PDA

View Full Version : Monday's Cubune Headlines


Viva Medias B's
05-09-2005, 06:56 AM
You want to talk about the the Tribune putting its own spin on things. Here are the baseball headlines from Monday's paper:

"Somber Streak"

"Pointed in the Right Direction"

Guess which one is which. That's right. You guessed it.

The Racehorse
05-09-2005, 07:20 AM
You want to talk about the the Tribune putting its own spin on things. Here are the baseball headlines from Monday's paper:

"Somber Streak"

"Pointed in the Right Direction"

Guess which one is which. That's right. You guessed it.

Shameless, disgusting & pathetic... all rolled into one.

Baby Fisk
05-09-2005, 08:25 AM
You want to talk about the the Tribune putting its own spin on things. Here are the baseball headlines from Monday's paper:

"Somber Streak"

"Pointed in the Right Direction"

Guess which one is which. That's right. You guessed it.
Good grief. Is there a photo of "a Sox fan who identified himself as Homefish" tearing at his hair because he can't handle all these Sox wins?

Hangar18
05-09-2005, 08:33 AM
You want to talk about the the Tribune putting its own spin on things. Here are the baseball headlines from Monday's paper:

"Somber Streak"

"Pointed in the Right Direction"

Guess which one is which. That's right. You guessed it.\


On top of that, Guess which team got 80% of the front page, with one
of those 2 blaring headlines? And guess which team in todays Tribune
got 4 entire stories devoted to their win while the other got only 3?
Take a Really Good Guess Everyone .........

Hangar18
05-09-2005, 08:46 AM
Lets even take this a step further. At this point last year, that Other
Team was completely DOMINATING the amount of coverage the SOX were getting. They pretty much had 3x the coverage the SOX did, and THEY
WERENT EVEN DOING THAT GOOD !!!!!! the SOX ARE DOMINATING,
setting records, off to their best start in franchise history ......
and this is the "best" the Chicago Media can do? Its total BULLJUNK!

mikehuff
05-09-2005, 08:57 AM
The word "somber" is used because of the Greg Zaun injury. I know all about the media bias, but I don't think this is a good example.

As for the Cubs headline, that would probably say something about the Sox finally not blowing another one, if they had lost 7 in a row. Or about barely scraping out a win.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-09-2005, 09:05 AM
The word "somber" is used because of the Greg Zaun injury. I know all about the media bias, but I don't think this is a good example.

REALLY?
:?:

So I'm guessing Gregg Zaun getting hurt would be headline news at the Cubune if the opponent wasn't the Chicago White Sox? If the opponent were Boston, the Cubune would still write headlines about Gregg Zaun's injury?
:o:

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

It's a Chicago newspaper. Gregg Zaun doesn't play for Chicago. The Cubune would IGNORE Zaun's injury under any other circumstance... especially if the opponent were the Cubs having won their 8th straight.
:kukoo:

crector
05-09-2005, 09:23 AM
Lets even take this a step further. At this point last year, that Other
Team was completely DOMINATING the amount of coverage the SOX were getting. They pretty much had 3x the coverage the SOX did, and THEY
WERENT EVEN DOING THAT GOOD !!!!!! the SOX ARE DOMINATING,
setting records, off to their best start in franchise history ......
and this is the "best" the Chicago Media can do? Its total BULLJUNK!



This certainly contradicts Lip's theory that winning will lead to great news media coverage for the White Sox. One wonders what if the Sox win the World Series this year. Will the Tribune run an editorial calling for an investigation to see if gamblers rigged it so the Sox could win?

Hangar18
05-09-2005, 09:44 AM
This certainly contradicts Lip's theory that winning will lead to great news media coverage for the White Sox. One wonders what if the Sox win the World Series this year. Will the Tribune run an editorial calling for an investigation to see if gamblers rigged it so the Sox could win?


I can promise you if we won the world series, both papers would also mention
in the by-line "since 1919 scandal"

Viva Medias B's
05-09-2005, 09:52 AM
Suppose things were reversed. That is, we have just snapped a 7-game losing streak with Mark Buehrle pitching a complete game. Meanwhile, the Cubs beat St. Louis to win their 8th straight game. Suppose the Cubs game included Albert Pujols getting knocked senseless by Jerry Hairston's knee with Pujols having to be carted off the field on a stretcher.

Would the Cub headline be "Somber Streak" and the Sox headline be "Pointed in the Right Direction"? Not.

Ol' No. 2
05-09-2005, 09:54 AM
Why is everyone getting their shorts knotted up? The Cubs deserve props. They have a 1-game winning streak going.:cool:

daveeym
05-09-2005, 10:25 AM
Clearly the trib will do anything to downlplay the Sox, but an injury of that magnitude would always play a part in the headlines of the teams playing the game.

ondafarm
05-09-2005, 10:25 AM
Far be it from me to defend the Cubune, (but I guess I'll try.)

As for the title "Somber Streak" I find it perfectly appropriate. The Sox are streaking and the last inning, when you are trying to close out a game is an emotional time. To have a player injured (any player) and seriously injured at that forces everyone to put the game in perspective. Zaun evidently wasn't breathing well, IIRC PK said 'choking', which probably scared everyone who could witness it. Even though I know people with head injuries frequently have difficulty breathing, it doesn't make this any less horrifying.

Once, during the third inning I ran into a flag pole at full gallop while chasing a fly ball (yes, I held on.) Even though I was new to the team, this really frightened my teammates and the opposing players. When I woke later that day in the hospital, I found that the opposing team had stopped their team bus on the way out of town and visited me. My teammates had come straight from the game. Everybody shook my hand at least once and I earned a new nickname that day "Neburizuyoi" (literally 'tenacious'.) My head felt like someone was thumping it with a sledgehammer. To say that everyone was 'somber' about the whole event is an understatement.

Well, I was okay and resumed play in a couple of days. The next time we saw those guys was the only team we played that year that did not formally protest my playing in 'their' league.

The Sox players are human beings and affected by the injury to Zaun. As am I.

Hangar18
05-09-2005, 11:26 AM
Ive converted quite a few people in the last few years, but one of my
friends stands out the most. He had been watching the team on and off
for the past 20 something years. Ive known the guy since grade-school
and hes a late-bloomer to baseball. Hes remembered my rants and raves
about the evil media and he remembers dismissing me as crazy.

