PDA

View Full Version : More fun with Headlines


Ol' No. 2
07-01-2005, 08:52 AM
If you haven't seen today's Cubune headline on the Sox, I won't spoil the suspense. Instead, see if you can pass this little test. Below are two headlines. One is today's headline regarding the Sox' third win in a row. The other is the headline from Wednesday after the Cubs won their third in a row. See if you can guess which is which.

3-hit shutout built on sliders

Rolling toward danger



If you have to think about this for more than about 0.00000001 second, turn in your jersey. Apparently, the Cubune editors are concerned the Sox might not do well in Oakland. At worst, a sweep would lower their record to 53-27, dooming their playoff hopes.

mjharrison72
07-01-2005, 09:00 AM
And yet I have some cub fan friends who refuse to believe there's any inherent bias resulting from their little team being owned by a media conglomerate. They think it's worse that Comiskey got renamed by a corporate sponsor. Idiots.

SOXPHILE
07-01-2005, 09:05 AM
You beat me to the post. If I had been sleeping for the last few days, and had not known that the Sox had just swept the Tiggers on Freddy's complete game, I would have thought they were in the middle of a losing streak or something. Rolling toward danger. Oh no ! Are they on the verge of losing their finger hold on first place ? Sorta reminds me of the Tumbling towards third headline last summer. This is even worse.

Anyone also notice how the Brewers, Lee ride friendly wind. I guess the wind was only blowing and "friendly" when the Brewers were batting.

Flight #24
07-01-2005, 09:16 AM
George Knue - where you at? Exhibit ZZZZZZZ in the ongoing saga of "does the Tribune have bias?". Which is on par with the ongoing debate on "Did or did not dinosaurs exist?".

TomBradley72
07-01-2005, 09:22 AM
And yet I have some cub fan friends who refuse to believe there's any inherent bias resulting from their little team being owned by a media conglomerate. They think it's worse that Comiskey got renamed by a corporate sponsor. Idiots.

vs. the Urinal which has been named after a CHEWING GUM company for about 80+ years!

Iwritecode
07-01-2005, 09:39 AM
vs. the Urinal which has been named after a CHEWING GUM company for about 80+ years!

Actually, I've been making fun of Cubs fans about that for years. That is completely FREE advertising for the Wrigley company.

At least JR was smart enough to get some money from the company who's name is on the front of the stadium. :D:

daveeym
07-01-2005, 09:41 AM
George Knue - where you at? Exhibit ZZZZZZZ in the ongoing saga of "does the Tribune have bias?". Which is on par with the ongoing debate on "Did or did not dinosaurs exist?". But, But it's an accurate headline, the sox have traditionally struggled on the west coast and particularly in Oakland. I mean you guys have multiple threads going on about it as we speak. :rolleyes:

Uncle_Patrick
07-01-2005, 09:43 AM
And yet I have some cub fan friends who refuse to believe there's any inherent bias resulting from their little team being owned by a media conglomerate. They think it's worse that Comiskey got renamed by a corporate sponsor. Idiots.

A) Its easy to ignore the bias when you are on the positive side of it. Notice how many Cubs fans bitch and moan the second they get some negative press. "Everyone hates us. Boo-hoo!"

B) Some moron Cubs fan posted on one the MLB boards that changing the name from Comiskey to US Cellular was one of the White Sox's biggest disgraces to baseball. Its odd how people can ignore that, for one thing, Comiskey was less than 15 years old so its not like it was one of baseball's "classic" parks (if it had been old Comiskey, then I'd have a problem with it) and secondly, its not like the White Sox were the first or only team to do it. Get over it.

Irishsox1
07-01-2005, 09:44 AM
You know that it must piss off the stuffed shirts at the Tribune Corporation that they can't change the name of Wrigley Field to Tribune Park. If they could, they would and I'm sure they talked about it till someone said you can't do that, no matter how much money they would make.

As for the headlines.....Come out George....we know your in there!! You got some explaining to do!!!

Ol' No. 2
07-01-2005, 09:53 AM
But, But it's an accurate headline, the sox have traditionally struggled on the west coast and particularly in Oakland. I mean you guys have multiple threads going on about it as we speak. :rolleyes:It's also accurate the the Cubs are pretty much a .500 teams and going nowhere, but don't look for that to be pointed out in the Cubune any time soon.

itsnotrequired
07-01-2005, 09:58 AM
A) Its easy to ignore the bias when you are on the positive side of it. Notice how many Cubs fans bitch and moan the second they get some negative press. "Everyone hates us. Boo-hoo!"

B) Some moron Cubs fan posted on one the MLB boards that changing the name from Comiskey to US Cellular was one of the White Sox's biggest disgraces to baseball. Its odd how people can ignore that, for one thing, Comiskey was less than 15 years old so its not like it was one of baseball's "classic" parks (if it had been old Comiskey, then I'd have a problem with it) and secondly, its not like the White Sox were the first or only team to do it. Get over it.

I hate it when people talk about how corporate naming of a stadium is somehow a "disgrace" to the game. You couldn't build a new stadium today with it. Besides, look at the pictures of old ballparks. The outfield wall had advertising up the ying-yang. What a disgrace...

TommyJohn
07-01-2005, 10:25 AM
You know that it must piss off the stuffed shirts at the Tribune Corporation that they can't change the name of Wrigley Field to Tribune Park. If they could, they would and I'm sure they talked about it till someone said you can't do that, no matter how much money they would make.

As for the headlines.....Come out George....we know your in there!! You got some explaining to do!!!

In 1981 Mike Royko wanted to buy the Cubs (back when they were worth
a mere $20 mil) and wanted Marshall Field V to be the principal owner and
money man. One thing Royko told Field was that if he bought the Cubs he
could change the name of Wrigley Field to Field Field.

samram
07-01-2005, 10:28 AM
I hate it when people talk about how corporate naming of a stadium is somehow a "disgrace" to the game. You couldn't build a new stadium today with it. Besides, look at the pictures of old ballparks. The outfield wall had advertising up the ying-yang. What a disgrace...

No kidding. As if the name of the stadium has the slightest effect on one's enjoyment of the game.

TDog
07-01-2005, 10:57 AM
... One thing Royko told Field was that if he bought the Cubs he could change the name of Wrigley Field to Field Field.

A few years ago, I read a story about Cubs fans named Field who named their daughter Wrigley.

Some child abuse begins from day one.

Hangar18
07-01-2005, 11:07 AM
Paging George Knue. Paging George Knue.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-01-2005, 11:13 AM
A few years ago, I read a story about Cubs fans named Field who named their daughter Wrigley.

Some child abuse begins from day one.

I know of one who named his son Clark Addison. Can you believe it?

I should sic DCFS on that bastard.

TommyJohn
07-01-2005, 11:14 AM
A few years ago, I read a story about Cubs fans named Field who named their daughter Wrigley.

Some child abuse begins from day one.

That's pretty awful. I wonder if Chan Ho Park will name any of his kids
Comiskey or Fenway.

Bill Murray has a son named Homer Banks Murray. I suppose it's better than
naming the kid Error Smalley Murray or Losingpitcher Drabowsky Murray.
If he were a White Sox fan his name would probably have been Stolenbase
Aparicio Murray.

By the way, I think I just did a :hijacked:

TommyJohn
07-01-2005, 11:17 AM
I know of one who named his son Clark Addison. Can you believe it?

I should sic DCFS on that bastard.

I knew there was someone with a name like that, I was trying to remember
it for my previous post, but couldn't.

maurice
07-01-2005, 11:19 AM
Nice catch, ON2. Remember that the headline after the cubs won 3 games also said that they were "streaking." The Sox win 3 games (completing a sweep) and they're "rolling towards danger" -- in HUGE font, no less. *****! The game story is just as bad, though it does eventually get to the key fact -- that the Sox and Garcia continue to dominate.

Let's take a closer look on how other media outlets reported this event:
- CBS Sportsline (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/gamecenter/recap/MLB_20050630_CHW@DET): "Garcia goes the distance as ChiSox sweep Tigers"
- Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/recaps/2005/06/30/10060_recap.html): "Garcia, White Sox keep rolling in sweep of Tigers"
- ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=250630106): "Garcia allows five hits in first complete game of season"
- The Daily Herald (http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=69039): "Building on success: Sox continue to impress as Garcia goes the distance"
- Even the Cub-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-sox01.html): "It's a sweeping Sox-cess"

Anybody who claims lack of editorial bias at the Trib is officially clown shoes.

Vernam
07-01-2005, 11:42 AM
Dunno how significant it is -- much less whether the recent George Knue thread is remotely responsible -- but someone at http://www.chicagosports.com had the common sense to use instead "White Sox sweep Tigers" as the name of their link to the Gonzalez story headlined in the Trib as "rolling toward danger."

Also, the Chicagosports.com slug for today's story about Frank is "Slugger's power not bothered by rust," whereas the actual Trib headline is "Thomas battling rust but belting home runs." Have we perhaps won a convert in George?! :redneck

VC

daveeym
07-01-2005, 11:47 AM
Dunno how significant it is -- much less whether the recent George Knue thread is remotely responsible -- but someone at http://www.chicagosports.com (http://www.chicagosports.com/) had the common sense to use instead "White Sox sweep Tigers" as the name of their link to the Gonzalez story headlined in the Trib as "rolling toward danger."

Also, the Chicagosports.com slug for today's story about Frank is "Slugger's power not bothered by rust," whereas the actual Trib headline is "Thomas battling rust but belting home runs." Have we perhaps won a convert in George?! :redneck

VC Better yet they've now switched the headlines. The trib has the "Whitesox sweep Tigers" headline and chicagosports has the "Rolling toward Danger" headline.

BainesHOF
07-01-2005, 11:51 AM
"Rolling toward danger"

Yes, believe it or not, that's the big headline on the front page of today's sports section after we swept the Tigers. Talking about spinning the news...

Memo to Tribune: Even if we get swept by Oakland, the Sox will have a 53-27 record, which will be still the best record in baseball. What exactly is the danger we're rolling to as we try to win our fourth game in a row today?

I cancelled my Tribune subscription last year in the middle of the season for the same kind of bias. I was thinking about re-subscribing, but the free sample copy I received today only reminded me of the kind of transparent garbage the Tribune publishes.

SoxEd
07-01-2005, 11:56 AM
Dunno how significant it is -- much less whether the recent George Knue thread is remotely responsible -- but someone at http://www.chicagosports.com had the common sense to use instead "White Sox sweep Tigers" as the name of their link to the Gonzalez story headlined in the Trib as "rolling toward danger."

Also, the Chicagosports.com slug for today's story about Frank is "Slugger's power not bothered by rust," whereas the actual Trib headline is "Thomas battling rust but belting home runs." Have we perhaps won a convert in George?! :redneck

VC

The Corporate Panjandrums have obviously got back involved now - I just checked (1755 BST/1155 Central DST) and, while the first paragraph underneath the headline is pure positive, the headline itself is now "Sox rolling toward danger (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050630soxgamer,1,986802.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)".

And the story about Big Frank is back to the same as the headline in the paper too.

Que pasa?

Mind you, to be fair, the Cubs' headline underneath the (top-billed) Sox stories is "Banged around and blown away (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-050630cubsgamer,1,736064.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)", and the paragraph underneath it says
"The Cubs got beat up in the process of getting beat on by the Milwaukee Brewers on Thursday. And they just plain got beat, 10-6."

I guess we can't honestly accuse ChicagoSports.com of bigging-up the Cub over the Sox (on today's evidence).

MrEd
07-01-2005, 12:02 PM
I, too, thought the headline was odd. The article itself was a recap of the Tigers game. Wouldn't it make more sense to run something about Crede coming through and breaking the game open? If the tribsters want to write an article about the Sox struggles at Oakland, they could easily have done so in a separate article. It's really just a cheap shot to run that headline on that article after a huge series win.

maurice
07-01-2005, 12:03 PM
Dude, what's the score?

Jerko
07-01-2005, 12:04 PM
Dude, what's the score?

And do a search too. At least the 2nd thread about this!!!!!!!

Lip Man 1
07-01-2005, 12:05 PM
The headline is especially odd considering there were only a few lines about the Sox record in Oakland and an Ozzie comment about playing the way we always play.

It's not like the story focused on the Sox in Oakland troubles.

Lip

maurice
07-01-2005, 12:07 PM
:?:

But the cubs lost. They deserve at least a moderately negative headline. The Sox just completed a sweep.

Besides, ON2 is comparing it to a previous Trib headline under analogous circumstances, when the cubs had won 3 straight.

Moreover, the cubs are a near-.500 team, while the Sox have had the best record in baseball all season.

Brian26
07-01-2005, 12:12 PM
I, too, was blown away by the headline. Coming off a 3-game sweep and winning 11 of our last 13, they would put THAT headline on the front page of the sports section? Completely asinine.

Meanwhile, the broken down never-won-more-than-12-games-in-a-season Kerry Wood received the largest front page photo I've ever seen in the Trib yesterday.

No, there's no conflict of interest there.

SoxEd
07-01-2005, 12:15 PM
:?:

But the cubs lost. They deserve at least a moderately negative headline. The Sox just completed a sweep.

Besides, ON2 is comparing it to a previous Trib headline under analogous circumstances, when the cubs had won 3 straight.

Moreover, the cubs are a near-.500 team, while the Sox have had the best record in baseball all season.

I quite agree with you, I just put in my observations about the headlines before some Trib apologist comes on here spouting about how we didn't notice the 'favour' they showed the Sox today.

I should've made my post clearer. :redface:

FoulkeFan
07-01-2005, 12:19 PM
I was livid when I saw this today. I usually try not to get worked up about it because I know that they are biased, but come on! The Southtown headline was something about Freddy pitching a gem. The Sox sweep a team in their division and we get "Rolling toward danger"???!!!?? Give me a break.

The Racehorse
07-01-2005, 12:29 PM
After going 18-7 for the month of June with a road sweep of the Tigers as an exclamation mark, that was the best they can do? :mad:

I don't care if the SOX are now scheduled to face the '27 Yankees... Rolling Toward Danger is just another shameful headline, if you ask me.

Sometimes, I honestly don't know how my SOX brethren within the walls of the great city of Chicago can continually put up with this crap... having to live in such close proximity to such journalistic integrity.

batmanZoSo
07-01-2005, 12:39 PM
I, too, was blown away by the headline. Coming off a 3-game sweep and winning 11 of our last 13, they would put THAT headline on the front page of the sports section? Completely asinine.

Meanwhile, the broken down never-won-more-than-12-games-in-a-season Kerry Wood received the largest front page photo I've ever seen in the Trib yesterday.

No, there's no conflict of interest there.

It's utterly ridiculous to the point where it doesn't make me mad, but makes me laugh. When a newspaper has a stake in one of the teams, you can flush objectivity down the toilet--along with that piece of @#$% excuse for a newspaper.

Steakpita
07-01-2005, 12:42 PM
Crede's HR didn't count, the Tigers were tipping their pitches.

mdep524
07-01-2005, 12:42 PM
...on par with "Somber Streak."

:rolleyes:

The Trib sucks.

Over By There
07-01-2005, 12:43 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53239

StillMissOzzie
07-01-2005, 12:47 PM
I, too, was blown away by the headline. Coming off a 3-game sweep and winning 11 of our last 13, they would put THAT headline on the front page of the sports section? Completely asinine.

Meanwhile, the broken down never-won-more-than-12-games-in-a-season Kerry Wood received the largest front page photo I've ever seen in the Trib yesterday.

No, there's no conflict of interest there.

But those 2 that the Sox didn't win in the last 13 were vs. the mighty ScRubs.
As for Carrie Wood, that's 14, not 12, but your point remains.

SMO
:gulp:

fquaye149
07-01-2005, 12:58 PM
After going 18-7 for the month of June with a road sweep of the Tigers as an exclamation mark, that was the best they can do? :mad:

I don't care if the SOX are now scheduled to face the '27 Yankees... Rolling Toward Danger is just another shameful headline, if you ask me.

Sometimes, I honestly don't know how my SOX brethren within the walls of the great city of Chicago can continually put up with this crap... having to live in such close proximity to such journalistic integrity.

I don't think the '27 yankees would stand a chance.

Those pitchers probably topped out in the mid '80's and not one of those sluggers had ever seen a slider or a sinker (much less the frisbee:smile: )

Basically what I'm saying is: they're no 2005 A's:tongue:

skobabe8
07-01-2005, 01:42 PM
vs. the Urinal which has been named after a CHEWING GUM company for about 80+ years!

And how the Sox are owned by a human being while they are owned by a coorporation. I love telling my friends that. They never know what to say. :D:

NSSoxFan
07-01-2005, 01:49 PM
:knue
"Hold on everyone, I'll have a response in a second. I'm currently picking out the Cubs celebrity Bat-Kid for the next game, then I have to swing by Fitzsimmons office to see how to respond."

SoxFan76
07-01-2005, 04:48 PM
A few years ago, I read a story about Cubs fans named Field who named their daughter Wrigley.

Some child abuse begins from day one.

I met a couple who named their kid Pryor. They aren't Richard Pryor fans either.....it's actually named after Mark "The Messiah" Prior. I pretty much concluded this after I saw him sucking on a Cubs pacifier. Once again, proving the Cubs do suck.

I made a thread about it like a year ago I think.

edit: wow I was almost right on
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36814&page=1&pp=15&highlight=pryor

Lip Man 1
07-01-2005, 05:24 PM
You can also mention the headline about the Cubs vs. Sox potential trade futures. i.e. Hendry optimistic he can impove club compared to Williams being cautious (I'm paraphrasing both..)

Lip

Ol' No. 2
07-01-2005, 05:26 PM
You can also mention the headline about the Cubs vs. Sox potential trade futures. i.e. Hendry optimistic he can impove club compared to Williams being cautious (I'm paraphrasing both..)

LipI did in the other thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53026&page=2&pp=15).

RadioheadRocks
07-01-2005, 06:35 PM
I know of one who named his son Clark Addison. Can you believe it?

I should sic DCFS on that bastard.

Yep, I remember that was PGA golfer David Ogrin. Bet he had the "KICK ME" sign already prepared for when the youngster started school! :D: :D: :D:

Cowhead418
07-01-2005, 06:41 PM
Don't forget the other gems like:

"Somber Streak" (Sox 8-game winning streak)

"Headed in the Right Direction" (Flubs 7-game losing streak)

"Losing Steam" (Garland's first loss of season)

cubhater
07-01-2005, 08:27 PM
You can also mention the headline about the Cubs vs. Sox potential trade futures. i.e. Hendry optimistic he can impove club compared to Williams being cautious (I'm paraphrasing both..)

Lip

Of course those are legitimate headlines. Why would KW gamble with the team with the best record in MLB whereas Hendry can only improve his mediocre club?:smile: