on the editorial page.

3.) I've said this for years but it bears repeating here. I personally don't believe the Tribune deliberately reports news in a biased fashion. They do their best to be fair and accurate. However I do believe they have a "victim mentality" that enables them to do nothing to correct the sort of factual and editorial mistakes they make in their reporting, a small sampling of which has been detailed in this thread.

What Rogers complains about here is the same as what Gary Washburn complained about on page 1 of the Cubune last summer when he wrote about "most Chicago landlords aren't singled out" like the Tribune's ownership of decaying Wrigley Field. Rogers' complaint is no different than Ann Marie Lipinski whining on the editorial page about the mayor singling out the Tribune for unrelated investigative news stories.

They're victims and thus they absolve themselves of blame for what their critics lay at their feet!

Facts be damned. The NY Times told us what happened inside the hearing room Thursday and the Tribune didn't. The Tribune found manpower to cover Jose Canseco's book signing on page 1 but sent only a staff reporter to garner a page 4 story on Frank's comments never heard before.

These are facts and they can't be spun by Phil Rogers, Gary Washburn, or Ann Marie Lipinski. Victims one and all..

hose
03-20-2005, 08:20 AM
If only the Tribune had you on the payroll, we could finally get some straight answers. :thumbsup:

I think electing Hangar to Congress would be far more effective.

Congressman Hangar, " Mr. Sosa have you ever taken steroids?"

Sosa, " Sammy in the house."

Congressman Hangar, " I'm talking to you Sosa , answer the question."

Sosa, " mumble , mumble, mumble."

Congressman Hanger, " You got to the count of three to answer the question, one."

Sosa , " I'm gladiator."

Congressman Hanger, " two"

Sosa, " Flintstones..."

Congressman Hanger, " TH....'

Sosa, " Yes , Yes I admit it....starting to sob."

Congressman Hanger " Bailiff I've had enough of this guy, get him out of my sight."

maurice
03-21-2005, 02:15 PM
Phil the Sox did not play on Thursday and the Cubs were in Phoenix playing the A's. Your "manpower" in Tucson could have easily covered Thomas.

Good call, Hose. Any response, Phil?

I agree that the Trib devotes lots of resources to covering the generic topic of "baseball" . . . and pretty much every other generic topic one would expect to find in a major daily newspaper. That's not surprising, considering that the Trib has far more money to spend than the local competition. Unfortunately, it is well documented that a disproportionately small percentage of those "baseball" resources is devoted to the White Sox, while a disproportionately large percentage is devoted to fluff pieces that amount to free advertising for the Trib's own team. It is particularly disturbing that this type of shameful propaganda is not limited to the sports section.

I also acknowledge that writers "of the Tribune" have both the knowledge and the will to criticize Sosa, the cubs, etc. Unfortunately, the only Trib writer with the guts to do so on a regular basis in the Tribune is Morrissey.

tebman
03-22-2005, 11:34 AM
Good call, Hose. Any response, Phil?

I agree that the Trib devotes lots of resources to covering the generic topic of "baseball" . . . and pretty much every other generic topic one would expect to find in a major daily newspaper. That's not surprising, considering that the Trib has far more money to spend than the local competition. Unfortunately, it is well documented that a disproportionately small percentage of those "baseball" resources is devoted to the White Sox, while a disproportionately large percentage is devoted to fluff pieces that amount to free advertising for the Trib's own team. It is particularly disturbing that this type of shameful propaganda is not limited to the sports section.

I also acknowledge that writers "of the Tribune" have both the knowledge and the will to criticize Sosa, the cubs, etc. Unfortunately, the only Trib writer with the guts to do so on a regular basis in the Tribune is Morrissey.
(emphasis mine)

The central fact that transcends all this is that the Tribune Company is in the advertising business, not the news business. That's why they own newspapers, radio & TV stations, and distribution networks. While Phil Rogers and other reporters may be personally blameless in the endless Cubs maypole dance that is done at the Tribune, the intentions of the gray-flannel types who run the company are clear: synergy among the corporate partners for the greater good of the corporation. If some real news coverage happens to fall out in the course of that, that's nice, but the real reason they exist is to protect the company's corporate interests.

When the editorial board holds its seances with Col. McCormick, I'm sure top at the list of his directives is to take good care of his properties. That's what the Tribune has always respected most.

- tebman

pssondacubs
03-22-2005, 01:46 PM
What was the Hangars final tally of Sox articles Vs. Scrub articles in the Chicago media last year? The large difference in the number of articles per team could be a story in itself. I look forward to seeing his continuous reports again this season.

chuckn98229
03-23-2005, 09:08 AM
Mr. Rogers, I commend you for listening to us. You display a degree of integrity that is sorely lacking in Chicago sports media. (Thank heaven that on-line newspaper versions exist for us Chicagoland expatriates.) However, there is undoubtedly a pro-cub and anti-White Sox bias in Chicago sports reporting. And there is certainly a pro-cub anti-White Sox bias in the Chicago Tribune (Chicago’s Very Own Tass/Pravda) – which, along with the cubs, are subsidiaries of the same corporate entity. Here are a number of reporting instances that I find quite amusing:




Every time Eric Dybas or Wiliiam Ligue does anything it is news in the Tribune. But when there is a murder in the shadow of Wrigley Field right after a ball game, the story is buried. There seems to be a need to reinforce the notion that it is dangerous to go to a Sox game and that Wrigley field is a small oasis of nirvana in the midst of a teeming city,



Sammy corks his bat and there is no investigative reporting. The song-and-dance of Sammy and St. Dusty are reported as truth – no questions asked. After it is decided that Sammy is no longer wanted, the negative stories begin pouring out. He left early! We have him on security camera! St. Dusty doesn’t understand Sammy’s petulance! Sammy is a cancer! A teammate smashed Sammy’s boom-box! This is so transparent. PLEASE SPARE US.



Although to criticize St. Dusty now probably took some courage, it would have been more believable had you done it last year. Of course, if you had criticized him back then, you probably would have followed Steve Stone out the door. (I still believe the fix is in to get rid of St. Dusty and these stories are part of the concerted effort to pave the way so the cub-lemmings will blindly follow, as always, the corporate line.)


Granted, the owner of the White Sox is not the most beloved person in Chicago and some of this probably influences the coverage. Most of us are not too thrilled with him, either. But owners come and go. The White Sox are forever (hopefully). It would be great to see some even-handed coverage – but I doubt that will ever happen as things stand today. Thanks again for listening.