In 2000, he was a fan of both teams and was impressed by the team
and for the first time, said he remembered how the SOX were largely ignored
here in Chicago by our own Media. He thought it was peculiar and said
to himself "damn, I hate to admit this, henry was right". Still, it took
him til the 2003 season, when BOTH teams were doing well, before he was
insulted at the coverage, and admitted to me his findings. I said
Welcome Aboard and hes grown as fan of the SOX. His first game of this
season is thursday .............

MIgrenade
05-09-2005, 11:36 AM
All I know is that this team DOESN'T CARE and probably feeds off being ignored. By the end of the season I predict some rally cry to the effect of the Red Sox "Idiots," only along the lines of "F*** Off."

Hangar18
05-09-2005, 11:46 AM
Ive converted quite a few people in the last few years, but one of my
friends stands out the most. He had been watching the team on and off
for the past 20 something years. Ive known the guy since grade-school
and hes a late-bloomer to baseball. Hes remembered my rants and raves
about the evil media and he remembers dismissing me as crazy.

In 2000, he was a fan of both teams and was impressed by the team
and for the first time, said he remembered how the SOX were largely ignored
here in Chicago by our own Media. He thought it was peculiar and said
to himself "damn, I hate to admit this, henry was right". Still, it took
him til the 2003 season, when BOTH teams were doing well, before he was
insulted at the coverage, and admitted to me his findings. I said
Welcome Aboard and hes grown as fan of the SOX. His first game of this
season is thursday .............

OOOOPS. Mods. This is supposed to be a New Thread. Sorry:(:

SOXSINCE'70
05-09-2005, 11:52 AM
Why is everyone getting their shorts knotted up? The Cubs deserve props. They have a 1-game winning streak going.:cool:

That should end with Leicster on the mound at the
Piss Shrine tonight.:D: :D:

Lip Man 1
05-09-2005, 11:52 AM
Crector:

How does it contradict anything yet? Is the season over? Have the Sox made it to the Series yet?

Let's wait and see how things play out before saying it 'contradicts' anything.

Even the Chicago media isn't dumb enough to cut off their nose to spite their face. If the Sox make it to the Series they'll be printing special papers, pullouts and having season recap shows on TV because they know Sox fans will be buying and watching.

Historical example...remember the TV specials that hit the stations in September 1983? 'Next Year Is Here' WFLD 1 hour, 'Sox On The Move WLS 30 minutes and there were others.

Lip

Hitmen77
05-09-2005, 11:53 AM
.... One wonders what if the Sox win the World Series this year. Will the Tribune run an editorial calling for an investigation to see if gamblers rigged it so the Sox could win?

If we won the World Series, I bet the Chicago media would shift the spotlight on how the Cubs continue to be "cursed" and "lovable losers" and they'd go on about the continued "heartbreak" of Cub fans. In fact, I think that would bes pretty much guaranteed to happen. They would say that, now that the Red Sox and White Sox have ended their drought, maybe it's our Cubbies' turn to win it all!

mdep524
05-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Yup, the Trib was an absolute joke today. On the surface you've got the headlines "Somber streak" vs. "Pointed in right direction" and the majority of page one coverage going to the Cubs. And the Sox front page picture is Pedro Lopez looking at the injured Greg Zaun, while on page 4 you get a small, black and white pic of Marte and AJ celebrating a win. On top of that, some excerpts from the article:

"The White Sox showed no glee Sunday..."

That's the lead to a story about a team on an 8-game winning streak.

"The postgame music in the clubhouse was barely audible..."

Finally at the end of the 4th paragraph they happen to mention that this is the best start to a season in franchise history!!!!

"The Sox swept the Jays in the three game series but were hardly dominating."

Yup, we better give some of those wins back because we were "hardly dominating" on the road against a good team. Our league-best 24-7 record is meaningless.

Anyone who thinks the coverage would be even comparable to what we got today if the Cubs/Sox situation was reversed is totally kidding themselves.

Ol' No. 2
05-09-2005, 12:00 PM
Crector:

How does it contradict anything yet? Is the season over? Have the Sox made it to the Series yet?

Let's wait and see how things play out before saying it 'contradicts' anything.

Even the Chicago media isn't dumb enough to cut off their nose to spite their face. If the Sox make it to the Series they'll be printing special papers, pullouts and having season recap shows on TV because they know Sox fans will be buying and watching.

Historical example...remember the TV specials that hit the stations in September 1983? 'Next Year Is Here' WFLD 1 hour, 'Sox On The Move WLS 30 minutes and there were others.

LipThat was in 1983 only shortly after the Tribune bought the Cubs and started flexing their muscle. Flash forward to 2000. Was there anything even remotely close to that?

Hitmen77
05-09-2005, 12:07 PM
Crector:

How does it contradict anything yet? Is the season over? Have the Sox made it to the Series yet?

Let's wait and see how things play out before saying it 'contradicts' anything.

Even the Chicago media isn't dumb enough to cut off their nose to spite their face. If the Sox make it to the Series they'll be printing special papers, pullouts and having season recap shows on TV because they know Sox fans will be buying and watching.

Historical example...remember the TV specials that hit the stations in September 1983? 'Next Year Is Here' WFLD 1 hour, 'Sox On The Move WLS 30 minutes and there were others.

Lip

I agree that this doesn't contradict anything you said yet - but I don't believe the '83 example tells us much about today's media coverage. The Chicago media has tilted ALOT more towards the Cubs since 1983. I think we got great coverage in '83. I don't think that would happen again. The coverage for our '93 division title was lukewarm and the coverage for our 2000 division title was negative as the media resorted to making attendance the main story and resorted to stadium-bashing.

Jjav829
05-09-2005, 12:10 PM
Hey, that's not too bad! I was expecting something like:


Dirty Sox take out Blue Jays player to win


Classy Zambrano quietly mows down Phillies

TDog
05-09-2005, 12:27 PM
That was in 1983 only shortly after the Tribune bought the Cubs and started flexing their muscle. Flash forward to 2000. Was there anything even remotely close to that?

