PDA

View Full Version : The "Soxune"--you won't believe this!


clarkent
05-14-2005, 01:01 PM
I just picked up the Chicago Tribune early Sunday edition. The White Sox are everywhere starting on the front page of the regular news section! John Kass has a great column on what drives a Sox fan. Morrissey even calls the paper the Soxune. The quotes are many and because of copyright issues, I can't quote them. Go buy it now-- I have now seen everything. This is becoming a magical year.

RedPinStripes
05-14-2005, 01:03 PM
I Go buy it now-- .

Not a chance in hell.

kevingrt
05-14-2005, 01:08 PM
Not a chance in hell.

Got to agree... one day out of 364 or something means nothing

Ventura Fan 23
05-14-2005, 01:10 PM
However, no matter how bad the Cubs do, they won't be moved off the front page like the Sox were last year durring their late season struggle. :mad:

Infallible
05-14-2005, 01:13 PM
Go buy it now-- .

I'd rather set my hair on fire and run down the street buttnaked.

clarkent
05-14-2005, 01:16 PM
Ok I take back the go buy it comment. just read it tomorrow online for free.

Infallible
05-14-2005, 01:17 PM
ok, thats much more resonable. I've added you back into the "good guy" column and removed you from the "suspicion of Cubs subversion" column.

voodoochile
05-14-2005, 01:25 PM
The Soxune? Seems a few people at Trib tower have been visiting WSI...:D:

Palehose13
05-14-2005, 01:38 PM
The Soxune? Seems a few people at Trib tower have been visiting WSI...:D:

I thought this is where they got most of their material. :cool:

Ventura Fan 23
05-14-2005, 01:53 PM
Yeah, no doubt. :D:

HomeFish
05-14-2005, 02:01 PM
Ok I take back the go buy it comment. just read it tomorrow online for free.

Visiting the Cubune's website means another view for their online ads, that means higher ad rates that the paper can charge, and that means more revenue.

More revenue = more Cubbie FA's, more lopsided raping-of-Pittsburgh trades. A small contribution, probably not relevant, but it's not getting off scott-free either.

JohnBasedowYoda
05-14-2005, 02:15 PM
actually my dad is a trib subscriber and everyday the sox are basically the big story on the front page. too bad hangar 18 doesn't do his daily count of sox vs. cub stories

Wsoxmike59
05-14-2005, 02:39 PM
I'd rather set my hair on fire and run down the street buttnaked.

http://www.adweek.com/aw/images/best_spots/best_spots_04/0319_bs18.gif

Hey pal, that's a typical Saturday night for me!!!!!

my5thbench
05-14-2005, 03:28 PM
David Haugh on the Score today said he wrote one of the


Sox columns for tommorrow's edition & said that there

would be much Sox stuff, they also interviewed the guy

from Sport's Illustrated who wrote about Ozzie last week,

that was quite entertaining....he printed Ozzies e-mail

address it is:

ozzieguillen13@hotmail.com

rwcescato
05-14-2005, 03:54 PM
However, no matter how bad the Cubs do, they won't be moved off the front page like the Sox were last year durring their late season struggle. :mad:

I believe they will. There actually was 1 day already where the cubs were on the 3rd page. Though I do believe it was because the Bulls were in the playoffs. But if the scrubs keep falling and the Sox continue doing what they are doing I think it will happen.

cheeses_h_rice
05-14-2005, 05:08 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-050514soxcubs,1,6237302.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

One section of this caught my eye:

The Sox have not outdrawn the Cubs in home attendance since 1992. TV ratings tell a similar story: The Cubs-Mets game Wednesday night on WGN-Ch. 9 attracted a 5.7 rating and a 15 share, while a Sox-Devil Rays game on Comcast SportsNet managed a meager 1 rating and a 3 share.

Now, is it asking too much for the journalist who wrote this to at least color his comments with the obvious fact that there might be *some* influence on ratings depending on the opponent being played?

Is it really fair to compare the NY Mets vs. the Tampa Bay Devil Rays on an apples-to-apples basis?

MeanFish
05-14-2005, 05:11 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-050514soxcubs,1,6237302.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

One section of this caught my eye:



Now, is it asking too much for the journalist who wrote this to at least color his comments with the obvious fact that there might be *some* influence on ratings depending on the opponent being played?

Is it really fair to compare the NY Mets vs. the Tampa Bay Devil Rays on an apples-to-apples basis?

I'm not sure if this means anything, but couldn't the fact that Channel 9 is one that comes up on any TV with an antenna vs. CSN being a cable channel have something to do with it?

cheeses_h_rice
05-14-2005, 05:13 PM
I'm not sure if this means anything, but couldn't the fact that Channel 9 is one that comes up on any TV with an antenna vs. CSN being a cable channel have something to do with it?

:knue

Get this rabble-rouser out of here, post haste!

The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying! The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying! The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying! The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying! The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying! The Cubbies had 5 times the viewership and that's that! Blahblahblah I'm not listening to the words you are saying!

CorkNKerrys
05-14-2005, 05:19 PM
"Back in the late 1980s, the team gave away two free tickets to parents of newborns if they signed lifetime contracts guaranteeing the child would grow up to root for the Sox."

What I wouldn't give to get my hands on one of those.

I want Mags back
05-14-2005, 05:22 PM
THE FLUBUNE SUCKS

JB98
05-14-2005, 05:42 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-050514soxcubs,1,6237302.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

One section of this caught my eye:



Now, is it asking too much for the journalist who wrote this to at least color his comments with the obvious fact that there might be *some* influence on ratings depending on the opponent being played?

Is it really fair to compare the NY Mets vs. the Tampa Bay Devil Rays on an apples-to-apples basis?

The Sox didn't play Wednesday night. That was a day game against the Devil Rays.....

Fenway
05-14-2005, 05:56 PM
Ummmm both games were in the afternoon on Wednesday

I really am amazed at how bad a newspaper the Tribune is seriously the Providence Journal is better

JB98
05-14-2005, 05:57 PM
Ummmm both games were in the afternoon on Wednesday

I really am amazed at how bad a newspaper the Tribune is seriously the Providence Journal is better

Never let the facts get in the way of spouting off about the Cubs' popularity.

SOX ADDICT '73
05-14-2005, 06:02 PM
Other than using an unfair comparison of TV numbers, and quoting that gas-bag Kruk, the article doesn't say anything that isn't true. It's actually pretty complimentary to the team and the ballpark.

As long as there are casual, uninformed baseball "fans" in Chicago, the Cubs will always be #1. And you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. It's as if the Cubs are a Moron Deflector Shield for the Sox, leaving fans like us alone to cheer for our team without having to associate with a bunch of idiots.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2005, 06:44 PM
I wonder what Crector thinks of all this saying it already 'disproves' my theory about the Sox getting better coverage if they win?

The powers that be that run the media aren't stupid, they are smart business people, they'll promote whichever team allows them to increase sales, increase ad revenue and supplies more readers / listers / viewers.

Lip

gosox41
05-15-2005, 09:03 AM
Anyone see today's Trib? The Sox actually were on the front page of Section 1, with another article in Section 1. They were on the front page of the Sports with Morrisey and Downey writing about this team. Verdi wrote about JR.

Of course to be fair, a lot of the articles were based on how we're not as popular as the Cubs. But at least we're getting some headlines and the comments about the team itself were positive.

I'd like to think message boards like here and whitesox.com (which was mentioned briefly in one of the articles) as well as Sox fans challenging the editor Dan McGrath (who claims there's fair coverage) have a lot to do with this 1 day of attention.

Let's see if it happens again.


Bob

gosox41
05-15-2005, 09:10 AM
I wonder what Crector thinks of all this saying it already 'disproves' my theory about the Sox getting better coverage if they win?

The powers that be that run the media aren't stupid, they are smart business people, they'll promote whichever team allows them to increase sales, increase ad revenue and supplies more readers / listers / viewers.

Lip

Or they'll promote a team that helps them sell more tickets and more beer where they can make a lot more money then selling a few more newspapers.


Bob

bigfoot
05-15-2005, 09:15 AM
Yep, the bandwagon is starting to fill up. Notice the limping Blue Ursine, fresh from the fall (and resultant broken ankles) from the Northside Crapwagon.

Fredsox
05-15-2005, 09:25 AM
To add on, the Daily Herald also did a nice job the past couple of days too. They are certainly a north-side paper historically, but I really can't complain this weekend about either them or the cubune. Some really nice coverage. I hope it lasts the entire season.

DumpJerry
05-15-2005, 09:56 AM
Oh my God! I lost track of the number of articles on the Sox in today's paper. I tried to use my computer to calculate the figure, but my 'puter sent me a message I have to use the Supercomputers NASA uses for Moonshots to get a close approximation.

Did anyone catch the dig at the Sun-Times in one of the stories? Did you see where Garland's sisters at 6-0 and 6-3! I need them for volleyball!

I hope this does not mean they will disappear from the Cubune pages for the next two weeks as the editors feel they have paid their dues....

DumpJerry
05-15-2005, 10:08 AM
MODS: there is a thread at Sox Clubhouse: Sox Nation Gets Through Cubune.

Merger?

Brian26
05-15-2005, 10:21 AM
It's about time.

MRKARNO
05-15-2005, 11:11 AM
By my count there were 12 different articles about the White Sox in today's Tribune and only one might be perceived as negative. I couldnt believe my eyes. I kept reading one article after another after another. I dont think they've had this many articles about the White Sox for a looooooong time.

Vernam
05-15-2005, 11:37 AM
As long as there are casual, uninformed baseball "fans" in Chicago, the Cubs will always be #1. And you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. It's as if the Cubs are a Moron Deflector Shield for the Sox, leaving fans like us alone to cheer for our team without having to associate with a bunch of idiots.

Man, I could not agree more with that. Part of me dreads the success that sames to be in store (okay, just a small part) this year, because filling the park, by definition, means bringing out the lame-os. Today's Sunday Trib freaked me out, with its rampant coverage of the Sox. FOUR stories on the front page of the sports section? And another on the back page, about Garland. And three more inside -- another about Garland, one about the improved defense, and another about the pitcher's mound, for cry-eye. (Priceless quotes from Roger Bossard in there, btw.) When the Trib gets on the bandwagon like that, it has to be a sign of impending apocalypse. Or at least a disturbance in the Moron Deflector force. :D:

VC

P.S. Love the Van Gogh sig picture, SOX ADDICT '73.

Cellview22
05-15-2005, 12:12 PM
The Sox have not outdrawn the Cubs in home attendance since 1992. TV ratings tell a similar story: The Cubs-Mets game Wednesday night on WGN-Ch. 9 attracted a 5.7 rating and a 15 share, while a Sox-Devil Rays game on Comcast SportsNet managed a meager 1 rating and a 3 share.

Maybe one of the reasons the Cubs draw a bigger tv rating, besides being on WGN:rolleyes: , is both Cubs and Sox fans watch at least a small portion of the game. A lot of Sox fans love seeing the Cubs lose. If there's nothing else on tv, and the Sox have already won their game, I usually turn it to the Cubs game just to get the pleasure of seeing them lose again. Cub fans probably don't even know what channel Comcast is, they keep WGN on in the background while socializing and drinking, and then when they notice the game is over, they're out to the bars again, just following the other sheep.

sox230
05-15-2005, 01:00 PM
The popularity article in the Tribune today is completely unneccessary to have. It has no relevance to anything going on this season and is just an example of the Cubune feeling threatened by the Sox great season so far. It angers me so much that they could get away with this, but if this isnt advertising their product I dont know what is.:angry:

Vernam
05-16-2005, 01:26 AM
The rampant (and belated) Sox coverage in today's paper indicates one main fact: The paper's editors know the rest of the country is now watching, and the Trib needs to be on its best behavior for once. It's like an abusive spouse who treats their partner like crap when no one's looking, then gets lovey dovey when the neighbors are around. :cool:

A subtext of all the stories about attendance is that the Trib and its satellite news outlets -- which is to say, virtually every reporter in town, because they all aspire to working at the Trib -- have been denigrating the Sox and their fans for years. Then reporters stand back and pretend to wonder why the park is half-empty, as if it has nothing to do with the decades of ridicule, not to mention the fawning attention to the tourist trap that is Wrigleyville. The disparity in volume of Sox coverage compared to Cubs never bothered me so much as the naked condescension toward us. That's what was startling about the John Kass column, because he's just about the first writer to acknowledge that Sox fans have good reason to feel persecuted (self-defeating though it is!).

The Sox management is playing this just right, not complaining about the obvious bias. That's what we're here for!

VC

tebman
05-16-2005, 12:27 PM
The rampant (and belated) Sox coverage in today's paper indicates one main fact: The paper's editors know the rest of the country is now watching, and the Trib needs to be on its best behavior for once. It's like an abusive spouse who treats their partner like crap when no one's looking, then gets lovey dovey when the neighbors are around. :cool:

A subtext of all the stories about attendance is that the Trib and its satellite news outlets -- which is to say, virtually every reporter in town, because they all aspire to working at the Trib -- have been denigrating the Sox and their fans for years. Then reporters stand back and pretend to wonder why the park is half-empty, as if it has nothing to do with the decades of ridicule, not to mention the fawning attention to the tourist trap that is Wrigleyville. The disparity in volume of Sox coverage compared to Cubs never bothered me so much as the naked condescension toward us. That's what was startling about the John Kass column, because he's just about the first writer to acknowledge that Sox fans have good reason to feel persecuted (self-defeating though it is!).

The Sox management is playing this just right, not complaining about the obvious bias. That's what we're here for!

Well put! The level of Sox stuff in Sunday's Tribune was simply weird, given its history of condescension toward the Sox and the long tradition of kiss-blowing and maypole-dancing toward the Cubs.

The other public performers in town take their cues from the Trib, so the suburban writers and the vacuous haircuts who work as TV news droids all sway to the same Cub music. It's as if they turned around to see what the noise was behind them and saw the White Sox. "Oh! When did they get here?" "Does the Cubby Bear have a location there, too?"