PDA

View Full Version : Local Media Less Negative than in 2000?


Hitmen77
05-12-2005, 05:36 PM
I hate being a "positive Nellie" (it's more fun to be negative:D: ) but, am I correct in thinking that the local media is softening in its coverage of the Sox? I seem to remember the coverage in recent years while the Sox were in contention (not just 2000, but summer 2003 too) to be more negative than now.

Seems to me that we're hearing less trash about terrible ballpark and dangerous neighborhood. Even the attendance talk isn't quite as constant. Moronotti has kept his mouth shut so far.

If this trend is indeed true, perhaps WSI gets some credit for taking some of the local press to task for their coverage. I also think the ballpark renovations are having an effect as I no longer see an obsession with how bad our upper deck is or how blue our seats are, etc.

I'm just talking about the local media and not the national media who are totally anti-Sox. Also, I'm not going overboard here and suggesting the coverage is now fair or that there no longer is a Cubs-bias in town. I'm just saying that maybe coverage is improving. Any thoughts?

white sox bill
05-12-2005, 06:31 PM
I hate being a "positive Nellie" (it's more fun to be negative:D: ) but, am I correct in thinking that the local media is softening in its coverage of the Sox? I seem to remember the coverage in recent years while the Sox were in contention (not just 2000, but summer 2003 too) to be more negative than now.

Seems to me that we're hearing less trash about terrible ballpark and dangerous neighborhood. Even the attendance talk isn't quite as constant. Moronotti has kept his mouth shut so far.

If this trend is indeed true, perhaps WSI gets some credit for taking some of the local press to task for their coverage. I also think the ballpark renovations are having an effect as I no longer see an obsession with how bad our upper deck is or how blue our seats are, etc.

I'm just talking about the local media and not the national media who are totally anti-Sox. Also, I'm not going overboard here and suggesting the coverage is now fair or that there no longer is a Cubs-bias in town. I'm just saying that maybe coverage is improving. Any thoughts?

Sounds like a question for Hangar! C'mon Henry where are you with stats?

Banix12
05-12-2005, 06:49 PM
I hate being a "positive Nellie" (it's more fun to be negative:D: ) but, am I correct in thinking that the local media is softening in its coverage of the Sox? I seem to remember the coverage in recent years while the Sox were in contention (not just 2000, but summer 2003 too) to be more negative than now.

Seems to me that we're hearing less trash about terrible ballpark and dangerous neighborhood. Even the attendance talk isn't quite as constant. Moronotti has kept his mouth shut so far.

If this trend is indeed true, perhaps WSI gets some credit for taking some of the local press to task for their coverage. I also think the ballpark renovations are having an effect as I no longer see an obsession with how bad our upper deck is or how blue our seats are, etc.

I'm just talking about the local media and not the national media who are totally anti-Sox. Also, I'm not going overboard here and suggesting the coverage is now fair or that there no longer is a Cubs-bias in town. I'm just saying that maybe coverage is improving. Any thoughts?


Moronotti printed his article on the second day of the season about how the sox approach would not work in the long run. I think he's waiting and hoping for this sox run to fall apart so he can gloat. I expect a lot of cubs coverage coming from him the next few months. maybe even some soccer, he doesn't want to write about the sox right now it seems.

I'm sure the coverage has been more positive this season. In 2000 the sox were coming off some awful seasons both on the field and in the area of PR. In 2003 the sox were coming off a couple seasons of high expectations and fell apart. The attitudes coming into those seasons helped create a lot of the negativity. This year the expectations were pretty low from the media but they mostly liked the moves Kenny made, since the team hadn't been doing anything as it was built in years previously.

The fact that the cubs are a complete mess has been helping, the cubs right now are going through what the sox went through in 2003, media coverage based on a couple of years of high expections that have gone nowhere.

The whole 34 games with a lead streak has helped too, other than the fact that the hitters aren't hitting well, there isn't much negative to say

Optipessimism
05-13-2005, 01:32 AM
The 2000 team didn't have the talent that the 2005 team has. While they were a good team and won a lot of games, they didn't appear to be a team that would do anything in the playoffs. And, they didn't. The 2005 team's success so far is much more believable considering that it is full of established players and the pitching staff is made up of 5 guys who all have the make up of legitimate all-stars when they're on.

As a result, the 2000 team was kind of like the 2003 Royals in the sense that you could tell they would come back down to earth, and the media picked up on it everywhere. If the 2005 team continues its role however, you will have reporters all over the place picking this team to win a ring.

Banix12
05-13-2005, 02:32 AM
The 2000 team didn't have the talent that the 2005 team has. While they were a good team and won a lot of games, they didn't appear to be a team that would do anything in the playoffs. And, they didn't. The 2005 team's success so far is much more believable considering that it is full of established players and the pitching staff is made up of 5 guys who all have the make up of legitimate all-stars when they're on.

As a result, the 2000 team was kind of like the 2003 Royals in the sense that you could tell they would come back down to earth, and the media picked up on it everywhere. If the 2005 team continues its role however, you will have reporters all over the place picking this team to win a ring.

I don't know if it's that they knew they would fall back to earth or that the media had high expectations and those expectations fell apart because it turned out the season was a fluke.

If you remember, after 2003 most media folk were virtually handing the central division to the Royals in 2004 and uttered rediculous phrases like "a full season of Brian Anderson and a healthy Juan Gonzalez should be enough to put the Royals over the top." A similar run of stories appeared in 2001 after the sox traded to get Wells and in 2002 after the Ritchie trade. After awhile everybody just came to the conclusion that the 2000 team really wasn't that good and played above their ability. A fluke. The 2000 sox really weren't that good, they got career years out of so many guys and most of the starting rotation is out of baseball now. Great season, though.

I think people are starting to wise up to the 2003 cubs. That very much is looking like a fluke season. 88 wins winning a weak division, riding the backs of players like Eric Karros, Randall Simon and Joe Borowski.

You can't really judge a fluke year while it's happening, it takes a little hindsight to see what's real and what's not. For every 2000 sox or 2003 royals there is a 2002 Twins team, a team everybody thought was a fluke but kept on winning.