Of course not. Even the 1977 Sox got more respect in the media (until September) than the 2000 Sox got. The big turning point was 1984, when big crowds at Wrigley Field became a tradition as the Cubs recorded their first above-.500 season in a dozen years and would have gone to the World Series if Sandberg hadn't lost that ground ball in the San Diego sun. Since 1984, when the Tribune Company bought a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal expressing appreciation over the success of one of its "divisions," the Cubs have occasionally had winning records, but the Sox have always been the city's second team.

The only defense sports journalists have for their behavior is that sports is so unimportant that journalistic standards don't apply.

santo=dorf
05-09-2005, 12:40 PM
This certainly contradicts Lip's theory that winning will lead to great news media coverage for the White Sox.

How many times do you plan on making this post?

Should we all point out your crackpot "Mark Buehrle is declining on a yearly basis" theory every time he throws a gem? :?: :rolling:

:takeittochat

PaleHoseGeorge
05-09-2005, 12:41 PM
....
The only defense sports journalists have for their behavior is that sports is so unimportant that journalistic standards don't apply.

The Cubune tips its own hand on this point. In every section of their newspaper, the Cubune's editorial policy is to disclose their ownership of any other entity being written about.

So why do the Cubune's sports editors get a pass?
:?:

Answer: by editorial policy the Cubune is covering their baseball team like it was entertainment. There are NO JOURNALISTIC standards to be applied besides being entertaining to the widest possible audience.

That's why Lip's theory about "win and they will come" is simply bull****. The Cubune won't change until AFTER the Sox are outdrawing the Cubs. The Sox could win 100 world championships and the Cubune's lead story would still be about the billygoat curse.

Meanwhile the Flubune sports editors will keep "entertaining" their readers with what makes the most business sense (or the most career upward mobility sense) for them: talking up the Lovable Losers.

Drink our Coke. Ignore their Pepsi.

The Cubune sports editors are Hawk Harrelson to the Tribune Company's Jerry Reinsdorf. Hired shills.

crector
05-09-2005, 01:18 PM
Crector:

How does it contradict anything yet? Is the season over? Have the Sox made it to the Series yet?

Let's wait and see how things play out before saying it 'contradicts' anything.

Even the Chicago media isn't dumb enough to cut off their nose to spite their face. If the Sox make it to the Series they'll be printing special papers, pullouts and having season recap shows on TV because they know Sox fans will be buying and watching.

Historical example...remember the TV specials that hit the stations in September 1983? 'Next Year Is Here' WFLD 1 hour, 'Sox On The Move WLS 30 minutes and there were others.

Lip

Oh yes the Chicago media is that dumb. Since you live in Idaho now, you are isolated from the reality that the rest of us have to experience on a daily basis. You can keep on with your pronouncements about how if the Sox only won, then they'd get quality coverage. You talk as if a 24-7 start isn't something special. As for those 1983 TV specials, that was over 2 decades ago and the 1993 team did not receive that kind of favorable attention.

Keep on drinking the Cubbie blue Kool-Aid, Lip. I'm sure that it will make you feel better as the Sox continue to win this season.

SoxFan76
05-09-2005, 01:35 PM
This certainly contradicts Lip's theory that winning will lead to great news media coverage for the White Sox. One wonders what if the Sox win the World Series this year. Will the Tribune run an editorial calling for an investigation to see if gamblers rigged it so the Sox could win?

The national media is covering the Sox a lot more. It's the Chicago media that hasn't changed their ways.

Flight #24
05-09-2005, 02:00 PM
The national media is covering the Sox a lot more. It's the Chicago media that hasn't changed their ways.

Seriously, I remember comments about how "the Cubs get more/better ink only because they're winning and have high expectations whereas the Sox are underachieving".

Now the Sox are not only winning, but dominating. Whereas the Cubs are...to put it mildly...floundering. And coverage is at best even (but not really).

George Knue - where are you? Show yourself and share your new piece of fiction about how the Trib & CS.com are unbiased!

Lip Man 1
05-09-2005, 02:41 PM
Crector:

All I can say is 'amazing...'

It's a 'business' Crector and the media will do anything that have to, to maximize their profits. If that means newspapers and radio and TV stations 'supporting' the Sox if they make it in October so be it.

The media doesn't bleed blue or black...they bleed green. That's the only color that counts.

And I'm not 'isolated' in Idaho. Twenty years ago that would be true but with the Internet and satellite TV I don't have to live in Chicago to read the papers, listen to the stations or get WGN-TV.

Please spend a few years in the media before pretending to know and understand the media. LOL

Meanwhile please...how about another Mark Buehrle is declining post? :D:

LOL

Lip

TommyJohn
05-09-2005, 05:05 PM
If we won the World Series, I bet the Chicago media would shift the spotlight on how the Cubs continue to be "cursed" and "lovable losers" and they'd go on about the continued "heartbreak" of Cub fans. In fact, I think that would bes pretty much guaranteed to happen. They would say that, now that the Red Sox and White Sox have ended their drought, maybe it's our Cubbies' turn to win it all!

I'd like to give you a cigar. I have said that myself, but haven't had a
chance to post it yet.

If I had, I was going to imagine a headline something like this:

OCTOBER, 2005 Chicago Tribune

World Series Droughts:
Red Sox 1918-2004
White Sox 1917-2005
CUBS 1908-2006??!!
And the hype for the next season would be them trying to become the third
"woeful" team in three years to win the Series.

George Knue
05-09-2005, 05:41 PM
George Knue - where are you? Show yourself and share your new piece of fiction about how the Trib & CS.com are unbiased!

Ok, you asked, I'll try. But I'm not speaking for the newspaper per se because I don't work for the newspaper and didn't participate in the decisions. I can only surmise based on experience. I can speak for ChicagoSports.com.

First of all, the Tribune had four Sox stories Monday (game story, notes, nom/iguchi, zaun) and four Cubs stories (game story, rogers column, notes, dempster).

The Tribune usually has to make a choice on story play -- which story to put in the middle with a bigger photo and which story to put at the top with a smaller photo. They went with the Sox at the top (and a bigger headline) and the Cubs in the middle (and a bigger photo). If they had gone the other way, would anyone have made the same claim of apparent bias -- the Cubs getting top play on the page over the Sox?

That said, when I saw the front page today I guesed some Sox fans would react this way because of the emphasis in the story. Yet, from the way Mark's story read, it wasn't a clubhouse where people were reveling in victory. Instead it was more subdued, reflecting what happened to Zaun and the fact that the game ended up being harder to win than the team wished. Which is what the quotes from Konerko sounded like to me.

Even in choosing the approach, I don't see anything in there where it sounds like Mark ripped the Sox, the team's effort, or its players. In fact, the story read like the Sox persevered even though things didn't go perfectly ... which I don't read as an insult.

I don't know what the alleged bias is in the way the game was covered on ChicagoSports.com -- it was at the top of the main front, which means you get more headlines with the story and a photo. And the Cubs were second.

You asked and I answered -- you can decide whether it's fiction or not. This is generally a no-win proposition because when it comes to White Sox fans and the Tribune, the newspaper and the company are usually guilty until proven guilty. But that's your bias.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

maurice
05-09-2005, 06:28 PM
:?:

The bulk of the criticism here is directed at the Trib editors who determined the layout of page 1 of the sports section in the print edition. As noted, 80% of the page was devoted to the Trib-owned cubs barely eaking out a victory to end a long losing streak against a very bad team. Meanwhile, the Sox are in the middle of a very long winning streak and got a quarter of the page-1 coverage received by the cubs. The palpable difference in the tone of the headlines is just lemon frosting on a very sour cake. All this, even though continued dominance by the Sox is the #1 baseball story in the early season, even though Sox wins now lead on national sports broadcasts that suffer from severe East Coast Bias, and even though the Sox are obliterating a MLB record that has stood for decades.

This discrepancy is ridiculous. If you compare page 1 of the Trib sports section to page 1 of the Sun-Times sports section, you'll see that the Sun-Times' editors apparently agree, though that paper is by no means biased in favor of the Sox.

BTW, it's comical that the same editors who proudly and loudly devoted more coverage to the cubs when they determined that the Inevitible Cub World Series Victory (tm) was the big story in town now strain to provide "equal coverage" when the tables are turned.

As for the Trib being presumed guilty, at least one of the Trib's own writers agrees that its ownership of the cubs creates an obvious conflict of interest. This clear conflict supports a presumption of bias. The conduct of the editorial staff certainly has done nothing to rebut this presumption.

Thanks for posting, George.

rwcescato
05-09-2005, 07:06 PM
Why is everyone getting their shorts knotted up? The Cubs deserve props. They have a 1-game winning streak going.:cool:

Exactly, Those 1 game winning streaks are what the flubs are made of.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-09-2005, 07:12 PM
....
You asked and I answered -- you can decide whether it's fiction or not. This is generally a no-win proposition because when it comes to White Sox fans and the Tribune, the newspaper and the company are usually guilty until proven guilty. But that's your bias.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

You're a good sport for coming here, George. Props to you.
:thumbsup:

My only issue was with the headline itself, not written by Mark Gonzales but his editor. As stated elsewhere, there were plenty of other angles to the Sox latest victory and choosing "somber" was an odd choice given the significant -- nay, unprecedented -- choices the Tribune failed to capitalize on. Well, maybe next time in the 22nd century, right?
:cool:

I honestly liked your observation about the Tribune and Sox Fans, guilty until proven guilty. However I can improve on it.

"Guilty until proven guilty as hell."

:wink:

voodoochile
05-09-2005, 07:37 PM
You're a good sport for coming here, George. Props to you.
:thumbsup:

My only issue was with the headline itself, not written by Mark Gonzales but his editor. As stated elsewhere, there were plenty of other angles to the Sox latest victory and choosing "somber" was an odd choice given the significant -- nay, unprecedented -- choices the Tribune failed to capitalize on. Well, maybe next time in the 22nd century, right?
:cool:

I honestly liked your observation about the Tribune and Sox Fans, guilty until proven guilty. However I can improve on it.

"Guilty until proven guilty as hell."

:wink:

I agree with your improved statement, PHG. Let's ask this question of our guest from the Trib website...

If the records were reversed and the flubbies were off to their best start ever and 4.5 games up on the Cards having beaten them 4 times in 5 attempts and the Sox were stuck 4 games under .500 struggling in third place with injuries, emotional meltdowns and a bullpen that you wouldn't hand the ball to with a 10 run lead, would the two teams be getting equal coverage in the paper and electronic medias?

Somehow I doubt it - they'd be too busy talking about record setting regular season performance while trying to hand the WS trophy to the flubbies...

buehrle4cy05
05-09-2005, 08:29 PM
I know of a person who was so fed up with the Cubs media bias in the offseason that he stopped liking the Cubs. He's now pro-Sox, but he is a Pirates fan now. It's headlines like these. Not once in there did I see anything about Carlos Zambrano throwing 130 pitches. Not even in the sub-headline. I have hardly even seen the Sox having the lead in their first 32 games, a MLB record, mentioned in the Cubune.

itsnotrequired
05-09-2005, 09:14 PM
I can just see tomorrow's (Tuesday's) headlines:


"Sox begin tailspin"

"Cubs avoid loss"

EDIT: Whoops, looks like the game is back on. Hard to believe with this weather.

Lip Man 1
05-09-2005, 09:52 PM
No.2 (and others):

The reason I used 1983 as an example is because in 1993 and 2000 I wasn't able to get WGN on satellite (didn't get one until 2001) or cable. I didn't have the internet until 1998 so I couldn't comment on how the media portrayed the Sox in 1993 and without any type of TV coverage I wasn't qualified to make any complete observations about 2000.

Lip

gosox41
05-10-2005, 08:55 AM
Ok, you asked, I'll try. But I'm not speaking for the newspaper per se because I don't work for the newspaper and didn't participate in the decisions. I can only surmise based on experience. I can speak for ChicagoSports.com.

First of all, the Tribune had four Sox stories Monday (game story, notes, nom/iguchi, zaun) and four Cubs stories (game story, rogers column, notes, dempster).

The Tribune usually has to make a choice on story play -- which story to put in the middle with a bigger photo and which story to put at the top with a smaller photo. They went with the Sox at the top (and a bigger headline) and the Cubs in the middle (and a bigger photo). If they had gone the other way, would anyone have made the same claim of apparent bias -- the Cubs getting top play on the page over the Sox?

That said, when I saw the front page today I guesed some Sox fans would react this way because of the emphasis in the story. Yet, from the way Mark's story read, it wasn't a clubhouse where people were reveling in victory. Instead it was more subdued, reflecting what happened to Zaun and the fact that the game ended up being harder to win than the team wished. Which is what the quotes from Konerko sounded like to me.

Even in choosing the approach, I don't see anything in there where it sounds like Mark ripped the Sox, the team's effort, or its players. In fact, the story read like the Sox persevered even though things didn't go perfectly ... which I don't read as an insult.

I don't know what the alleged bias is in the way the game was covered on ChicagoSports.com -- it was at the top of the main front, which means you get more headlines with the story and a photo. And the Cubs were second.

You asked and I answered -- you can decide whether it's fiction or not. This is generally a no-win proposition because when it comes to White Sox fans and the Tribune, the newspaper and the company are usually guilty until proven guilty. But that's your bias.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com


I can see how Monday's headlines would raise questions among Sox fans. But the Tribune has been guilty of bias.

There's been too many instances too count. But here's 2 issus that stand out to think about:

1. In 2004 the Cubs had a countdown to 100 victories. I think they stopped it in May when the team was struggling. But before the season started the season schedule was analyzed by the Cub experts and everyday until they took it down there wasa mention of it.

In 2005, the Sox tied their best start in franchise history. Why don't the Sox get the media attention of what it would take to win 100 games by the very same publication that gave it to the Cubs? We Sox fans for the most part don't believe in jinxes and curses and wouldn't mind seeing the hype because it would lead to more positive media attention for the team.

2. In 2004 there was the Prior watch. Everyday there was an update labeled in a specail box in the paper.

There is a player on the Sox who has done a lot more in his career then Prior and as of this second is more likely to go to the Hall of Fame. His name if Frank Thomas. He has also been injured and is due back hopefully soon. Where's 'The Frank Thomas Watch?' Sure, there's an updated every week or so, but with Prior Cub fans knew when he sneezed.

Of course during the same 2004 season Sox fans had the wretched Prior watch shoved down our throats, the Sox were actually a first plae team when they're 2 best hitters went down. Where was the 'Magglio Watch' before everyone knew his season was over? Again, how about the Frank watch?

In my mind there is a bias to the Tribune's reporting.



Bob

Flight #24
05-10-2005, 09:05 AM
George: First off, as noted by PHG, kudos for having the guts to come on and discuss this. Your input is much appreciated.

Back on point, here's a sampling of Sox game recap headlines from the Trib over the past week (taken from CS.com):

"Fizzling in Florida"
"Somber streak for Sox"
"Bats pick up slack"
"Late inning gifts gag KC"
"Cold isn't to blame if power's low"

That's 5 headlines in 1 week for a team that prior to last night had won 8 in a row. Every one of them is fairly negative, and the articles are about the team with the best record in baseball, a team on a record-setting start, and a team that, again - won 8 in a row over this period!!!

Yet the Trib headlines focus on some negative aspect in every single case.

Also note: the Sox lose one game after an 8-game win streak, and it gets the same treatment usually give to teams that win playoff series, with a headline that would make you think this team is falling apart. We both know that if this were the Cubs on a record-setting start, the headline and papers would be all about potential World Series appearances, and everything would be honey & roses. For proof - all you have to do is check last year's Cub headlines, and the team didn't even start out all that hot!!!

So when you say "guilty until proven guilty", it's only because that guilt has been proven time and time again.

jackbrohamer
05-10-2005, 09:17 AM
The apologists for the Tribune --- and its related entities (since people who work for WGN, CLTV, chicagosports.com, Cubs, etc. like to say "we're not the Tribune") --- always resort to the "you Sox fans are paranoid" defense. As if being a Sox fan were genetic and we all share the same psychological conditions.

What's really galling is when people independently recognize unfair and biased coverage against the Sox and in favor of the Cubs, and get told by Mr. Kune and others that the coverage is actually fair.

As for the rest of the media, the Tribune is the biggest fish in the pond locally, and it's easy for other outlets to simply parrot the story lines in the Trib. Thus, the unparallelled and nearly psychotic focus on the Sox' attendance in the local media -- a "reporter" can parrot the attendance theme he reads in the Trib in the morning then head to the Big Bar a couple hours earlier in the PM for drinks.

beckett21
05-10-2005, 09:41 AM
I appreciate people pointing out the inequities of the baseball coverage in this town. The problem with all of this griping, however, is that we are giving Mr. Knue exactly what he wants--creating a buzz about his publication to sell more papers. Don't you think he is just laughing at the fact that Sox fans can't WAIT to see the next headline so that they can complain about it all day? It's the best of both worlds: rip the Sox while at the same time taking Sox fans' money.

Stop playing into his hands.

Here's a simple solution: just boycott the Tribune. If every true Sox fan cancelled their subscription and stopped buying that rag at newsstands, THAT might get their attention. Right now they are laughing at us all the way to the bank.

Frankly, I don't want their false admiration of the Sox success. We all know it would be fake. Sox fans know how the Tribune Co. feels about us and our team--total disrespect. Stop giving them your money.

tebman
05-10-2005, 09:48 AM
The apologists for the Tribune --- and its related entities (since people who work for WGN, CLTV, chicagosports.com, Cubs, etc. like to say "we're not the Tribune") --- always resort to the "you Sox fans are paranoid" defense. As if being a Sox fan were genetic and we all share the same psychological conditions.

What's really galling is when people independently recognize unfair and biased coverage against the Sox and in favor of the Cubs, and get told by Mr. Kune and others that the coverage is actually fair.

As for the rest of the media, the Tribune is the biggest fish in the pond locally, and it's easy for other outlets to simply parrot the story lines in the Trib. Thus, the unparallelled and nearly psychotic focus on the Sox' attendance in the local media -- a "reporter" can parrot the attendance theme he reads in the Trib in the morning then head to the Big Bar a couple hours earlier in the PM for drinks.

The Tribune (and its "we're not the Tribune" satellites) is like an aging ocean liner: impressed with itself, self-referential, and working hard to maintain the veneer of Tradition and Dignity that it invented for itself. Buying the Cubs in 1981 was a pure business decision to provide several hundred hours of programming for WGN-TV. In the years since, the baseball enterprise has grown to be a good revenue stream for the corporation (read this link (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=16408) to confirm that). As a marketing strategy the Wrigley Field mythology has been milked shamelessly, and the synergy (a word corporate barons love to use) between the newspaper, the TV station(s), the radio station, the website and the Trib's syndication muscle has been exploited to the greater glory of the corporate officers.

While George Knue may not have a personal agenda to promote All Things Tribune, his corporate bosses certainly do. Remember, they're in the advertising business, not the news business. And if the White Sox and their impudent fans get in the way, well, they'll do whatever they have to do.

Hangar18
05-10-2005, 09:59 AM
The Cubune is the biggest fish in the pond. The Sun-Times simply is
"keeping up with the Jones'" when they run possible World Series rotations
for the cubs and yankees, quadruple the amount of stories they devote to
the cubs instead of the Sox, all under the guise of "the cubs are winning, theyre the bigger story-when the SOX win, you'll see the same coverage"
Now they say were just whining. Its BULL****************
and im sick of it. Journalistic Integrity goes by the wayside when it comes
to the Big Blue Corporation.

Heck, when a west-coast based comedy show
films their series for a few days in Chicago, and are told in uncertain terms,
to wear Cub Jerseys for their promo-spots to be aired on TV, further cementing the perception that the north-side organization is more "popular",
should tell you how things are run here in this town. its Bulljunk.

gosox41
05-10-2005, 10:15 AM
The Cubune is the biggest fish in the pond. The Sun-Times simply is
"keeping up with the Jones'" when they run possible World Series rotations
for the cubs and yankees, quadruple the amount of stories they devote to
the cubs instead of the Sox, all under the guise of "the cubs are winning, theyre the bigger story-when the SOX win, you'll see the same coverage"
Now they say were just whining. Its BULL****************
and im sick of it. Journalistic Integrity goes by the wayside when it comes
to the Big Blue Corporation.

Heck, when a west-coast based comedy show
films their series for a few days in Chicago, and are told in uncertain terms,
to wear Cub Jerseys for their promo-spots to be aired on TV, further cementing the perception that the north-side organization is more "popular",
should tell you how things are run here in this town. its Bulljunk.

I didn't hear about that. What show was it?


Bob

daveeym
05-10-2005, 10:31 AM
George Knue
ChicagoSports.com I find it funny how your site generally has the Sox headlining when they should be, yet on the trib's online sports page it's the Cubs headlining almost everyday. Nice job trib.

Lip Man 1
05-10-2005, 11:05 AM
Tebman:

Ummm the Cubs were on WGN-TV long before the Tribune Company bought the station. I'm not sure about your comment that they were bought to 'give WGN-TV several hundred hours of programming.'

Lip

jackbrohamer
05-10-2005, 11:09 AM
Here's a simple solution: just boycott the Tribune. If every true Sox fan cancelled their subscription and stopped buying that rag at newsstands, THAT might get their attention. Right now they are laughing at us all the way to the bank.

I disagree. Newspaper writers, TV sports anchors, sports-blab idiots, etc. are public figures. I think calling them out publicly for being biased --- and thus poor journalists or reporters --- is totally fair and possibly much more effective than telling me to just be quiet and avoid any local news.

tebman
05-10-2005, 11:20 AM
Tebman:

Ummm the Cubs were on WGN-TV long before the Tribune Company bought the station. I'm not sure about your comment that they were bought to 'give WGN-TV several hundred hours of programming.'

Lip

That's true -- I should have said that the Trib's purchase assured them of several hundred hours of programming for Channel 9. Remember that in '81 Eddie Einhorn was starting to put together a pay-TV package and he approached the Cubs about joining the Sox in a deal. The Wrigley family still owned the team then, and the prospect of losing the Cubs as a TV show scared the hell out the Trib bosses. So for $20M they locked up a bunch of programs.

I heard an interview that Bill Veeck did a couple of years later in which he was debating with somebody the level of commitment the Tribune had to the Cubs. Veeck said, very insightfully, that the Tribune Company cared about the Cubs' winning inasmuch as it affected the fortunes of WGN-TV and WGN radio. Fast forward to now and the same thing is true, except that it now also includes the newspaper, the website, the other Tribune stations, etc.

George Knue
05-10-2005, 12:06 PM
So many questions … I don’t know that I can answer all of them but I can react to some things …



Someone compared how the Sun-Times plays stories compared to how the Tribune does it. The comparison doesn’t work. The Sun-Times cover is half the size of the Tribune cover. The Sun-Times, as a tabloid, can get away with playing one story big … whereas the Tribune generally has to have 4-5 stories on its front every day. So Sunday for Monday, the Tribune’s last story on the page was a Phil Rogers column on the Cubs – and the decision to use two Cubs stories on the front dictated a lot of the way the page broke down. And isn’t it news when a team ends a 7-game losing streak?



Also: If Zaun had been more seriously injured, say had a broken neck or was paralyzed, would it still be such a strong bone of contention? It happened in the ninth, it looked bad, it took a long time to get him off the field … and no one knew that much about his condition. Plus, judging by the quotes from Sox players, it was kind of scary. Wouldn’t it have irresponsible to not respond to something of that nature?



A lot of people seemed to compare the amount of coverage of the White Sox today to the amount of coverage the Cubs got in the 2003 postseason. Is that a fair comparison?



To the person who wanted to compare how things would be if today’s Cubs and Sox reversed positions … I don’t know how to answer a question that is that hypothetical. But no one answered this hypothetical question I posed – if, in Monday’s paper, the Cubs and Sox positions on the Tribune front page were completely reversed, would there have been complaints from Sox fans about the Cubs being on the top?



Re headlines: I think people read a lot into these things that aren’t there. And headlines that bother some don’t bother others. Read another thread here and you’ll see what I mean. I did check out last year’s Cub headlines – and the only talk about the World Series was before the season started.



I was termed an “apologist” – but I’m not apologizing for anything. I’m proud of the company I work for and proud of my Web site’s association with the Tribune. And I haven’t ever used the word paranoid to describe Sox fans. Plus, I looked in our database for the words “White Sox” and “attendance” this year – and there was one story. In that story Mark Gonzales pretty much dismissed the issue by blaming it, correctly I think, on bad weather. That’s far from a “psychotic focus.”



Re this: “Sox fans know how the Tribune Co. feels about us and our team--total disrespect.” Wrong. Very, very wrong. But I don’t think for a minute anyone here will buy it.



