PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Tribune Story


Lip Man 1
07-05-2005, 11:38 PM
Maybe some of the 'conspiracy' talk is getting to me, but this story was just posted on the Tribune web site: Strange...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050705soxrowcenter,1,2378108.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Sox shouldn't forget those '93 Giants

Lip

JB98
07-05-2005, 11:44 PM
Maybe some of the 'conspiracy' talk is getting to me, but this story was just posted on the Tribune web site: Strange...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050705soxrowcenter,1,2378108.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Sox shouldn't forget those '93 Giants

Lip

I've long since forgotten the '93 Giants, and I'm sure the Sox have as well. This article is just plain stupid.

Irishsox1
07-05-2005, 11:47 PM
That article is way beyond stupid, because under the current playoff system, the Giants would have won the wildcard and made the playoffs. Everything else in the article is just typical Cubune propagana to offset the Cubs current slide.

I can't wait to hear George Khune talk this one away.

tebman
07-05-2005, 11:54 PM
Does HomeFish write for the Trib now? Maybe we need a Tribune Dark Clouds thread as well.

MRKARNO
07-05-2005, 11:56 PM
It seems that Gonzalez probably just wrote this because he witnessed it personally, but I do think it's weird that in the span of about 3 weeks, there were two "Dont forget X team that missed the playoffs" articles. But the whole premise of it, is in fact BS as under the current format, it is downright impossible for an 100 win team to miss out on the postseason.

Brian26
07-06-2005, 12:03 AM
Gonzalez more and more seems like a closet Cubs fan. I'm growing sick and tired of his subtle snideness towards the Sox in the way he writes. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing this.

skobabe8
07-06-2005, 12:13 AM
What a complete jackass. Nice little ending paragraph to the article, too.

TDog
07-06-2005, 12:15 AM
As someone who won't register, I guess I'll have to wait for someone to summarize it.

skobabe8
07-06-2005, 12:28 AM
As someone who won't register, I guess I'll have to wait for someone to summarize it.

By Mark Gonzales
Tribune staff reporter

July 5, 2005, 9:03 PM CDT


Two 20-game winners, 100-plus victories.

Sounds like the destiny of the White Sox, right?



It was the fate of the 1993 San Francisco Giants, who managed not to reach the postseason despite those lofty credentials.

The 1993 Giants owned a 10-game lead after play on July 22, only to get knocked out on the final day of the regular season. Atlanta, rejuvenated by the acquisition of Fred McGriff, embarked on a 51-17 run after stealing the slugging first baseman from San Diego.

Thats the opening paragraph. Thats OK to post, isn't it mods?

CLR01
07-06-2005, 12:29 AM
Thats the opening paragraph. Thats OK to post, isn't it mods?


Yes, you can post a few paragraphs but not the whole article.

Banix12
07-06-2005, 12:37 AM
Yeah, I read that one earlier today. This is the second one of these type of "doomsayer" articles. They did another one on Seattle losing in the playoffs after winning 116 earlier this season. I'm waiting for one on that Blue Jays team in the late 80's and that Angels team in the Mid ninties that blew big leads.

All these articles are stupid, all these teams had different players, faced different opponents, and played in different years. What happened to them is completely unrelated to anything that could possibly happen to the sox this season. We should all just forget about the 93 Giants, since their story has no relavance to this season.

skobabe8
07-06-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, you can post a few paragraphs but not the whole article.

In that case, here's how the article ends:

Giants fans wondered if this was as close as they would get to the postseason until 1997, thanks to the White Flag trade with the Sox.

TornLabrum
07-06-2005, 12:46 AM
In that case, here's how the article ends:

Giants fans wondered if this was as close as they would get to the postseason until 1997, thanks to the White Flag trade with the Sox.

:knue

"Every word of these articles was true, and none of it was meant to be derogatory towards the White Sox. You people at WSI are just paranoid."

Baby Fisk
07-06-2005, 09:35 AM
So much of what is produced by the "hometown" media leaves you with the impression that they truly want the Sox to lose and can't handle their success. I can't think of another city where this is so.

Jerko
07-06-2005, 11:04 AM
I'm sick of all these Dr. Dooms in the media. The Sox are 30 games over, but are doomed because:

1. They haven't played anybody

But a team that is 2 games under .500 in one of the worst divisions in history will make it because:

1. They don't play anybody

2. The East will "beat each other up" so the Cubs can win the WC (that came from that pencil neck Greenberg)

Well, genius, the Cubs are behind EVERY TEAM in the east. So, when they "Beat each other up", who do you think is winning those games, teams from Japan? For the most part, the rest of this season, every time the Cubs lose, they will likely lose a game to AT LEAST 2 OF THOSE EAST TEAMS! It's not like all 5 of them are going to lose every game. Plus, Houston plays the same **** teams for the rest of the year as the Cubs do and they're already tied with them after a brutal start. I'll take Clemens, Pettite and Oswalt over God, Jesus, and the Holy Boast. (Wood, Prior, Zambrano). And Methuzela (Maddux) hasn't looked good since the last Cub/Sox game. Get over it media morons; you're stuck with us (the Sox) for a while.

SOXintheBURGH
07-06-2005, 11:10 AM
I'm sick of all these Dr. Dooms in the media. The Sox are 30 games over, but are doomed because:

1. They haven't played anybody

But a team that is 2 games under .500 in one of the worst divisions in history will make it because:

1. They don't play anybody

2. The East will "beat each other up" so the Cubs can win the WC (that came from that pencil neck Greenberg)

Well, genius, the Cubs are behind EVERY TEAM in the east. So, when they "Beat each other up", who do you think is winning those games, teams from Japan? For the most part, the rest of this season, every time the Cubs lose, they will likely lose a game to AT LEAST 2 OF THOSE EAST TEAMS! It's not like all 5 of them are going to lose every game. Plus, Houston plays the same **** teams for the rest of the year as the Cubs do and they're already tied with them after a brutal start. I'll take Clemens, Pettite and Oswalt over God, Jesus, and the Holy Boast. (Wood, Prior, Zambrano). And Methuzela (Maddux) hasn't looked good since the last Cub/Sox game. Get over it media morons; you're stuck with us (the Sox) for a while.

:roflmao:

In regards to the article, I don't remember the 1993 SF Giants.. I was too busy watching the Sox make the playoffs that year.

Jerko
07-06-2005, 11:16 AM
:roflmao:

In regards to the article, I don't remember the 1993 SF Giants.. I was too busy watching the Sox make the playoffs that year.

In the words of Craig Maddox, "who are the 1993 Giants? I never heard of them".

SOXSINCE'70
07-06-2005, 11:17 AM
If the Sox take care of business and stay away from
long losing streaks,they'll be OK.The Sox will win this
division,but,as Ringo Starr once sang,"It Don't Come Easy".
Ozzie and KW have preached this to the players as well.
But as long as the Sox keep series losses at a minimum
(I know i'm repeating myself),they'll win the Central.

Whether or not they win 100 games is another thing.
I say they'll win 97 or 98.

Ol' No. 2
07-06-2005, 11:18 AM
I'm sick of all these Dr. Dooms in the media. The Sox are 30 games over, but are doomed because:

1. They haven't played anybody

But a team that is 2 games under .500 in one of the worst divisions in history will make it because:

1. They don't play anybody

2. The East will "beat each other up" so the Cubs can win the WC (that came from that pencil neck Greenberg)

Well, genius, the Cubs are behind EVERY TEAM in the east. So, when they "Beat each other up", who do you think is winning those games, teams from Japan? For the most part, the rest of this season, every time the Cubs lose, they will likely lose a game to AT LEAST 2 OF THOSE EAST TEAMS! It's not like all 5 of them are going to lose every game. Plus, Houston plays the same **** teams for the rest of the year as the Cubs do and they're already tied with them after a brutal start. I'll take Clemens, Pettite and Oswalt over God, Jesus, and the Holy Boast. (Wood, Prior, Zambrano). And Methuzela (Maddux) hasn't looked good since the last Cub/Sox game. Get over it media morons; you're stuck with us (the Sox) for a while."Beating each other up" only works if YOUR team is capable of winning. The ultimate "beating each other up" results in all those teams playing .500 ball. Since the Cubs have shown that they're not capable of any better than that themselves, they can't hope to gain any ground that way.

This is typical Cubbie fan twaddle. They have a .500 team, and .500 teams don't make the playoffs. End of story.

A related question: Which is more fun, watching the Cubs collapse on one spectacular implosion or by smaller, but more numerous setbacks throughout the year?

SOXSINCE'70
07-06-2005, 11:18 AM
In the words of Craig Maddox, "who are the 1993 Giants? I never heard of them".


Good one!!:yup: :thumbsup:

Baby Fisk
07-06-2005, 11:20 AM
A related question: Which is more fun, watching the Cubs collapse on one spectacular implosion or by smaller, but more numerous setbacks throughout the year?
Gotta admit, the last two games played at Wrigley in 2003 were verrrrry amusing. :cool: But that was still too close for comfort. Let them be dead by the all-star break every season.

mdep524
07-06-2005, 11:32 AM
Wow, that article was an absolute joke. There is no way they can defend that pitiful excuse for journalism.

So, in 2004, the Cubs get a daily "March Toward 100" graphic before they have proven anything while in 2005 the Sox get this? How ridiculous.

Hitmen77
07-06-2005, 12:08 PM
The article failed to mention that the Giants' 103 wins that year would have won them the wild card under the current format.

What's that b******t in the last paragraph about the White Flag Trade? What does that trade have anything to do with the '93 Giants or the '05 White Sox?

But, hey, the '93 Giants choked under the the expert managerial skills of Dusty Baker? Wow! What a surprise to hear that a Dusty Baker team choked big time!

Tekijawa
07-06-2005, 12:24 PM
Wouldn't the '69 Cubs be a more realavant comparison? Or would that look bad in print?

mccoydp
07-06-2005, 12:32 PM
A related question: Which is more fun, watching the Cubs collapse on one spectacular implosion or by smaller, but more numerous setbacks throughout the year?

I would say a little of both, because both situations are particularly enjoyable.:D:

maurice
07-06-2005, 12:41 PM
So, in 2004, the Cubs get a daily "March Toward 100" graphic before they have proven anything while in 2005 the Sox get this?

The cubs got 100 articles counting down to 100 wins.
The Sox get 100 articles explaining why they'll fail to get 100 wins.

Nope, no bias there.

Iwritecode
07-06-2005, 12:53 PM
So, in 2004, the Cubs get a daily "March Toward 100" graphic before they have proven anything while in 2005 the Sox get this? How ridiculous.

Well, they did put up this. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050706sox100games,1,2579116.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)

Iwritecode
07-06-2005, 12:57 PM
The article failed to mention that the Giants' 103 wins that year would have won them the wild card under the current format.

They would never let facts get in the way of a good story.

It's just like when I was watching Sportscenter last night and they said that only half the teams that were leading their division on July 4 went on to make the playoffs.

Maybe it's just me but when quote "stats" like that, maybe they should throw out everything pre-1995.

What's that quote again? "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."

mccoydp
07-06-2005, 01:03 PM
Well, they did put up this. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050706sox100games,1,2579116.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)

The amusing part of the article was the statement that the White Sox would struggle to split the series with the Red Sox. They have lost 35 times, and they're not invincible. Heck, the mighty Cubs took 2 out of 3 from them during their historic matchup, and Toronto has owned them this season.
As far as I look at it, the Red Sox should be fearing the White Sox right now, not the other way around.

George Knue
07-06-2005, 01:42 PM
Several of you are taken with the photo of the Cubs fan we included with our 'Get your Cubs on' photo gallery. And have taken this image and posted it here. That person sent the photo to us to be used for that photo gallery -- and not so it could be taken off that gallery and turned into something that could be mocked by Sox fans. Other than the fact that you are taking an image from another Web site and using it here (which means there are copyright issues), it's not good form. It wouldn't be any more right to take a photo of some young Sox fan and cheap-shotting it on a message board.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same? Or does the fact that the story ran in the Tribune fall into this category: The Tribune is not allowed to ever, ever say anything that any Sox fan might conceivably determine is 'negative' about the Sox?

And to just play Devil's advocate a little more: The Sox are killing people. They are running away with it. My guess is that more than a few Sox fans are looking at this and thinking how horrible it would be if something went wrong. And if you're a real fan, you know that it's a long season and the primary goal, a World Series championship, is a long ways away (oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.). So Mark wrote about one instance where things didn't turn out well -- and wrote about it because he was covering the Giants at the time and knew it. Why would he write that? Because conceivably, someone would be interested in reading about it. And he has perspective on it that is unique.

Also, one problem with reading newspaper stories on the Web is that you lose some context. So a lot of you missed the graphic that ran with the story in the paper this morning -- a look at how the Sox can win 100 games. I added a link to that graphic on the story this morning.

Last point -- Tebman made the point in another post about my tiring of posting here. It is tiring. I have to be careful about every word I use -- and as much as I'd like to be sarcastic about some of the things said, I end up holding back. So I can't answer each and every question -- I just don't have time. So this will be hit-and-miss.

And the only reason I'm here right now is because I think some people here are wrong in what they're doing with that Cub fan's photo. I'd hope that the mods here would agree.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

White Sox Josh
07-06-2005, 01:51 PM
Several of you are taken with the photo of the Cubs fan we included with our 'Get your Cubs on' photo gallery. And have taken this image and posted it here. That person sent the photo to us to be used for that photo gallery -- and not so it could be taken off that gallery and turned into something that could be mocked by Sox fans. Other than the fact that you are taking an image from another Web site and using it here (which means there are copyright issues), it's not good form. It wouldn't be any more right to take a photo of some young Sox fan and cheap-shotting it on a message board.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same? Or does the fact that the story ran in the Tribune fall into this category: The Tribune is not allowed to ever, ever say anything that any Sox fan might conceivably determine is 'negative' about the Sox?

And to just play Devil's advocate a little more: The Sox are killing people. They are running away with it. My guess is that more than a few Sox fans are looking at this and thinking how horrible it would be if something went wrong. And if you're a real fan, you know that it's a long season and the primary goal, a World Series championship, is a long ways away (oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.). So Mark wrote about one instance where things didn't turn out well -- and wrote about it because he was covering the Giants at the time and knew it. Why would he write that? Because conceivably, someone would be interested in reading about it. And he has perspective on it that is unique.

Also, one problem with reading newspaper stories on the Web is that you lose some context. So a lot of you missed the graphic that ran with the story in the paper this morning -- a look at how the Sox can win 100 games. I added a link to that graphic on the story this morning.

Last point -- Tebman made the point in another post about my tiring of posting here. It is tiring. I have to be careful about every word I use -- and as much as I'd like to be sarcastic about some of the things said, I end up holding back. So I can't answer each and every question -- I just don't have time. So this will be hit-and-miss.

And the only reason I'm here right now is because I think some people here are wrong in what they're doing with that Cub fan's photo. I'd hope that the mods here would agree.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com:tealpolice::tealtutor:

Frater Perdurabo
07-06-2005, 01:51 PM
(oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.).

In the spirit of good fun, and kudos to George for defending his newspaper in the hornet's nest that is WSI, I still need to put in a call to:

:tealpolice:

maurice
07-06-2005, 01:55 PM
I'm sure the mods will deal with the photo issue quickly and appropriately.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same?

No, the reaction would be much worse. The thread would be moved to an inferior forum, the thread name would be changed to something comical, and the thread starter would be accused of being a banned poster in disguise or a troll. (See the "stuck" thread at the top of this forum.)

fquaye149
07-06-2005, 02:00 PM
Several of you are taken with the photo of the Cubs fan we included with our 'Get your Cubs on' photo gallery. And have taken this image and posted it here. That person sent the photo to us to be used for that photo gallery -- and not so it could be taken off that gallery and turned into something that could be mocked by Sox fans. Other than the fact that you are taking an image from another Web site and using it here (which means there are copyright issues), it's not good form. It wouldn't be any more right to take a photo of some young Sox fan and cheap-shotting it on a message board.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same? Or does the fact that the story ran in the Tribune fall into this category: The Tribune is not allowed to ever, ever say anything that any Sox fan might conceivably determine is 'negative' about the Sox?

And to just play Devil's advocate a little more: The Sox are killing people. They are running away with it. My guess is that more than a few Sox fans are looking at this and thinking how horrible it would be if something went wrong. And if you're a real fan, you know that it's a long season and the primary goal, a World Series championship, is a long ways away (oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.). So Mark wrote about one instance where things didn't turn out well -- and wrote about it because he was covering the Giants at the time and knew it. Why would he write that? Because conceivably, someone would be interested in reading about it. And he has perspective on it that is unique.

Also, one problem with reading newspaper stories on the Web is that you lose some context. So a lot of you missed the graphic that ran with the story in the paper this morning -- a look at how the Sox can win 100 games. I added a link to that graphic on the story this morning.

Last point -- Tebman made the point in another post about my tiring of posting here. It is tiring. I have to be careful about every word I use -- and as much as I'd like to be sarcastic about some of the things said, I end up holding back. So I can't answer each and every question -- I just don't have time. So this will be hit-and-miss.

And the only reason I'm here right now is because I think some people here are wrong in what they're doing with that Cub fan's photo. I'd hope that the mods here would agree.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

George:

In theory there's nothing wrong with what you wrote. It's when you put it in the discursive space of the Chicago Tribune, a paper that began last season with a countdown to 100 wins for a team that had plenty of holes in it that you start to sink where you might have otherwise held water.

The fact is, for a paper that is unabashedly optimistic about the Cubs, you constantly try to knock the air out of the Chicago White Sox. You don't have to admit this. It's fine. The fact is though that there are a gaggle of examples we coud parade out for you, if someone with such a vendetta felt so inclined.

The bottom line is: there are two teams in Chicago playing baseball. Right now, one is a middling (at best) team struggling with a lack of talent and execution. This team manages to get much more promising, optimistic press than the dominant, first place, world series contender.

Once again there's nothing wrong with this, it's a better story to say a lousy team will get better or that a great team could fall from grace. But the fact is, last year, when the Cubs were on everyone's hot list, there was no deflation tactics in the Tribune - BELIEVE was on everyone's mind. Meanwhile the White Sox, the middling team, was "tumbling toward third", etc. I don't see the Cubs "tumbling toward third" this year.

Well I do, actually, I just don't see it in the headlines.

Is this so hard to understand? The issue is not your treatment of the White Sox. The issue is your treatment of the White Sox in the context of your treatment of the Cubs.

Coupled with the obvious conflict of interest in the ownership of your newspaper, this becomes a very glaring issue, and your refutations should probably be a little more than a vague copyright infringement threat if we are to be swayed.

-Chris Wong,
Reluctant Tribune Reader (for now)

voodoochile
07-06-2005, 02:01 PM
Several of you are taken with the photo of the Cubs fan we included with our 'Get your Cubs on' photo gallery. And have taken this image and posted it here. That person sent the photo to us to be used for that photo gallery -- and not so it could be taken off that gallery and turned into something that could be mocked by Sox fans. Other than the fact that you are taking an image from another Web site and using it here (which means there are copyright issues), it's not good form. It wouldn't be any more right to take a photo of some young Sox fan and cheap-shotting it on a message board.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same? Or does the fact that the story ran in the Tribune fall into this category: The Tribune is not allowed to ever, ever say anything that any Sox fan might conceivably determine is 'negative' about the Sox?

And to just play Devil's advocate a little more: The Sox are killing people. They are running away with it. My guess is that more than a few Sox fans are looking at this and thinking how horrible it would be if something went wrong. And if you're a real fan, you know that it's a long season and the primary goal, a World Series championship, is a long ways away (oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.). So Mark wrote about one instance where things didn't turn out well -- and wrote about it because he was covering the Giants at the time and knew it. Why would he write that? Because conceivably, someone would be interested in reading about it. And he has perspective on it that is unique.

Also, one problem with reading newspaper stories on the Web is that you lose some context. So a lot of you missed the graphic that ran with the story in the paper this morning -- a look at how the Sox can win 100 games. I added a link to that graphic on the story this morning.

Last point -- Tebman made the point in another post about my tiring of posting here. It is tiring. I have to be careful about every word I use -- and as much as I'd like to be sarcastic about some of the things said, I end up holding back. So I can't answer each and every question -- I just don't have time. So this will be hit-and-miss.

And the only reason I'm here right now is because I think some people here are wrong in what they're doing with that Cub fan's photo. I'd hope that the mods here would agree.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

George,
WSI is a Sox fan website. Our motto is "Totally Biased, Utterly Petty, Completely Unobjective. (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/Columnists/Bova/AllAboutWSI.htm)" Is that the motto you want for the Tribune? Aren't you folks supposed to be unbiased news? To compare what your company writes about the Sox with what the fans of that team are saying seems odd to say the least.

That photo of the flubs fan does not exist in the WSI database. Some posters are posting it from Internet links elsewhere in the cyberuniverse - I bet it isn't even from your site anymore. Things like that get archived quickly in the world of the Internet.

-VC (Jim Laffer)

Frater Perdurabo
07-06-2005, 02:05 PM
George, I have an honest question. If you can't answer, I understand. (I too have worked as a professional journalist and currently work in a college journalism department whose adjunct faculty all are professional, major-market sports journalists, so I can understand the types of issues, concerns, pressures, etc. you face, as well as the pride you take in your work.)
:smile:

Can you tell me if you, as editor of Chicagosports.com, also are responsible for the sports section on the Chicago Tribune web site?

Let me clarify: Several months ago, when clicking on a link to a sports story on the main Chicago Tribune web site, the user would be taken immediately to the story on Chicagosports.com. Now, when we click on the link from the main Tribune web site, we get the story in a HTML GUI that resembles the rest of the Trib's web site, and separate links to go to Chicagosports.com if we desire.

I know you probably can't answer any questions about future plans for Chicagosports.com and any reasons for separating it in style from the sports content offered via the Tribune web site, or any branding/identity/registration/subscription content issues related to this, so I won't even ask.

However, can you at least answer how far your jurisdiction overlaps to the stories linked on the actual Trib web site? When you add a graphic to a story posted at Chicagosports.com, does that graphic get added to the story linked directly from the chicagotribune.com web page?

Thank you! :smile:

voodoochile
07-06-2005, 02:10 PM
George, I have an honest question. If you can't answer, I understand. (I too have worked as a professional journalist and currently work in a college journalism department whose adjunct faculty all are professional, major-market sports journalists, so I can understand the types of issues, concerns, pressures, etc. you face, as well as the pride you take in your work.)
:smile:

Can you tell me if you, as editor of Chicagosports.com, also are responsible for the sports section on the Chicago Tribune web site?

Let me clarify: Several months ago, when clicking on a link to a sports story on the main Chicago Tribune web site, the user would be taken immediately to the story on Chicagosports.com. Now, when we click on the link from the main Tribune web site, we get the story in a HTML GUI that resembles the rest of the Trib's web site, and separate links to go to Chicagosports.com if we desire.

I know you probably can't answer any questions about future plans for Chicagosports.com and any reasons for separating it in style from the sports content offered via the Tribune web site, or any branding/identity/registration/subscription content issues related to this, so I won't even ask.

However, can you at least answer how far your jurisdiction overlaps to the stories linked on the actual Trib web site? When you add a graphic to a story posted at Chicagosports.com, does that graphic get added to the story linked directly from the chicagotribune.com web page?

Thank you! :smile:

Chicagosports.com is their "premium content" site and you have to actually pay for some of the stories (mostly about the Bears so far).

Iwritecode
07-06-2005, 02:16 PM
That photo of the flubs fan does not exist in the WSI database. Some posters are posting it from Internet links elsewhere in the cyberuniverse - I bet it isn't even from your site anymore. Things like that get archived quickly in the world of the Internet.

Reminds me of the old Tribe troll that threatened lawsuits for people using copyrighted v-ball pictures from his website. What was his name again?

Blacknightvball? I just remember calling him Blackie.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same?

Yes it would.

Writing about a team that won 100 games and missing the playoffs without mentioning the fact that had the WC existed at the time they would have made it is not good journalism. Like I said before, never let facts get in the way of a good story.

BTW, the last paragraph in the story was an unnecessary cheap shot.

Frater Perdurabo
07-06-2005, 02:29 PM
Chicagosports.com is their "premium content" site and you have to actually pay for some of the stories (mostly about the Bears so far).

As of this morning, I don't have to pay for the content I access on Chicagosports.com. Then again, I don't "need" the "premium" Bears content because I just don't care much about football anymore.

I do wonder, however, if eventually the plan is to make all of chicagosports.com only available to paid subscribers. :(:

TornLabrum
07-06-2005, 02:38 PM
As of this morning, I don't have to pay for the content I access on Chicagosports.com. Then again, I don't "need" the "premium" Bears content because I just don't care much about football anymore.

I do wonder, however, if eventually the plan is to make all of chicagosports.com only available to paid subscribers. :(:

Imagine having to pay for the dreck that the Tribune publishes! Of course those who subscribe to that rag do so already. No accounting for taste....

mr_genius
07-06-2005, 02:43 PM
"George,
WSI is a Sox fan website. Our motto is "Totally Biased, Utterly Petty, Completely Unobjective. (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/Columnists/Bova/AllAboutWSI.htm)" Is that the motto you want for the Tribune?"



burn. i like how this guy is a professional journalist yet he can't undsertand this concept. he's brought it up twice now and has been made look foolish on both occasions.

:dtroll:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-06-2005, 02:48 PM
Imagine having to pay for the dreck that the Tribune publishes! Of course those who subscribe to that rag do so already. No accounting for taste....

My wife likes Tempo.

:redface:

Irishsox1
07-06-2005, 02:52 PM
George- Writing about a major collapse is interesting, but under the current playoff format, they are pretty much non-existant due to the 3 divisions and wild card. Take for example all of these collapses or good teams that would make the playoffs under the current system: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1977 & 1990 White Sox and the 1969 Cubs.

So, my point is, the 1993 Giants collapse is not relevant anymore and therefore not interesing, even if Mark Gonzalez was covering the Giants at the time. Waste of space on the back page.

How about an interview with Mark Prior's sideburns?

TornLabrum
07-06-2005, 02:53 PM
My wife likes Tempo.

:redface:

Yeah, I can imagine that. There are a couple of comic strips there that I used to enjoy when I subscribed.

34rancher
07-06-2005, 03:17 PM
Well, they did put up this. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050706sox100games,1,2579116.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)
George,
Be as sarcastic as you want, I understand your position though. Just use Teal color so everyone knows.
I appreciate the Map to 100, but come on...
My beef from the article:
After a tough loss Wednesday, the Sox gain some revenge this weekend by taking two of three from Oakland to finish the first half with a 58-28 record.
THE GAME HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PLAYED. Now reporting Sox losses before they even have a chance? That is pretty bad. :)

Tragg
07-06-2005, 03:24 PM
Maybe some of the 'conspiracy' talk is getting to me, but this story was just posted on the Tribune web site: Strange...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050705soxrowcenter,1,2378108.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Sox shouldn't forget those '93 Giants

Lip

And in August when we have a lead, we'll get an article on the 69 Cubs.


And in September when we have a big lead, we'll get an article on the 64 Phillies.

I know how this goes. "Interesting" isn't how I would describe it.

tebman
07-06-2005, 03:26 PM
George writes of the difference in reaction there would be if the 100-wins article appeared in WSI. That's tautological, because the denizens of WSI are Sox fans and not journalists writing for an iconic general news source -- of course there'd be a different reaction. Especially when that iconic and dominant and influential news source's company owns the competing team.

We've beaten this horse repeatedly, and while I'm flattered (no teal) that George referred to me in talking about fatigue on this subject, it remains that as long as the Tribune (company) owns the team, the appearance of a conflict of interest will exist. This is from the NY Times story (June 17, 1981) about the sale of the team to the Tribune Company:

"The Cubs lost $1.7 million last year, according to [Cubs COO] Mr. Hagenah. But the ''intrinsic value'' of owning a professional sports franchise has drawn renewed interest by corporations in recent years. Although mired with a losing record, the Cubs play in a populous market, and they have a long baseball tradition. Further, the Tribune Company's ownership of cable television subsidiaries, in addition to newspapers and radio and television stations, offers opportunities to highlight the team." (emphasis mine)

Of course the conflict-of-interest question came up then, too. In words that are very familiar, this was the answer to that question:

"William Jones, the managing editor of The Tribune newspaper, said yesterday that he saw no potential conflict of interest over coverage of a baseball team owned by the parent company.
'It is not going to affect our coverage in any way whatsoever,' Mr. Jones said. 'The Tribune owns WGN, and there's never been any pressure on our television columnist.'"

These questions aren't new. And though George Knue deserves credit for his willingness to engage us on this subject, the questions won't go away. The company is not going to sell the Cubs -- they're too valuable as programming and as a brand they've successfully built. But they won't even entertain the notion that there might be risks in tying the Cubs and the Tribune together in a financial relationship. The Tribune has an elaborate code of ethics for its employees that's available online, and it talks at length about why employees of the newspaper should not do anything that would suggest a conflict of interest. And yet, the corporation owns the Cubs, which its flagship and namesake newspaper covers extensively. That's why our collective dander is up.

TommyJohn
07-06-2005, 05:27 PM
I can see the headline now:


CHICAGO TRIBUNE
OCTOBER , 200

Sox win, go up 3-0 in ALCS.

2004 YANKEES WERE UP 3-0, THEN LOST. VERY POSSIBLE SOX WILL DO SAME

SoxEd
07-06-2005, 06:24 PM
Whether or not they win 100 games is another thing.
I say they'll win 97 or 98.


If the Sox play .500 ball for the rest of the season (i.e. go 40-40), they'll finish it 96-66.

In that context (and barring injuries), I for one would be slightly disappointed if the team failed to break 100 wins for the 2005 season - because it would mean that we'd failed to go 4 games over .500 in the 'second half'. Especially given how we've dominated the rest of the ALC in the first half of the season.

To win 100 games this year, the Sox' required win percentage for the remainder of the season is .550.

Of course, as long as they win our Division (heck, even if they only just scrape in to the playoffs via the WC) I'll be happy, even if the Sox' final Regular Season record ends up being only .506...

Ol' No. 2
07-06-2005, 06:31 PM
On Chicagosports.com they now have a roadmap to 100 wins (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050706sox100games,1,2579116.story?coll=cs-home-headlines) for the Sox. Was this in the print edition? Maybe we got through to George Knue better than we thought.

DSpivack
07-06-2005, 07:59 PM
On Chicagosports.com they now have a roadmap to 100 wins (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050706sox100games,1,2579116.story?coll=cs-home-headlines) for the Sox. Was this in the print edition? Maybe we got through to George Knue better than we thought.

It was in the print edition this morning, on the back page next to the bit about the 1993 Giants. However, much of the content of the 'Map to 100 Wins' seems rather backhanded.

RKMeibalane
07-06-2005, 08:03 PM
Several of you are taken with the photo of the Cubs fan we included with our 'Get your Cubs on' photo gallery. And have taken this image and posted it here. That person sent the photo to us to be used for that photo gallery -- and not so it could be taken off that gallery and turned into something that could be mocked by Sox fans. Other than the fact that you are taking an image from another Web site and using it here (which means there are copyright issues), it's not good form. It wouldn't be any more right to take a photo of some young Sox fan and cheap-shotting it on a message board.

As to the Mark Gonzales story today, I expected this kind of reaction. I just wonder: If this same story were posted on WSI, would the reaction have been the same? Or does the fact that the story ran in the Tribune fall into this category: The Tribune is not allowed to ever, ever say anything that any Sox fan might conceivably determine is 'negative' about the Sox?

And to just play Devil's advocate a little more: The Sox are killing people. They are running away with it. My guess is that more than a few Sox fans are looking at this and thinking how horrible it would be if something went wrong. And if you're a real fan, you know that it's a long season and the primary goal, a World Series championship, is a long ways away (oops, hold on, this a Tribune guy writing something that a Sox fan might conceivably determine is negative.). So Mark wrote about one instance where things didn't turn out well -- and wrote about it because he was covering the Giants at the time and knew it. Why would he write that? Because conceivably, someone would be interested in reading about it. And he has perspective on it that is unique.

Also, one problem with reading newspaper stories on the Web is that you lose some context. So a lot of you missed the graphic that ran with the story in the paper this morning -- a look at how the Sox can win 100 games. I added a link to that graphic on the story this morning.

Last point -- Tebman made the point in another post about my tiring of posting here. It is tiring. I have to be careful about every word I use -- and as much as I'd like to be sarcastic about some of the things said, I end up holding back. So I can't answer each and every question -- I just don't have time. So this will be hit-and-miss.

And the only reason I'm here right now is because I think some people here are wrong in what they're doing with that Cub fan's photo. I'd hope that the mods here would agree.


George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

This is teal, George.

maurice
07-06-2005, 08:06 PM
They predict that the Sox will play 3 games over .500 in the 2nd half. That's not a very positive (or even rational) prediction for the team with the best record in baseball.

buehrle4cy05
07-06-2005, 08:09 PM
Does HomeFish write for the Trib now?

:rolling:

buehrle4cy05
07-06-2005, 08:17 PM
In all fairness to Knue, he didn't write the story. He is doing what a good editor does: back up his writers. And it has already been said, doing that at WSI takes guts. Good for him.

As for the story, :whocares

slavko
07-06-2005, 08:30 PM
Mark Gonzalez came here as an experienced baseball writer with no allegiances and has quickly figured out that in order to advance, he should give his bosses what they want to read, as has been suggested in another thread on this board. That's how the corporate culture perpetuates itself everywhere else, beside the Trib.

Hitmen77
07-07-2005, 12:09 AM
White Sox Baseball 2005:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2960
Do not underestimate the Power
of the South Side...

:knue
For your information, this picture is the property of the Galactic Evil Empire. The sith lord who submitted this picture did not consent to having Sox fans mock him on this website. I think Sox fans are showing bad form by poking fun at this person. Blah blah blah blah........

George Knue
07-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Can you tell me if you, as editor of Chicagosports.com, also are responsible for the sports section on the Chicago Tribune web site?

Yes, sort of. The editor of chicagotribune.com is in charge of the site as whole, but my staff worries about the sports part of it most of the time -- except real early in the morning and in the daytime on weekends.

The change was made to make chicagotribune.com more of a complete nerwspaper site -- with a sports section all its own that doesn't take you off site.

However, can you at least answer how far your jurisdiction overlaps to the stories linked on the actual Trib web site? When you add a graphic to a story posted at Chicagosports.com, does that graphic get added to the story linked directly from the chicagotribune.com web page?

It may. A single story that runs in the morning paper are usually in our database three different ways. One is the story we put up the night before on ChicagoSports.com. Another is story that comes in to ChicagoSports.com the next morning via an automatic feed. And the third comes in to chicagotribune.com the next morning via automatic feed. The story that feed in automatically don't have anything manually linked to them -- so a graphic that we put on a story the night before won't be on the two stories that come in via feed.

What we try to do the next day is make sure the story posted in all the most visible places on ChicagoSports.com and ChicagoTribune.com is the one we posted the night before.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

White Sox Josh
07-07-2005, 04:12 PM
Can you tell me if you, as editor of Chicagosports.com, also are responsible for the sports section on the Chicago Tribune web site?

Yes, sort of. The editor of chicagotribune.com is in charge of the site as whole, but my staff worries about the sports part of it most of the time -- except real early in the morning and in the daytime on weekends.

The change was made to make chicagotribune.com more of a complete nerwspaper site -- with a sports section all its own that doesn't take you off site.

However, can you at least answer how far your jurisdiction overlaps to the stories linked on the actual Trib web site? When you add a graphic to a story posted at Chicagosports.com, does that graphic get added to the story linked directly from the chicagotribune.com web page?

It may. A single story that runs in the morning paper are usually in our database three different ways. One is the story we put up the night before on ChicagoSports.com. Another is story that comes in to ChicagoSports.com the next morning via an automatic feed. And the third comes in to chicagotribune.com the next morning via automatic feed. The story that feed in automatically don't have anything manually linked to them -- so a graphic that we put on a story the night before won't be on the two stories that come in via feed.

What we try to do the next day is make sure the story posted in all the most visible places on ChicagoSports.com and ChicagoTribune.com is the one we posted the night before.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.comI think this proves our point. Also back to the Steve Stone thing, Paul Sullivan said that he didn't put that in their. I believe him. If he didn't put it in there who did? Also Stone ripped into Mike Kiley of the Sun Times to on the Show. Anyways as a Newspaper you have a responsibility to get the facts right. One of the other reasons that Sox fans hate the Cubune is because you guys constantly hype up the Cubs like no other. Kerry Wood is constantly called an ace by your newspaper yet he is OVERRATED and is a Average pitcher at best. Guys like Buehrle and Garland. Look at it through our perspectives.

George Knue
07-07-2005, 04:17 PM
Last thought on the 100 wins story: In that day's Tribune, there were six White Sox stories. The first five were on the first four pages of the section -- the last was on the back page. But the first five were ignored ... and the sixth wasn't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

White Sox Josh
07-07-2005, 04:18 PM
Last thought on the 100 wins story: In that day's Tribune, there were six White Sox stories. The first five were on the first four pages of the section -- the last was on the back page. But the first five were ignored ... and the sixth wasn't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

George Knue
ChicagoSports.comthat's not my question!:rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
07-07-2005, 06:09 PM
Can you tell me if you, as editor of Chicagosports.com, also are responsible for the sports section on the Chicago Tribune web site?

Yes, sort of. The editor of chicagotribune.com is in charge of the site as whole, but my staff worries about the sports part of it most of the time -- except real early in the morning and in the daytime on weekends.

The change was made to make chicagotribune.com more of a complete nerwspaper site -- with a sports section all its own that doesn't take you off site.

However, can you at least answer how far your jurisdiction overlaps to the stories linked on the actual Trib web site? When you add a graphic to a story posted at Chicagosports.com, does that graphic get added to the story linked directly from the chicagotribune.com web page?

It may. A single story that runs in the morning paper are usually in our database three different ways. One is the story we put up the night before on ChicagoSports.com. Another is story that comes in to ChicagoSports.com the next morning via an automatic feed. And the third comes in to chicagotribune.com the next morning via automatic feed. The story that feed in automatically don't have anything manually linked to them -- so a graphic that we put on a story the night before won't be on the two stories that come in via feed.

What we try to do the next day is make sure the story posted in all the most visible places on ChicagoSports.com and ChicagoTribune.com is the one we posted the night before.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

George,

Thank you for helping me comprehend how it works to the extent that my curiousity is satisfied at this point. Thanks also for continuing to post here.

:smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-07-2005, 06:19 PM
Mark Gonzalez came here as an experienced baseball writer with no allegiances and has quickly figured out that in order to advance, he should give his bosses what they want to read, as has been suggested in another thread on this board. That's how the corporate culture perpetuates itself everywhere else, beside the Trib.

Well stated. Human nature ceases to exist inside Tribune Tower. Nobody from Ann Marie Lipinski on down ever has the slightest interest in career advancement merely by pleasing their boss -- least of all the publisher and board that rakes in all the money from the Clark & Addison division of the outfit.

:wink:

munchman33
07-07-2005, 09:31 PM
Last thought on the 100 wins story: In that day's Tribune, there were six White Sox stories. The first five were on the first four pages of the section -- the last was on the back page. But the first five were ignored ... and the sixth wasn't. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

But the intent of that story was so incredibly obvious.