PDA

View Full Version : Aug 5 Cubune-jealousy becomes them!


DumpJerry
08-05-2005, 09:17 AM
The Cubune today (August 5) shows the Sox' record as 69-36. Yesterday's game was a day game, so they can't use the "late game not included" excuse. Are they soooooooooooo jealous that we are the first to 70 that they will go into denial?
If you have the paper today, burn it! If you don't have it, don't buy it.
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

itsnotrequired
08-05-2005, 10:16 AM
The Cubune today (August 5) shows the Sox' record as 69-36. Yesterday's game was a day game, so they can't use the "late game not included" excuse. Are they soooooooooooo jealous that we are the first to 70 that they will go into denial?
If you have the paper today, burn it! If you don't have it, don't buy it.
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

How about burning a rack of Tribunes on the street?:wink:

Note to CPD: Don't read this post.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 10:31 AM
:giantsnail


:knue
"The Sox don't win 70 games until WE DECIDE to publish the fact!!!"


:cubune

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 10:35 AM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

GregoryEtc
08-05-2005, 10:45 AM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

I'm with you. As annoying as it is to know the Sox are ignored by the media, I've come to actually like the fact that we are. Plus I've been looking for a reason to use this image:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3111

twsoxfan5
08-05-2005, 10:49 AM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

AGREED

jackbrohamer
08-05-2005, 11:19 AM
[QUOTE=GregoryEtc]I've been looking for a reason to use this image:/QUOTE]

Now that's funny. The Cubune and Cub Times both have really fallen apart on proofing their articles. An article last week (IIRC the Sun Times) mentioned that Konerko & Thomas had been teammates since 1991. When Konerko was 15.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 11:36 AM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

Let me put it to you this way. If the Cubs won their 70th game on August 4th, not only would the standings in the morning paper be correct, but there would also be a 4-page fold-out section talking about what a glorious baseball season it is for all of Chicago.

:cool:

DumpJerry
08-05-2005, 11:43 AM
Let me put it to you this way. If the Cubs won their 70th game on August 3rd, not only would the standings in the morning paper be correct, there would be a 4-page fold-out section talking about what a glorious baseball season it is for all of Chicago.

:cool:
If that were true, someone would get fired at the Trib for downplaying the most important event in the history of Western Civilization. No, the Trib would rush out with an extra edition and have people on all the street corners hawking it with the old fashion "Extra! Extra! Cubs are great!" shout.

LongLiveFisk
08-05-2005, 12:04 PM
Let me put it to you this way. If the Cubs won their 70th game on August 4th, not only would the standings in the morning paper be correct, but there would also be a 4-page fold-out section talking about what a glorious baseball season it is for all of Chicago.

:cool:

Don't forget this: "Each Sunday in your Tribune sports section, find a different Cubs player color pinup and collect all (fill in #)". Don't forget to include Dusty, Jim Hendry, Ronnie Woo-Woo, and the goat.

EDIT: Silly me, I forgot to also include Grant DePorter from Harry Caray's Restaurant.

Soxzilla
08-05-2005, 12:04 PM
Let me put it to you this way. If the Cubs won their 70th game on August 4th, not only would the standings in the morning paper be correct, but there would also be a 4-page fold-out section talking about what a glorious baseball season it is for all of Chicago.

:cool:

I don't believe you stressed the most important part...so I fixed it for you.:redneck

Brian26
08-05-2005, 12:11 PM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

Maybe you can treat it as "nothing", or....

Maybe you can see through the obvious BS of the Cubune's attempt to constantly take credit away from the southside franchise. This happens on a consistent basis. No matter how large or how small the story is, and no matter how obvious or how subtle their attempt to switch it around...the Cubune's mission is to put a negative spin on the White Sox. The examples are TOO countless to even try to name (claiming Pods only got on to the all-star team because the Sox pleaded to their fans and it was basically "cheating" and NY didn't care anyway, or Santo/Hughes "shockingly" were voted towards the bottom of the list of best radio duos while Ed Farmer is "annoying", or not making a big deal about the Sox 70th win). Same BS, different day.

By itself, it's not a big deal. When you add it to the list of daily bull**** we see in that rag on a constant basis, it's grounds for Selig to step in and break up this ****ing corporate monopoly.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 12:18 PM
Don't forget this: "Each Sunday in your Tribune sports section, find a different Cubs player color pinup and collect all (fill in #)". Don't forget to include Dusty, Jim Hendry, Ronnie Woo-Woo, and the goat.

How true. How sad and true...

McGrath and Knue would claim the Sox ballplayers aren't big enough "stars" to get the pin up treatment, never owning up to the plain fact it's the CUBUNE who makes any ballplayer into a star based on how the paper covers their exploits.

Meanwhile these dopes can't even get the standings right on the very day another milestone is passed. They have no shame...

:mad:

:cubune

:giantsnail

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 12:19 PM
You're right, I see it as nothing. I don't give two ****s about the Cubs or the Tribune. I care about the White Sox and them winning the World Series. I don't give a damn if the Tribune's cast of Junior High level writers trash the Sox, I don't get riled up about it. The Cubs can have the pub, we'll take the hardware.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 12:25 PM
You're right, I see it as nothing. I don't give two ****s about the Cubs or the Tribune. I care about the White Sox and them winning the World Series. I don't give a damn if the Tribune's cast of Junior High level writers trash the Sox, I don't get riled up about it. The Cubs can have the pub, we'll take the hardware.

Fine for you.

However here's a question you simply must answer. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, does it make it sound?

:cool:

October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!

silenceofthehawk
08-05-2005, 12:27 PM
The Cubune today (August 5) shows the Sox' record as 69-36. Yesterday's game was a day game, so they can't use the "late game not included" excuse. Are they soooooooooooo jealous that we are the first to 70 that they will go into denial?
If you have the paper today, burn it! If you don't have it, don't buy it.
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Who cares?

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 12:28 PM
And if we win the World Series, they don't even have to write a peep about it, it's their right and I don't give a ****. If people think it's their mission to slant the Sox, so be it. I don't think it's their mission, but it's the fact that since they own the team they have more material to write with. And if they do infact slant the Sox, fine with me. The headline could be SOX ****ING SUCK and I won't care. They can write about them all they want, because no matter what you say you have to acknowledge that our perceived lack of coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the results on the field, and that's all I give a damn about.

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 12:34 PM
And if we win the World Series, they don't even have to write a peep about it, it's their right and I don't give a ****. If people think it's their mission to slant the Sox, so be it. I don't think it's their mission, but it's the fact that since they own the team they have more material to write with. And if they do infact slant the Sox, fine with me. The headline could be SOX ****ING SUCK and I won't care. They can write about them all they want, because no matter what you say you have to acknowledge that our perceived lack of coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the results on the field, and that's all I give a damn about.

well, great, you wouldn't care. I sure ****ing would care and a lot of people on this board would.

oh, but you personally wouldn't care. great.:rolleyes:

daveeym
08-05-2005, 12:35 PM
Fine for you.

However here's a question you simply must answer. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, does it make it sound?

:cool:

October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!! Ain't that the truth. They'd definitely have a bunch of Flub articles in a WS world series edition. "Ex Cub Garland Wins World Series for Team."

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 12:36 PM
Ain't that the truth. They'd definitely have a bunch of Flub articles in a WS world series edition. "Ex Cub Garland Wins World Series for Team."

like, "Does the demise of the 'ex-cub factor' mean the Cubs are no longer cursed?"

Deuce
08-05-2005, 12:37 PM
Fine for you.

October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!

I'd say its more like...

"Other Sox fail to lose Series, resident's of Alsip take to the streets; 'Ace' Wood ready to play for at least half the season next year"

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 12:40 PM
well, great, you wouldn't care. I sure ****ing would care and a lot of people on this board would.

oh, but you personally wouldn't care. great.:rolleyes:

Tell me, would a slanting of the Sox ruin the fact that they won the World Series for you? Cause if you would care about that in the wake of a World Series for the White Sox then I don't think you'll ever be happy. Would you rather be acknowledged then win it all?

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 12:44 PM
Tell me, would a slanting of the Sox ruin the fact that they won the World Series for you? Cause if you would care about that in the wake of a World Series for the White Sox then I don't think you'll ever be happy. Would you rather be acknowledged then win it all?

Of course it wouldn't ruin anything.

However it would piss me off.

Things are not necessarily completely black or completely white.

The Tribune doesn't dictate my happiness or satisfaction with the Sox, but that doesn't mean I don't hold them in contempt when they slight us.

Most people here would probably agree about that. You don't.

congratu-****ing-lations.

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 12:47 PM
Well, sorry that I don't give a **** about a paper. I'll ask you again, would you rather be acknowledged on an everyday basis, by both papers, equally or moreso than the Northsiders, than win the World Series and continue this perceived lack of coverage?

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 12:49 PM
Well, sorry that I don't give a **** about a paper. I'll ask you again, would you rather be acknowledged on an everyday basis, by both papers, equally or moreso than the Northsiders, than win the World Series and continue this perceived lack of coverage?

You act like it's ****ing mutually exclusive. It's quite the opposite. We should be getting the coverage BECAUSE we're headed toward the world series...it shouldn't be one or the other.

****, only in ****ing chicago is it one or the other.

Goddamn it, don't apologize because you don't care about the cubune. Just don't expect us to

a.) care
b.) agree with you

and certainly don't get mad at us when we do neither.

Steakpita
08-05-2005, 12:53 PM
October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!



::involuntary shudder:: If this headline ends up written (and its DEFINITELY plausible), I'm cancelling my subscription and quite possibly damaging a piece of Tribune property.... oh god... :angry:

LongLiveFisk
08-05-2005, 12:55 PM
Uh-oh....this thread may end up in the roadhouse yet.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 01:00 PM
Well, sorry that I don't give a **** about a paper. I'll ask you again, would you rather be acknowledged on an everyday basis, by both papers, equally or moreso than the Northsiders, than win the World Series and continue this perceived lack of coverage?

We'll have a nice cozy victory celebration in your living room... all five of us posting in this thread. What excitement it will be!

Ya got my Cheez Whiz, booooy?

:cool:

Iwritecode
08-05-2005, 01:01 PM
They reason it bothers me is because it creates ignorant people that know nothing about the Sox other than what they read in the Tribune. Then we have to re-educate these people with the truth.

Sox fan: "YES! We just won the WS!"
Moron: "Yea, but your stadium sucks and the neighborhood is dangerous!"

Seriously, can you think of a time when a team was the best in baseball and a near lock for a post-season apperance and still caught as much flak from a home-town newspaper as the Sox do?

The Mariners in 2001?
The Yankees ever?
The Cardinals last year?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 01:08 PM
They reason it bothers me is because it creates ignorant people that know nothing about the Sox other than what they read in the Tribune. Then we have to re-educate these people with the truth.

It's better this way, IWC. Podzilla has graciously offered to hold the big Sox victory celebration in his living room. We certainly won't need Grant Park, that's for sure.

What you want a Sox championship AND a big citywide celebration, too? Boy, how unreasonable of you...

:cool:

PaulDrake
08-05-2005, 01:11 PM
If the Sox go deep into the playoffs this year there will be a lot of stomachs churning at Tribune Tower. It seems to me that before Bartman reached for that ill fated fly ball, it was apparent to many that the cubs were well on their way to making the Sox permanently irrelevant. The Choke of 03 was followed by the El Foldo of September 04. There are lots of unhappy scribes and prognosticators around town and not enough snails to hide their discomfort. The unhappiness is evident in many ways. Like the rip job on Frank Thomas a few days back. Maybe the error in the standings was just a careless mistake, but the Tribune company has done yeoman work over the years to make folks sensitive and defensive about all this. I hate to digress but did Abreu really hit a grand salami against Cy Young Prior yesterday?

DumpJerry
08-05-2005, 01:11 PM
Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!
PHG, that was the headline last year. Too bad the Flubs are a bunch of illiterate slobs who can't read and did not realize it was their turn this year.

Seriously, you have a valid point. The garbage we'll hear all off season after the WHITE Sox win the WS will be "All the teams that have been waiting 8+ decades are winning now. The Cubs will get it ne xt year!" The Flubs and their fans will never get it.

Iwritecode
08-05-2005, 01:27 PM
What you want a Sox championship AND a big citywide celebration, too? Boy, how unreasonable of you...

:cool:

No kidding. It'd be a shame if anyone besides the hard-core fanbase knew how good this team really is.

thecell
08-05-2005, 01:31 PM
Are you seriously getting pissed about this? I can understand when some jackass writes a horribly negative piece, but misprinting the record is nothing.

I've noticed a few other errors that the Cubune has printed. Most recently was when Garland was pithcing last. They had his record at 15-5 when he was 15-4. You would think the world class newspaper would get the stats right about a team in which they cover.

hawkjt
08-05-2005, 01:37 PM
They had the sox at 69-35 in Thursdays paper. The whole central division is wrong today. Doubt this is bias -just bad proofreading. To miss it two days in a row indicates the machine has broken down.

It is just disconcerting when they have the whole division wrong and I am sitting there updating it in my head. C'mon trib you can do better.

TornLabrum
08-05-2005, 02:05 PM
I've noticed a few other errors that the Cubune has printed. Most recently was when Garland was pithcing last. They had his record at 15-5 when he was 15-4. You would think the world class newspaper would get the stats right about a team in which they cover.
Tribune predicts Garland loss

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 02:24 PM
No kidding. It'd be a shame if anyone besides the hard-core fanbase knew how good this team really is.

No worries. Podzilla has it all figured out. Nobody gets admittance to his living room and the big Sox championship victory celebration unless they're wearing a "Core of the Core" t-shirt and knows the secret handshake.

Pfft... who needs Grant Park.

:wink:

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 02:31 PM
You're right, I'm an elitist because I spend more time worrying about my team's chances to win than I do worrying about their odds on garnering the front page.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 02:36 PM
You're right, I'm an elitist because I spend more time worrying about my team's chances to win than I do worrying about their odds on garnering the front page.

Elitist? Pfft... you wish. You're just plain IRRITATING... and getting pummeled for offering silly opinions you can't defend.

:cool:

sox_fan_forever
08-05-2005, 02:37 PM
They had the sox at 69-35 in Thursdays paper. The whole central division is wrong today. Doubt this is bias -just bad proofreading. To miss it two days in a row indicates the machine has broken down.

It is just disconcerting when they have the whole division wrong and I am sitting there updating it in my head. C'mon trib you can do better.

Yep, I noticed that yesterday. And then again today....

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Elitist? Pfft... you wish. You're just plain IRRITATING... and getting pummeled for offering silly opinions you can't defend.

:cool:

but but but but don't you understand, George, he doesn't care what the Tribune says and so therefore we are wasting our time caring about the #1 paper in Chicago being blatantly (and unethically) biased in their coverage.

Hangar18
08-05-2005, 02:48 PM
Let me put it to you this way. If the Cubs won their 70th game on August 4th, not only would the standings in the morning paper be correct, but there would also be a 4-page fold-out section talking about what a glorious baseball season it is for all of Chicago.



This would so happen ........my god I am so Grateful that it isnt the Cubs
that have 70 Wins, the Media would be going HOGWILD. My god,
can you imagine how much Publicity they'd be getting if it was them at 70 wins/best team in mlb? Theyre already beating us now .....
and the Cubs are ONLY .500 !!!!!!!! SOX fans
would be moaning about WHY the Cubs have Quadruple the Coverage, and George Knue and other Cub-loving-improper-relationship-media types would Tell us the Reason the Cubs have more Coverage, is because the Cubs are:

1. ARE WINNING
2. HAVE BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL
3. ARE IN 1ST PLACE
4. HAVE BEST RECORD IN 105 YEARS

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 02:50 PM
This would so happen ........my god I am so Grateful that it isnt the Cubs
that have 70 Wins, the Media would be going HOGWILD. SOX fans
would be moaning about WHY the Cubs have Quadruple the Coverage, and George Knue and other Cub-loving-improper-relationship-media types would Tell us the Reason the Cubs have more Coverage, is because the Cubs are:

1. ARE WINNING
2. HAVE BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL
3. ARE IN 1ST PLACE
4. HAVE BEST RECORD IN 105 YEARS

:knue:
"no Hangar - you don't understand: it's a more interesting story...the Sox, yeah they're breaking team marks and are the best equipped Chicago baseball team to go deep postseason since the 2003 Cubs who should have won the world series...but the Cubs! They could still win the Wildcard if the 4 teams ahead of them fold and they actually start playing well with their ragtag crap salad team! We're just giving the people what they want anyway...blah blah blah"

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 03:13 PM
but but but but don't you understand, George, he doesn't care what the Tribune says and so therefore we are wasting our time caring about the #1 paper in Chicago being blatantly (and unethically) biased in their coverage.

If Podzilla were truly the "elitist" he claims to be, he would want the Sox playing exclusively for his own pleasure. It's not about us. It's all about Podzilla, the self-proclaimed "elitist" -- the rest of you can go to hell.

****, why even play the games at Sox Park? Just hold them at the neighborhood park around the corner from Podzilla's house... much more convenient for him... and nobody else matters, anyway. Just ask him, the self-proclaimed "elitist."

"Go Sox! Go Sox! Go Sox!" Ah, **** it... nobody else matters and the players already know Podzilla supports the team. Everyone else can kiss his ass -- including the players if they think they're entitled to any more support than what Podzilla, the self-proclaimed elitist --feels they're entitled to.

It's all about Podzilla. Got it?

:cool:

cheeses_h_rice
08-05-2005, 03:16 PM
Hey, hey, everybody simmer down now. Seriously, I think we're all ignoring the most important thing about Chicago baseball right now:

Nomar, Carrie Woods and Williamson are returning this weekend.

:happybday :gulp: :happybday :gulp:

Podzilla_40
08-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Alright man, you got me, I threw elitist out there to describe how you're making me seem to be, and then you turned it around on me. Comic genius! I am a self proclaimed elitist!

That being said, I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to know why a lot of us Sox fans seem to be so worried about the media and not our team. But we all want the same thing and that's a world series so I'll just say agree to disagree about the media.

shoota
08-05-2005, 03:24 PM
The Cubune today (August 5) shows the Sox' record as 69-36. Yesterday's game was a day game, so they can't use the "late game not included" excuse. Are they soooooooooooo jealous that we are the first to 70 that they will go into denial?
If you have the paper today, burn it! If you don't have it, don't buy it.
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

I noticed this too. It wouldn't be as glaring a mistake if it weren't a number like 70. If the Trib listed Sox record as 67-35 when it was really 68-35, it wouldn't seem like an intentional error, but an accidental mistake.

As someone else said, it's the cumulative anti-Sox bias shown by the Tribune over years that magnifies this error.

fquaye149
08-05-2005, 03:33 PM
I noticed this too. It wouldn't be as glaring a mistake if it weren't a number like 70. If the Trib listed Sox record as 67-35 when it was really 68-35, it wouldn't seem like an intentional error, but an accidental mistake.

As someone else said, it's the cumulative anti-Sox bias shown by the Tribune over years that magnifies this error.

Oh shoota...you set yourself up for this one:

Maybe they decided some of those wins weren't "Official" wins.:cool:

Realist
08-05-2005, 03:33 PM
The Cubune today (August 5) shows the Sox' record as 69-36. Yesterday's game was a day game, so they can't use the "late game not included" excuse. Are they soooooooooooo jealous that we are the first to 70 that they will go into denial?
If you have the paper today, burn it! If you don't have it, don't buy it.
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Paper cut No. 867 of 1000...

I stopped buying that union busting rag years ago. This year I completely stopped even reading either of Chicago's two major dailies even when I happen upon a free one and I'm much happier for it. I have the on line White Sox bookmarked to favorites for both rags and I'll occasionally sneak a peek to see what they're flappin' at the jaw about, but that's about it.

Everytime you buy a Trib, you're giving money to the owners of the Cubs. Everytime you buy a Sun-Times, you're partially paying the Moron's salary. Yuck. No thank you.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 03:37 PM
Everytime you buy a Trib, you're giving money to the owners of the Cubs. Everytime you buy a Sun-Times, you're partially paying the Moron's salary. Yuck. No thank you.

Is it any wonder their circulation keeps going down and down, year after year after year.*

* Not counting the years when they bilk their advertisers and publish phoney baloney circulation figures to prop up ad rates.

:gulp:


:knue
"I hate you technogeeks..."

shoota
08-05-2005, 03:38 PM
I also love articles about Podsednik collapsing. How about a positive article about the best hitter on baseball's best team, Tadahito Iguchi? Research his baseball background in Japan and how he became so fundamentally sound.

Or compare and contrast the baseball styles of Tadahito and Corey Patterson. That would be an excellent read.

It's also garbage journalism how the Trib provides near daily updates of Travis Hafner's condition from the injury he suffered when hit in the jaw by a Mark Buehrle changeup. It's mentioned at the top of the AL page with every name bolded so Buehrle stands out. It makes Buehrle look like a thug by not describing the circumstances of the hit by pitch: a changeup, not thrown intentionally, and Hafner, wary of a breaking ball that might break over the plate, chose not to move out of the way of the pitch until very late.

I also find it curious that the Tribune forcasts possible Cubs team moves with extreme accuracy before they happen.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-05-2005, 03:39 PM
Maybe they decided some of those wins weren't "Official" wins.

That's the trick! The Sox should stop winning "official" games and just concentrate on SIMULATED ones! The headlines will follow...

:roflmao:

shoota
08-05-2005, 03:40 PM
Oh shoota...you set yourself up for this one:

Maybe they decided some of those wins weren't "Official" wins.:cool:

:rolleyes: haha.


:gulp:

maurice
08-05-2005, 04:42 PM
I don't think this is the latest example of editorial bias.
It's the latest example of editorial incompetence.

Either way, McGrath and his boys continue to suck.

Brian26
08-05-2005, 04:49 PM
That being said, I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to know why a lot of us Sox fans seem to be so worried about the media and not our team.

Podzilla, what planet were you living on in September and October of 2003? I still feel the effects of having Cubbydom rammed down my throat by every media outlet in this city for almost two straight months, and that's for a team that barely slipped in the back-****ing door of this diluted playoff system that Selig created. Although Game 6 and Game 7 were probably the most satisfying non-White Sox baseball games I've ever witnessed, the memory of the lead-up to those two glorious nights still makes me physically ill. So where's the love now? Why am I not getting White Sox love rammed down by throat every single night from every single media outlet in this town? You can't have it both ways. I don't speak for anyone else, but I personally getting frustrated when the bias is so obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Chisox353014
08-05-2005, 05:03 PM
Podzilla, what planet were you living on in September and October of 2003? I still feel the effects of having Cubbydom rammed down my throat by every media outlet in this city for almost two straight months, and that's for a team that barely slipped in the back-****ing door of this diluted playoff system that Selig created. Although Game 6 and Game 7 were probably the most satisfying non-White Sox baseball games I've ever witnessed, the memory of the lead-up to those two glorious nights still makes me physically ill. So where's the love now? Why am I not getting White Sox love rammed down by throat every single night from every single media outlet in this town? You can't have it both ways. I don't speak for anyone else, but I personally getting frustrated when the bias is so obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I swear there was a time in October '03 when about the only TV channel that was Cubbie-free was the Food Network. Every local newscast had multiple Cubs stories for like a month straight. It will be interesting to see what kind of coverage we get in comparison coming down the stretch. 2000 wasn't exactly blanket White Sox coverage so I'm not holding my breath.

chisoxfanatic
08-05-2005, 05:31 PM
And if we win the World Series, they don't even have to write a peep about it, it's their right and I don't give a ****. If people think it's their mission to slant the Sox, so be it. I don't think it's their mission, but it's the fact that since they own the team they have more material to write with. And if they do infact slant the Sox, fine with me. The headline could be SOX ****ING SUCK and I won't care.

And just who does the READING of such articles? Let's face it...America is full of dumbasses who can't think for themselves and must rely on the media to form their opinions. Henceforth, if they read in the paper that the "Sox suck", as well as other dispicable statements, they'll be made to believe it themselves. Negative press in ANY capacity when it's not deserved is not right!!!

hose
08-06-2005, 09:34 AM
[QUOTE=PaleHoseGeorge]Is it any wonder their circulation keeps going down and down, year after year after year.*

* Not counting the years when they bilk their advertisers and publish phoney baloney circulation figures to prop up ad rates.

:gulp:QUOTE]


*Rimshot

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 09:41 AM
No Bob, not everything the Tribune does is a conspiracy against the Sox. But with their indifferent attitude towards the manifest incompetence and organizational bias of their writers, editors, and publisher, it might as well be.

Oh, and as far as your silly, shallow, and utterly stupid opinion on the subject...

:whocares

So it's shallow, silly, and utterly stupid to share a different opinion? All he said was not everything is a conspiracy, and you went to town on him.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 09:46 AM
So it's shallow, silly, and utterly stupid to share a different opinion? All he said was not everything is a conspiracy, and you went to town on him.

No it's silly shallow and utterly stupid to share an opinion YOU CAN'T BACK UP.

Or would you and Big Bad Bob like to go through 5000 or so threads on this message board and refute EVERYTHING that was ever written about the incompetence and organizational bias at the Chicago Tribune?

Personally I would love to see you do it, Pod.
:cool:

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 09:53 AM
Obviously there's a bias in the Tribune, I'm more compelled to think the Sun-Times has somewhat equal coverage. I think the Tribune does cover the Cubs more, but I don't think it's intended to slight the Sox. Looking at Hangar's numbers and considering there probably is a bit of animosity stemming from the Cubs floundering while we succeed, there is a bias. But, I don't think it's something that should be discussed on an almost daily basis. The fact is our team can't play for **** right now at home and we should be worried about losing to slapdick teams like the Mariners and Blue Jays when we're about to go on a roadtrip against some postseason weathered teams. Rant over. That being said, when I say there's a perceived lack of coverage I think it's completely overblown. Everything, EVERYTHING the Trib co. does is seen as a form of bias. Also, people think that their entire agenda, is not to sell more papers, but to completely slam the Sox at every chance. I think, their soft form of journalism and coverage of the Cubs is pandering to the casual fan who doesn't follow the team much and would just love to read about how great the team is regardless of it's record.

Just my two cents.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 10:01 AM
Obviously there's a bias in the Tribune, I'm more compelled to think the Sun-Times has somewhat equal coverage. I think the Tribune does cover the Cubs more, but I don't think it's intended to slight the Sox. ....

There are exactly two major league ballclubs in this city. If you're conceding the Tribune covers the Cubs more (even more than the Sun-Times!), then how can you square your opinion that it "isn't meant to slight the Sox" when the Cubune's editor claims EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE? He and Knue claim they play it as even as they can.

And how do you explain the "equal" coverage in 2005 when the Sox are kicking ass compared to 2003 and 2004 when the Sox were completely in shadows? Or are you also conceding the point that being "equal" is only important when the Sox are really good and the Cubs are really bad? That's your idea of "equal"?
:o:

Hey Pods, if I'm Dan McGrath I want a better lawyer than you defending me.

:cubune

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 10:07 AM
I said, their soft coverage of the Cubs will sell more papers to the average yuppies who don't watch baseball, but just wanna know "how their good old cubbies are doing." Their intention is not to the hurt the Sox but to help the Cubs. And, I said the Sun-Times is a little more equal, not the Trib. Also, like I said earlier, come September and October, the Sox will own the city. There may be blurbs about Baker being fired here and there, but the fact is the Cubs were still somewhat in contention for the WC until the Brew Crew passed them. Their collapse is compelling for a lot of people. But when we hit the stretch run we will have 100% of the coverage, I am sure of it.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 10:15 AM
I said, their soft coverage of the Cubs will sell more papers to the average yuppies who don't watch baseball, but just wanna know "how their good old cubbies are doing." Their intention is not to the hurt the Sox but to help the Cubs.....

Precisely why are the Chicago Cubs entitled to this "soft coverage" by the Chicago Tribune? Why is the Chicago Tribune leading these "average yuppies who don't watch baseball" right back to the doorstep of the Chicago Cubs with coverage you CONCEDE the Tribune gives the Cubs?

:o:

:knue
"Podzilla, ixnay on the oftsay overagecay!!!"

oldcomiskey
08-06-2005, 10:35 AM
Fine for you.

However here's a question you simply must answer. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, does it make it sound?

:cool:

October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!
No, it does not

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 11:34 AM
Precisely why are the Chicago Cubs entitled to this "soft coverage" by the Chicago Tribune? Why is the Chicago Tribune leading these "average yuppies who don't watch baseball" right back to the doorstep of the Chicago Cubs with coverage you CONCEDE the Tribune gives the Cubs?

:o:

:knue
"Podzilla, ixnay on the oftsay overagecay!!!"
I'm not saying they're entitled, I'm just saying it's their agenda to write these soft pieces, not to hurt the Sox in any way, but to help the Cubs. It has nothing to do with the Sox, everything to do with the Cubs. They treat the Sox like a normal team with some negative pieces, while the Cubs, for the most part, get the fluff pieces.

soxstarter
08-06-2005, 11:53 AM
I'm not saying they're entitled, I'm just saying it's their agenda to write these soft pieces, not to hurt the Sox in any way, but to help the Cubs. It has nothing to do with the Sox, everything to do with the Cubs. They treat the Sox like a normal team with some negative pieces, while the Cubs, for the most part, get the fluff pieces.

Pod: Of all that has been said, I must agree with this view. As we all know, Sox fans can handle a realistic view of their team (weighing the weak and strong assets). Cub fans on the other hand really can't get past much more than the light, fluffy, full of sunshine articles they usually get in the Cubune. So the question still remains...should this major metropolitan newspaper with an international reputation provide equal, accurate, unbiased reporting for Sox as well as Cubs? We don't need fluff just the truth.

DumpJerry
08-06-2005, 11:56 AM
Pod: Of all that has been said, I must agree with this view. As we all know, Sox fans can handle a realistic view of their team (weighing the weak and strong assets).
Their team??????!!!!!??? It's OUR team!:D:

soxstarter
08-06-2005, 12:08 PM
Yessssss, D.J. "our" team. He's sooooo possessive! :tongue:

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 12:40 PM
I'm not saying they're entitled, I'm just saying it's their agenda to write these soft pieces, not to hurt the Sox in any way, but to help the Cubs. It has nothing to do with the Sox, everything to do with the Cubs. They treat the Sox like a normal team with some negative pieces, while the Cubs, for the most part, get the fluff pieces.

Really? You're saying the Cubs are not entitled to this treatment, yet you CONCEDE that the Tribune's "agenda" is to give it to them?

So why the **** are you whining in this thread? Nobody here is taking a countering view!!!
:o:

To the contrary, you seem to think it's all well and proper. Is THAT the point you're trying to make???
:o::o:

Woah! That's an even more twisted notion than the one you trying (in vain) to make yesterday.
:kukoo:

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 12:44 PM
My point was that the standings misprint was nothing. And that we should worry a hell of a lot more about losing to teams like the Mariners and Jays than whether or not we have as many stories as the Cubs. I don't think it's all well and proper, but I think that it's not something that needs to be discussed day after day after day.

fquaye149
08-06-2005, 01:03 PM
My point was that the standings misprint was nothing. And that we should worry a hell of a lot more about losing to teams like the Mariners and Jays than whether or not we have as many stories as the Cubs. I don't think it's all well and proper, but I think that it's not something that needs to be discussed day after day after day.

are you crazy?

There's nothing WE can do about losing to the M's and Jays. Especially during the season, we the public have no real control over how the Sox play.

Unless you're advocating a boycott of Sox games until we play a certain way or something, but that would be asinine and counterproductive.

On the other hand we CAN theoretically do something to change the Tribune's bias. Raising awareness is the first step along the way.

So what you're saying is it's better to worry about things that

a.) are relatively insignificant [slouching a little with a division title all but wrapped up in AUGUST]

and

b.) you have absolutely NO control over

than things that have a huge cultural significance (why do you think the national perception of the Sox is such? Trib dictates it. Thomas is a jerk? Invented by the Trib...Comiskey unsafe? Invented by the Trib...Sox have ****ty attendance? Invented by the Trib [please don't shoot me west!!!]) and that we could in theory influence?


GMAMFB

gosox41
08-06-2005, 01:15 PM
My point was that the standings misprint was nothing. And that we should worry a hell of a lot more about losing to teams like the Mariners and Jays than whether or not we have as many stories as the Cubs. I don't think it's all well and proper, but I think that it's not something that needs to be discussed day after day after day.

Pod, this specific example is clearly a conspiracy. We have no proof but it was done with the intent to specifcally hurt the Sox.

Amazing. I've said before that the Tribune is biased against the Sox. But to compare conspiracies to hurt the Sox when it is probably bad editing is stretching it. Newspapers make mistakes like that all the time and sometimes print retractions.

At least you and I are in agreement. But this small error seems to be getting a lot of people into a tizzy.



Bob

fquaye149
08-06-2005, 01:35 PM
Pod, this specific example is clearly a conspiracy. We have no proof but it was done with the intent to specifcally hurt the Sox.

Amazing. I've said before that the Tribune is biased against the Sox. But to compare conspiracies to hurt the Sox when it is probably bad editing is stretching it. Newspapers make mistakes like that all the time and sometimes print retractions.

At least you and I are in agreement. But this small error seems to be getting a lot of people into a tizzy.



Bob

Look - clearly it wasn't MALICIOUS in this case. Rather, bad editing seems to be the culprit.

The point, which you two seem to be missing is that a milestone like 70 wins would not be flubbed up by the Tribune if it were about the Cubs. That is, they make damn sure they get the facts right about the Cubs whereas we have been treated to myriad errors about our squad by that beat reporter who doesn't want to be writing about us.

got it?

TornLabrum
08-06-2005, 02:02 PM
Look - clearly it wasn't MALICIOUS in this case. Rather, bad editing seems to be the culprit.

The point, which you two seem to be missing is that a milestone like 70 wins would not be flubbed up by the Tribune if it were about the Cubs. That is, they make damn sure they get the facts right about the Cubs whereas we have been treated to myriad errors about our squad by that beat reporter who doesn't want to be writing about us.

got it?

Probably not....

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 02:48 PM
..... I don't think it's all well and proper, but I think that it's not something that needs to be discussed day after day after day.

I see. It HAPPENS days after day, even year after year. It's never admitted to day after day, nor has it been admitted to in the years it's been happening. And we have no reason to believe our silence on the matter will ever make it change from happening day after day as proven by the fact it keeps happening year after year.

But we don't need to discuss it day after day?

Yeah, that's just the sort of logic I've come to expect from you. You should just quit before it gets anymore embarrassing for you.
:kukoo:

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2005, 03:01 PM
At least you and I are in agreement. But this small error seems to be getting a lot of people into a tizzy.

Bob

Hey Pods, if you've got Bob on your side, you're in deep ****.

:cool:

DumpJerry
08-06-2005, 03:32 PM
For the last time, I don't give a damn about the coverage right now. It will come in September and October as much as it did for the Cubs in '03, because we have a better chance, and a better team. It will happen.
From your lips to God's ear.........:smile:

TornLabrum
08-06-2005, 03:33 PM
No we don't need to discuss it day after day, the **** gets old. I don't buy the Trib, so it doesn't affect me. How about you boycott the paper and all things Tribune, or you could just ignore it and leave it at that.

For the last time, I don't give a damn about the coverage right now. It will come in September and October as much as it did for the Cubs in '03, because we have a better chance, and a better team. It will happen.

It didn't come to the 2000 Sox as much as it did to the '03 Cubs, so what exactly makes you think that this year would be any different?

StockdaleForVeep
08-06-2005, 03:37 PM
:giantsnail


:knue
"The Sox don't win 70 games until WE DECIDE to publish the fact!!!"


:cubune

those snails give me night terrors

Podzilla_40
08-06-2005, 03:43 PM
It didn't come to the 2000 Sox as much as it did to the '03 Cubs, so what exactly makes you think that this year would be any different?
Because
1) They're "cursed", so they say
2) They made it to the NLCS, while the Sox' stay was so shortlived that after the game one and two losses there was no whirlwind coverage

Brian26
08-06-2005, 04:34 PM
First, Podz says:

For the last time, I don't give a damn about the coverage right now. It will come in September and October as much as it did for the Cubs in '03, because we have a better chance, and a better team. It will happen.

Ok, so the Sox coverage will come beginning September 1st.

But, then Podz says:

2) They (Cubs) made it to the NLCS, while the Sox' stay (in 2000) was so shortlived that after the game one and two losses there was no whirlwind coverage

So, the coverage then WON'T begin on September 1st, but instead we need to get to the ALCS now to get any coverage?

Get your story straight. The fact is, we should be getting coverage now for having the best record in baseball, and we should be covered until the last playoff game we play.

TommyJohn
08-06-2005, 07:50 PM
October headline in the Cubune:

Sox win World Series! It's Cubs turn, next!!!

Sad, but true. If that were to happen, I guarantee just about every single
story about the White Sox winning will contain a mention of the Cubs in the
same paragraph, if not sentence. It will go something like "last year, Boston
broke the third-longest drought. This year, Chicago broke the second. Next
year, the Cubs will break the longest, if God is truly a loving, merciful God."

Hoffdaddydmb
08-13-2005, 04:48 PM
I smell and ESPN Baseball Tonight/Tribune co-conspiracy against the Sox

whitesoxwin
08-13-2005, 05:09 PM
In addition to the Cubune newspaper, there is a Cubune program: "Cubune Live" on Comcast Cable.
Bet you can't guess what team is mentioned in just about everything--no matter which team is being discussed.
You guessed it.
The figgin' Cubs.
Every baseball team has to be compared to the Cubs team.
Every baseball player has to be compared to a Cubs player.
Avoid this program at all costs!!!