Re this: “I find it funny how your site generally has the Sox headlining when they should be, yet on the trib's online sports page it's the Cubs headlining almost everyday. Nice job trib.” That page is populated automatically every night, replacing the work we did overnight … which had the Sox on top. And then we change it in the morning. Today I put the Sox on top … just as I did yesterday. You saw the page in the 3-4 hours between the time the feed took effect and the time I made changes.



Lastly, a lot of people use the word. I’d sure like to hear what your definition of fair is.



George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

maurice
05-10-2005, 12:10 PM
My only issue was with the headline itself, not written by Mark Gonzales but his editor.

I'd like to underscore this point. In a different WSI forum, I've complimented Mr. Gonzalez on his work. He's much more dilligent than the boobs who have covered the Sox beat in the past.

Flight #24
05-10-2005, 12:23 PM
Also: If Zaun had been more seriously injured, say had a broken neck or was paralyzed, would it still be such a strong bone of contention? It happened in the ninth, it looked bad, it took a long time to get him off the field … and no one knew that much about his condition. Plus, judging by the quotes from Sox players, it was kind of scary. Wouldn’t it have irresponsible to not respond to something of that nature?






George - the issue isn't so much that one particular headline, it's the continuous trend of headlines. One day, it's important to portray that Zaun got hurt. The next, the end of an 8-game win streak is "Fizzling". Earlier in the week, another win is cast as a "power shortage". Every day, there's something negative that it would apparently be "irresponsible to not to respond to". Somehow, with the team with the best record in baseball in town, the primary newspaper almost always finds something negative that absolutely must be portrayed in the title.

Why not headlines like "Clutch Sox win Xth in a row", "All good things must come to an end"(for last night's loss), etc - headlines that actually portray the team as doing well rather than ones that play up something negative?

Add that to the dramatic difference in treatment of the 2 teams in this town (Prior Watch v. no Frank watch, 100-game countdown for Cubs in '04, no such countdown for the Sox in '05 despite their needing only to play .580-ball to get there). It's a pretty damning array of evidence.

Fair to me means equal treatment in equal situations. That's blatantly not the case. I look forward to an explanation.

maurice
05-10-2005, 12:26 PM
Someone compared how the Sun-Times plays stories compared to how the Tribune does it. The comparison doesn’t work. The Sun-Times cover is half the size of the Tribune cover. The Sun-Times, as a tabloid, can get away with playing one story big … whereas the Tribune generally has to have 4-5 stories on its front every day.

:?:
This is not true. The Trib cover certainly is not twice the size of the Sun-Times cover; and the Sun-Times typically subdivides its cover also. The relevant comparison involved two covers on the same day, both of which were sub-divided. In the Trib version, the collapsing cubs got four times more page-1 space than the streaking Sox. The Sun-Times went the other way. Actually, the primary difference between the Trib cover and tabloids like the Sun-Times (or even chicagosports.com) is the fold. Supersized newspapers are a thing of the past, and users of public transportation greatly appreciate it.

Wouldn’t it have irresponsible to not respond to something of that nature?

:?:
Your beating a strawman. Nobody said that the Trib shouldn't report the injury.

A lot of people seemed to compare the amount of coverage of the White Sox today to the amount of coverage the Cubs got in the 2003 postseason.

:?:
Who said anything about the 2003 postseason? Over the past two years, cub coverage has dominated Sox coverage even during the 1st half of the regular season when the teams had comparable records. Under these circumstances, it would be "fair" to offer equal coverage. Obviously, if one team is in the playoffs and the other team is playing golf, all bets are off.

TDog
05-10-2005, 12:27 PM
...


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com






You know, you're probably absolutely right. You probably try to be fair, which isn't easy. Newspapers in two-high-school towns are constantly getting complaints about sports-page bias for one school or the other.

But among the fans who post here, complaints are the result of cumulative frustrations with slights in coverage. As long as the Tribune Company owns the Cubs, the company is open to charges of bias.

If the Tribune were honest, it would see that Cubs referred to as a subsidiary of the Tribune Compnay somewhere in every story. Put it in a tagline at the end of the story. Run Associated Press wire stories for Cubs coverage to avoid the conflict of interest. Not covering them at all isn't an option.

Trying to be fair can be a thankless job. In the Tribune's case, I don't think Sox fans will every think it has accomplished the goal.

seanpmurphy
05-10-2005, 12:29 PM
This certainly contradicts Lip's theory that winning will lead to great news media coverage for the White Sox. One wonders what if the Sox win the World Series this year. Will the Tribune run an editorial calling for an investigation to see if gamblers rigged it so the Sox could win?

Do you really have to ask? They'd blame everyone related to the organization and then some. Those crybabies. :angry:

jackbrohamer
05-10-2005, 01:25 PM
Re headlines: I think people read a lot into these things that aren’t there. And headlines that bother some don’t bother others. Read another thread here and you’ll see what I mean. I did check out last year’s Cub headlines – and the only talk about the World Series was before the season started.


People who only glance at the paper or are not interested in a story may ONLY look at the headline. And bias is conveyed very well through headlines. That's why they're -- wait for it -- HEADLINES.

JRIG
05-10-2005, 01:27 PM
George - the issue isn't so much that one particular headline, it's the continuous trend of headlines. One day, it's important to portray that Zaun got hurt. The next, the end of an 8-game win streak is "Fizzling". Earlier in the week, another win is cast as a "power shortage". Every day, there's something negative that it would apparently be "irresponsible to not to respond to". Somehow, with the team with the best record in baseball in town, the primary newspaper almost always finds something negative that absolutely must be portrayed in the title.

Why not headlines like "Clutch Sox win Xth in a row", "All good things must come to an end"(for last night's loss), etc - headlines that actually portray the team as doing well rather than ones that play up something negative?

Add that to the dramatic difference in treatment of the 2 teams in this town (Prior Watch v. no Frank watch, 100-game countdown for Cubs in '04, no such countdown for the Sox in '05 despite their needing only to play .580-ball to get there). It's a pretty damning array of evidence.

Fair to me means equal treatment in equal situations. That's blatantly not the case. I look forward to an explanation.

I also want to thank George for reading, posting, and replying on this site to open a dialogue on the issue.

Flight's had two excellent posts on this topic, and I don't want to repeat points too much. But the non-Frank Thomas watch vs. the Prior-watch along with the coverage of the Cubs possible 100 wins, then keeping track even when it was apparent they would not hit the mark are two big issues that stand out pretty tall.

And Flight has also chronicled a pattern of headlines earlier in the thread. It seems incredible that the White Sox victories are never the main story. This team has had two eight-game winning streaks this year. If the Cubs did this, there would have been a "Countdown to 22" or whatever the number the A's set a few years ago.

This team is (was) off to its best start in franchise history. The White Sox have the BEST RECORD IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL at the moment. They are not treated as such.

If the Sox win 4-3 tonight, will the headline read:

"Sox Squeak Out Victory Against Lowly Rays"

OR

"Pointing in the Right Direction (Again)"

jackbrohamer
05-10-2005, 01:39 PM
Plus, I looked in our database for the words “White Sox” and “attendance” this year – and there was one story. In that story Mark Gonzales pretty much dismissed the issue by blaming it, correctly I think, on bad weather. That’s far from a “psychotic focus.”


That type of non-research is so ridiculous that it undermines the points you are trying to make. Small crowds are ALWAYS noted prominently in Tribune Sox game stories, and often dominate Tribune coverage. If you want to do actual "research," how about correlating the number of <20K crowds that get mentioned in the first 3-4 sentences of a Tribune Sox game recap?

And your apology for Gonzales' game recaps doesn't hold water. If he did not want to highlight the small crowd on May 3--- and if the crowd size was unimportant due to the weather --- why not cover the game instead of carping about attendance in the THIRD SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE????

" [1] Three home runs off ace Mark Buehrle gave the White Sox more of a chill than the 43-degree temperature and 15-m.p.h. wind in which they played Tuesday night. [2] But the Sox's bats heated up sufficiently in the eighth inning to transform Buehrle's rough outing into a 5-4 comeback victory over Kansas City. [3] About half of the announced crowd of 12,362 braved the brutal elements..."

Best way to dismiss an issue is to feature it prominently in the article.

daveeym
05-10-2005, 02:07 PM
That type of non-research is so ridiculous that it undermines the points you are trying to make. Small crowds are ALWAYS noted prominently in Tribune Sox game stories, and often dominate Tribune coverage. If you want to do actual "research," how about correlating the number of <20K crowds that get mentioned in the first 3-4 sentences of a Tribune Sox game recap?

And your apology for Gonzales' game recaps doesn't hold water. If he did not want to highlight the small crowd on May 3--- and if the crowd size was unimportant due to the weather --- why not cover the game instead of carping about attendance in the THIRD SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE????

" [1] Three home runs off ace Mark Buehrle gave the White Sox more of a chill than the 43-degree temperature and 15-m.p.h. wind in which they played Tuesday night. [2] But the Sox's bats heated up sufficiently in the eighth inning to transform Buehrle's rough outing into a 5-4 comeback victory over Kansas City. [3] About half of the announced crowd of 12,362 braved the brutal elements..."

Best way to dismiss an issue is to feature it prominently in the article. But, but, but, my database tells me only 1.

George Knue
05-10-2005, 04:13 PM
Non-research? You suggest that the Tribune has an “unparallelled and nearly psychotic focus on the Sox' attendance” and I find one story devoted to attendance and it’s bad research.

Here’s a little more research for you: The Sox have had 14 home games this season. The attendance was mentioned in the game story of all but two – the April 7 game against Cleveland (10,800 … and the second smallest home crowd of the season) and the May 5 game against KC (15,389, one of the five smallest)). In most of those games, it was mentioned in passing (in front of 18,310 fans); in others it was mentioned in relation to the weather (most of those instances involved a cold-weather reference like “chilled,” but there was one that referred to a “sun-kissed crowd”).

As to: “Small crowds are ALWAYS noted prominently in Tribune Sox game stories, and often dominate Tribune coverage. If you want to do actual "research," how about correlating the number of <20K crowds that get mentioned in the first 3-4 sentences of a Tribune Sox game recap?”

The smallest crowd was noted in the second paragraph; two other small crowds (about 12,000) were noted in the third and fourth graphs. But two other small crowds were not mentioned at all. Of the crowds under 20K only (eight games) not noted already, three were mentioned near the end of the story and the other was in the sixth paragraph.

Most of the high attendance games were mentioned in the first six graphs.

Never once was the word “only” – or any other similarly judgmental term – applied to the attendance. Mark did use the one phrase (“About half of the announced crowd of 12,362 braved the brutal elements...”) that suggested maybe the real attendance was less than what was there; he did that in another story too. But that phrase seems to address the weather more than the crowd – and the weather was a significant part of the story that night.

Also, here are some other headlines from Sox game stories:

Onward, upward, still looking good
Hot shots hit spot for Sox
Another gem for Garland
Banged-up Sox go down with a fight
A glittering Garland sparkles for Sox
Sox have their date with history
Different hero, another win for Sox
A cure for cold: Hot bats, pitching
A sweeping success for Sox


All of those would seem to be at odds with the idea that Tribune editors have to find something negative about the Sox even in victory.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

beckett21
05-10-2005, 09:19 PM
I disagree. Newspaper writers, TV sports anchors, sports-blab idiots, etc. are public figures. I think calling them out publicly for being biased --- and thus poor journalists or reporters --- is totally fair and possibly much more effective than telling me to just be quiet and avoid any local news.

My post was not directed at you; it was meant as a general statement. It just so happened that I posted it after you made your post. Totally coincidental.

I'm not asking anyone to be quiet about anything. Many of the posters here have made some very good points. I suppose I'm just too cynical to believe that all this complaining is actually going to change anything. Since George Knue appears to be reading and responding to this thread, maybe that proves I am wrong. If the Sox keep winning, they will be hard to ignore either way.

Personally I'd just rather focus on the positives of this season and enjoy it for what it is, rather than trying to uncover the latest conspiracy. JMO.

Far be it from me to tell someone else what to post. (Yes, if I don't like it then I shouldn't read the thread...)

Mr. Knue, your responses are appreciated. Unfortunately perception is reality, and most people probably already have their minds made up on this one. But you deserve credit for coming here to take your lumps. :smile: