PDA

View Full Version : Put Away the Tinfoil Hats


faneidde
09-08-2005, 08:53 AM
Everyone take a deep breath and say it with me, "There is no national media conspiracy against the White Sox."

While I will agree that the Sox don't get as much national coverage as the Yankees and Red Sox, or as much local coverage as the Cubs, I will not agree that every member of the media who doesn't pick the White Sox to win the World Series is a troll. In today's best example of paranoia, Phil Rogers is a complete moron for thinking the Angels and A's have better chances to go to the series than the White Sox. Some may agree, most probably don't. But multiple posters have felt the need to call Rogers names and of course someone pulled out the if the cubs...nonsense. Not to be outdone by the Phil Rogers conspiracy theorists, a few people claim that Yahoo! is anti-Sox because they didn't have the magic number posted when they had the Cardinals posted. Wow, there will certainly be worse things than Yahoo not having the magic number posted. My thanks to the poster who linked CBS Sportsline's standings so everyone could see the number, but that wasn't good enough for a few people. Not everyone is out to get the Sox. This is a magical season that seems to be back on track, yet some people are more worried about the media and perceived slights than the game. Enjoy the season...who cares wheather or not the media does?

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 08:57 AM
Everyone take a deep breath and say it with me, "There is no national media conspiracy against the White Sox."

While I will agree that the Sox don't get as much national coverage as the Yankees and Red Sox, or as much local coverage as the Cubs, I will not agree that every member of the media who doesn't pick the White Sox to win the World Series is a troll. In today's best example of paranoia, Phil Rogers is a complete moron for thinking the Angels and A's have better chances to go to the series than the White Sox. Some may agree, most probably don't. But multiple posters have felt the need to call Rogers names and of course someone pulled out the if the cubs...nonsense. Not to be outdone by the Phil Rogers conspiracy theorists, a few people claim that Yahoo! is anti-Sox because they didn't have the magic number posted when they had the Cardinals posted. Wow, there will certainly be worse things than Yahoo not having the magic number posted. My thanks to the poster who linked CBS Sportsline's standings so everyone could see the number, but that wasn't good enough for a few people. Not everyone is out to get the Sox. This is a magical season that seems to be back on track, yet some people are more worried about the media and perceived slights than the game. Enjoy the season...who cares wheather or not the media does?

The only problem with your theory is that the Trib has a national reputation and they are the ones who steer the national perception and coverage of the Sox. They also own the flubbies. Like it or not, that influences things.

Just because we are paranoid doesn't mean someone is NOT out to get us...:wink:

faneidde
09-08-2005, 08:59 AM
The only problem with your theory is that the Trib has a national reputation and they are the ones who steer the national perception and coverage of the Sox. They also own the flubbies. Like it or not, that influences things.

Just because we are paranoid doesn't mean someone is NOT out to get us...:wink:
I know I don't live in Chicago, so I don't have to deal with the Tribune and Sun Times, but the whole Yahoo not having the magic number thread was so insane I just couldn't keep it in anymore. If someone can give me a valid reason why Yahoo would have an interest in the Cards over the Sox, then I give up.

Deuce
09-08-2005, 09:00 AM
All year we get put down and overlooked. Now, because they have no other choice, the national meddia is paying attention and giving credit where was it due months ago, and you think there isn't a bias?

:bong:

Hitmen77
09-08-2005, 09:04 AM
Everyone take a deep breath and say it with me, "There is no national media conspiracy against the White Sox."

:hawk
"Your what hurts?"

SOXintheBURGH
09-08-2005, 09:18 AM
I can still wear my tinfoil hat to Core of the Core right?!

arbutron
09-08-2005, 09:22 AM
I dunno, i've said it all year, from the Preseason baseball preview, to todays Sports page headline in the Trib... We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.

Nationwide, we've been overlooked a little bit, sure... No big names, thats easy. But here in chicago?? I'd say the Trib has given us credit where credit is due all year.

tebman
09-08-2005, 09:25 AM
I dunno, i've said it all year, from the Preseason baseball preview, to todays Sports page headline in the Trib... We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.

Nationwide, we've been overlooked a little bit, sure... No big names, thats easy. But here in chicago?? I'd say the Trib has given us credit where credit is due all year.
George, is that you?

cheeses_h_rice
09-08-2005, 09:40 AM
I dunno, i've said it all year, from the Preseason baseball preview, to todays Sports page headline in the Trib... We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.

Nationwide, we've been overlooked a little bit, sure... No big names, thats easy. But here in chicago?? I'd say the Trib has given us credit where credit is due all year.

...and all it took was a historically great season by the White Sox and the Flubs playing below .500 to get to this point.

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 09:40 AM
I dunno, i've said it all year, from the Preseason baseball preview, to todays Sports page headline in the Trib... We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.

Nationwide, we've been overlooked a little bit, sure... No big names, thats easy. But here in chicago?? I'd say the Trib has given us credit where credit is due all year.

Okay, you should go find a tinfoil hat and put away the rose colored glasses...

arbutron
09-08-2005, 09:42 AM
George, is that you?

do you get the Trib?? Read it?

Every day we're the front sports page story, today "Quite Contreras"...."Sox Starter works out of jams, EARNS 4th straight win"

The daily "March to SOXtober"....

Cubs win the season series against the other best team in baseball and they're not even mentioned until the inside page.

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 09:47 AM
do you get the Trib?? Read it?

Every day we're the front sports page story, today "Quite Contreras"...."Sox Starter works out of jams, EARNS 4th straight win"

The daily "March to SOXtober"....

Cubs win the season series against the other best team in baseball and they're not even mentioned until the inside page.

Wow... and like Cheeses said, all it took was them running away with the division in early September to get to this point.

You need to go back and re-read the season series. It's ugly. Maybe you could do a search for the term "Media Watch" and see what comes up. Finally, go to the WSI Home page (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/) and read some of the stuff there.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 09:51 AM
Like i said.....its not like its been this way since sept 1st....its been all season, sorry if you disagree.. While bias has been obvious, its nowhere near what you guys make it out to be, and hasn't been this entire season.

nlentz88
09-08-2005, 09:53 AM
Look, there's a big difference between admitting a media bias against the Sox and becoming fixated upon it.

Is there a bias? Yes. The Tribune's ombudsman Don Wycliff pretty much admitted it: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=56238&highlight=Don+Wycliff. Other media apologists have said that the bias is justified because there are more Cubs fans in Chicago and the country than White Sox fans. Whatever your stance on the issue is, please don't suggest that there is no bias. Head on over to "What's the Score" and you'll see almost daily instances of the Sox getting snubbed by the media.

But I think people have a good point when they say we as Sox fans shouldn't get too worked up about it. Personally, I'm glad that my favorite team isn't own by an evil, multi-national, multi-media conglomerate. We may not get as much press, but at lest our souls are clean of synergistic sin. In fact, one might even argue that by "flying under the radar" the Sox were able to sneak up on teams early in the season and come up with the best record in baseball for awhile. It can be argued that negative or absent media coverage has kept the players grounded. But believe me, if the Sox win the pennant they will get all the attention they deserve.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 09:55 AM
I think people have a good point when they say we as Sox fans shouldn't get too worked up about it. Personally, I'm glad that my favorite team isn't own by an evil, multi-national, multi-media conglomerate.


I couldnt agree with you more. Why worry about it. I'd rather be the under appreciated dog, than the overhyped underacheiver any day.

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 09:56 AM
Like i said.....its not like its been this way since sept 1st....its been all season, sorry if you disagree.. While bias has been obvious, its nowhere near what you guys make it out to be, and hasn't been this entire season.

So the fact that the Trib clearly favors the flubbies and has for years means nothing to you so long as the coverage is adequate this season?

Settle for good enough and that is what you get. Demand fairness, accuracy and equal coverage and you may be surprised at how things change.

You can make a difference, vote with your wallet. Read the Trib on-line and dump the subscription. If enough people do it, they start to pay attention...

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 10:00 AM
I couldnt agree with you more. Why worry about it. I'd rather be the under appreciated dog, than the overhyped underacheiver any day.

Why can't we be the "better covered historically more successful" team?

You don't think the negative publicity thrown our way has anything to do with the ability to resign players and go after big name FA's? You don't think the over the top coverage given to guys like Lique and Dybas while the shooting outside of Wrigley gets covered in Tempo has nothing to do with the fan perception that the Cell is dangerous?

Wake up and smell the coffee. The Trib has one goal - run the Sox out of town on a rail. Then they are the only game in town and it doesn't matter what they do anymore and they can hype beatutiful Wrigley Field forever with no actual baseball threat to worry about.

WSI is helping keep that big ugly corporation honest and it helps the Sox coverage that we are watching the watchers...:cool:

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:03 AM
So the fact that the Trib clearly favors the flubbies and has for years means nothing to you so long as the coverage is adequate this season?

Settle for good enough and that is what you get. Demand fairness, accuracy and equal coverage and you may be surprised at how things change.

You can make a difference, vote with your wallet. Read the Trib on-line and dump the subscription. If enough people do it, they start to pay attention...

Yes, its adequate now, more than adequate, so i'm not dwelling on the past. Its not like the trib controls what I know about sports. Its the best paper in the city and I read it front to back daily. AND, I never have to read a word out of Jay Mariotti's mouth, which is enough to satisfy the most avid reader.

If enough people stop subscriptions they'll pay attention?? Yeah thats going to happen... They couldnt care less what group of disgruntled white sox fans do with their subscriptions. Put em where the sun dont shine they'll say.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:05 AM
WSI is helping keep that big ugly corporation honest and it helps the Sox coverage that we are watching the watchers...:cool:


Thats actually really good to know, & I'll join forces with you to keep their reporting Fair & Balanced, like "Feax News Channel" says. :)

GO SOX! MARCH TO SOXTOBER!

Ol' No. 2
09-08-2005, 10:08 AM
Like i said.....its not like its been this way since sept 1st....its been all season, sorry if you disagree.. While bias has been obvious, its nowhere near what you guys make it out to be, and hasn't been this entire season.Actually, it has NOT been like this all season. Up until about Aug 1 the Cubs were given way more space than they are now. And looking beyond the column inches, the tone is consistently biased against the Sox. Headlines tend to paint a sunny picture of the Cubs and accentuate the negative in any Sox article.

tebman
09-08-2005, 10:09 AM
So the fact that the Trib clearly favors the flubbies and has for years means nothing to you so long as the coverage is adequate this season?

Settle for good enough and that is what you get. Demand fairness, accuracy and equal coverage and you may be surprised at how things change.

You can make a difference, vote with your wallet. Read the Trib on-line and dump the subscription. If enough people do it, they start to pay attention...
That neatly summarizes several years worth of posts on WSI. As was pointed out, Don Wycliff admitted in a column a few weeks ago that the newspaper has a problem avoiding a favored treatment of its corporate brothers.

I'm a Sox fan. Always have been. Like VC says, I vote with my wallet and don't buy the Tribune and demand fairness and accuracy.

These are good ways to spend one's time.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:10 AM
Up until about Aug 1 the Cubs were given way more space than they are now.


So when we entered our slide they started upping our coverage?? That makes no sense.

I'm looking at papers from May, June... Almost all week its Sox Players in huge cover photos.... Maybe i get a different, less biased version than you..

A_ROW33
09-08-2005, 10:10 AM
We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.


The problem I have with what you are saying is that you are saying we are covered fairly based on the amount of Time on the front page. On that I agree with you, however it's a problem of quality rather than quantity. Look at some of the things at what's the score, sure the sox get coverage but it's paul sullivan saying why Frank isn't deserving the hall of fame, it's coupling frank with ricky williams, sammy sosa, and scottie pippen for refusing to play, when frank's instance was an all star game when the sox did not have the traditional day off after the game. You are right saying the sox have had the majority of the time on the front page, however the cubune makes the headline "rolling towards danger" after a couple successful series just because Oakland was on the schedule next.

Quality rather than quantity.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:13 AM
however the cubune makes the headline "rolling towards danger" after a couple successful series just because Oakland was on the schedule next.

Quality rather than quantity.

Hehe, hate to say it but they were right on the money with the "Rolling Towards Danger" headline, i remember that one.


You're right, quality over quantity. At least we're getting one out of the two, but I'll definitely pay more attention to the tone in ours vs cubs columns from here on to see if I agree.

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 10:14 AM
...and all it took was a historically great season by the White Sox and the Flubs playing below .500 to get to this point.


My points exactly ......

Ol' No. 2
09-08-2005, 10:22 AM
So when we entered our slide they started upping our coverage?? That makes no sense.

I'm looking at papers from May, June... Almost all week its Sox Players in huge cover photos.... Maybe i get a different, less biased version than you..The Sox were still in first place and posessed the best record in baseball. They reduced their Cubs coverage when they fell hopelessly back, although they continued their strained Wild Card standings up until just a week or so ago. Before about Aug 1 you would find roughly equal coverage - equal despite the fact that the Sox were running away with the AL and the Cubs were struggling to stay above .500.

For comparison, look at last year when they completely stopped covering the Sox from mid-August on. They re-assigned the Sox beat writer and ran only wire service stories and an occasional stringer article.

SoxFan76
09-08-2005, 10:27 AM
The Cubs get more coverage because they have more fans.

This drives me crazy, because the only reason they HAVE more fans is because of the Chicago Tribune and their blatant media bias portraying the Cubs as the superhero and the Sox as the villian. It wasn't always like this in Chicago. I remember when I was younger in the early 90's and the Sox were consistently fielding good teams, this media bias didn't really exisist.

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 10:28 AM
Actually, it has NOT been like this all season. Up until about Aug 1 the Cubs were given way more space than they are now. And looking beyond the column inches, the tone is consistently biased against the Sox. Headlines tend to paint a sunny picture of the Cubs and accentuate the negative in any Sox article.

The SOX have been the best team in Baseball, and in 1st Place the entire season ..... The Cubs have been below .500 and have basically stunk all season, yet somehow, the CUBS got MORE COVERAGE than the SOX.
Only in the last couple of weeks (with the cubs being knocked out of playoff contention), has the coverage become EVEN and BALANCED. RIDICULOUS.

SunTimes:
3 cub stories
4 sox stories
Tribune:
3 cub stories
3 sox stories this is from TODAY!
At this time in 2003, The Cubs had Quintupled the SOX coverage, with bombastic headlines, lead story qualification on the nitely news, full-color pictures daily in both papers, every news outlet reporting from wrigley,
Cub-Fluff articles on a daily basis, "celebrity" musings on the team, stories
on vendors, stories on bar owners, stories about goats, the Media basically went Hog Wild. "Its because the cubs are in 1st place, when the SOX are in 1st, you'll see the same coverage" yeah right.

downstairs
09-08-2005, 10:32 AM
I agree completely.

NEITHER Chicago team "diserves" anything. NEITHER have won a World Series in many, many, many decades.

If we win the World Series, the tide will turn that night. We will be the #1 team in town in 2006. I guaruntee it.

Until then, who cares? I love the Sox, but I don't expect the national media- or even the local media- to make a point of being "fair", when the Sox haven't done anything (not even winning a post-season series) in nearly 100 years.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:42 AM
so....now the conspiracy spreads through all the news outlets?? With the Trib just leading sheep? Come on...

My observations as a lifelong soxfan, that might hint at more of a reason why the cubs are more popular than just Tribune bias include...

Its a combination of cubs having more fans, its a hell of alot easier to get to wrigley from the suburbs by public transportation (metra) as the sox fan populations is heavier on the south side, youre backtracking to go to the cell by metra, the cell being built facing the projects instead of downtown, the cell taking over comiskey park, the obvious atmosphere around and inside of wrigley, The lack of atmosphere around the cell and the perception of the neighborhood, (my family's from bridgeport, i know its not bad), the loveable losers role of the cubs, the multitude of day games, i dunno.. Those are just my observations.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 10:45 AM
NEITHER Chicago team "diserves" anything. NEITHER have won a World Series in many, many, many decades.

If we win the World Series, the tide will turn that night. We will be the #1 team in town in 2006. I guaruntee it..


I'm with you.

White Sox Randy
09-08-2005, 10:50 AM
There is no conspiracy but there is no proper respect or interest either.

I was on every baseball site this morning and there was no mention of ANY WHITE SOX 7 GAME WINNING STREAK or CONTRERAS THROWING ANOTHER WHITE SOX SHUTOUT.

Look around at the unimportant stories headlined instead and you will see that the Sox are being ignored nationally.

Why ? Probably because there is some perception that "there are no White Sox fans".

KyWhiSoxFan
09-08-2005, 10:53 AM
The Sox dug themselves into a hole some time ago when it came to the number of fans following the team. Moving to WCIU was part of the problem.

T here are more Cubs fans right now, plain and simple, and the Sox will have to string together a number of seasons where they are in the playoffs and advance to the World Series one or twice to reverse trends. They can't overcome years of neglect in one remarkable season.

If they can make the playoffs five straight years, you will see a far different landscape in terms of coverage and their number of fans.

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 10:54 AM
so....now the conspiracy spreads through all the news outlets?? With the Trib just leading sheep? Come on...



You dont realize just how HUMONGOUS the Tribune Entertainment Corporation
really is do you? They own not just the Cubune, but a bunch of other newspapers. The WB Network? has stations in every major city, allowing
them to infect and infest their cubbie "brand" in almost major market, as well as to continue to push negative SOX articles as much as possible. It was NO MISTAKE, when the Jamie Kennedy comedy show, filmed here in Chicago,
and the entire cast wore blue CUB jerseys for their promo spots .......not at all.
Considering he doesnt like the Cubs, do you think Upper Management would have allowed for some of the cast to wear White Sox jerseys also? Ummmmm NOOOOOOOO. he knows where his paycheck is coming from ..............

Iwritecode
09-08-2005, 10:57 AM
so....now the conspiracy spreads through all the news outlets?? With the Trib just leading sheep? Come on...

My observations as a lifelong soxfan, that might hint at more of a reason why the cubs are more popular than just Tribune bias include...

Its a combination of cubs having more fans, its a hell of alot easier to get to wrigley from the suburbs by public transportation (metra) as the sox fan populations is heavier on the south side, youre backtracking to go to the cell by metra, the cell being built facing the projects instead of downtown, the cell taking over comiskey park, the obvious atmosphere around and inside of wrigley, The lack of atmosphere around the cell and the perception of the neighborhood, (my family's from bridgeport, i know its not bad), the loveable losers role of the cubs, the multitude of day games, i dunno.. Those are just my observations.

I'm sure Lip or Hal can point out some of the stories for you but think back to before the Tribune Co. owned the Cubs. This shift in popularity didn't start until they bought the team.

They've been leading the way ever since. The national media has looked at how the local newspapers cover (or fail to cover) the teams and follow suit assuming that the local newspaper should know what they are doing.

Johnny Mostil
09-08-2005, 11:02 AM
so....now the conspiracy spreads through all the news outlets?? With the Trib just leading sheep? Come on...

My observations as a lifelong soxfan, that might hint at more of a reason why the cubs are more popular than just Tribune bias include...

Its a combination of cubs having more fans, its a hell of alot easier to get to wrigley from the suburbs by public transportation (metra) as the sox fan populations is heavier on the south side, youre backtracking to go to the cell by metra, the cell being built facing the projects instead of downtown, the cell taking over comiskey park, the obvious atmosphere around and inside of wrigley, The lack of atmosphere around the cell and the perception of the neighborhood, (my family's from bridgeport, i know its not bad), the loveable losers role of the cubs, the multitude of day games, i dunno.. Those are just my observations.

I don't get the transportation point. If you're in Naperville and want to go to a game on public transit, you ride the BNSF to Union Station and then walk to the Red Line to ride to 3500 S or 3600 N, right? What's the difference? If you drive, then you can park in, oh, about 10K (?) spaces next to USCF, and . . . well, where, exactly up north?

MisterB
09-08-2005, 11:02 AM
so....now the conspiracy spreads through all the news outlets?? With the Trib just leading sheep? Come on...

My observations as a lifelong soxfan, that might hint at more of a reason why the cubs are more popular than just Tribune bias include...

Its a combination of cubs having more fans, its a hell of alot easier to get to wrigley from the suburbs by public transportation (metra) as the sox fan populations is heavier on the south side, youre backtracking to go to the cell by metra,

So it's easier taking Metra into downtown and taking the Red Line 4 miles to Wrigley than it is to take the Metra downtown and take the Red Line 4 miles to the Cell?

the cell being built facing the projects instead of downtown,

Hmmm...Wrigley doesn't face downtown either.

the cell taking over comiskey park, the obvious atmosphere around and inside of wrigley, The lack of atmosphere around the cell and the perception of the neighborhood, (my family's from bridgeport, i know its not bad), the loveable losers role of the cubs, the multitude of day games, i dunno.. Those are just my observations.

The hyping of 'Wrigleyville', the continued perception of Bridgeport & Bronzeville as a 'bad neighborhood', and the Cubs' losing as 'lovable' have all been propogated by the Chicago media, the Trib in particular.

And whether you want to admit it or not, the national media takes it's cues from the local media outlets. If there's a local story that the local media is indifferent to, why would national media outlets bother with it? It usually takes a story of national importance or a local one that's absolutely dominating it's local coverage to get the national media interested.

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 11:04 AM
The Sox dug themselves into a hole some time ago when it came to the number of fans following the team.........................

T here are more Cubs fans right now, plain and simple...................
They can't overcome years of neglect in one remarkable season.

If they can make the playoffs five straight years, you will see a far different landscape in terms of coverage and their number of fans.


:reinsy
" (whispers) pssst. psssssst. Dont say anything.......but some of those problems were actually my fault ........ for not acknowledging the very real, and growing problem of a very similar business interest just 8 miles away. I swept it under the rug, and hoped it would go away,
but the whole time, they belittled my product, outspent me, slammed
my fanbase, covered up their problems, spotlighted my problems, and put into overdrive a years long PR campaign of biblical proportions
highliting the very little they had to hilite as a team. Because I mistakenly
didnt realize this other team was indeed a major competitor to me and my business, ive ironically helped them erode my fanbase and removed my business from being the center of public interest. Wait .....did all that really just happen? I really am a pretty good businessman though otherwise"

dannycater
09-08-2005, 11:08 AM
the perception all season from national media has been that the Sox have the best record in baseball from beating up on the Central.....

if the Sox can get past the first round in the playoffs, I believe you will see a dramatic transformation not only in the local, but also in the national media....

tebman
09-08-2005, 11:14 AM
This discussion is a treadmill that we've been on before. There are generations of history involved in this that include, in no particular order:

*Tribune/WGN/WGN-TV/CLTV and its marketing muscle;
*The evolution of the neighborhood at Addison & Sheffield from borderline dangerous to a yuppie Disneyland over the last 20 years;
*Bonehead decisions by Sox management over the years (UHF-TV in 1968, pay-TV in the early '80s, threats to move to Milwaukee/Seattle/Tampa, etc.);
*Adherence to a narrative that says that Sox fans are rough and gritty and Cub fans are pleasant;
*And many more that sociologists and urbanologists can dip into as material for academic papers and thesis subjects.

The posts on WSI obviously come with an agenda: we're Sox fans. Do we feel put-upon? Yes. Is it justified? It depends on who gets asked, but there's not much doubt that there's been an entire generation raised on the notion that maypole-dancing around the Wrigley Field Experience is good for the soul. Just look in any bookstore and scan the shelves of "sports" books: there are multiple titles glorifying the Cubs, mostly having to do with the ballpark and its brick-and-ivy charm. What's being celebrated is a Disneyland version of life, a hunky-dory world where baseball is secondary and affection for the "Cubbies" is primary.

Sox fans appreciate hard work and have little patience with phonies. If we convey animosity toward the Cubs' current parallel universe it's because we see them as posers who are diminishing the value of Baseball. Conspiracy? I don't know, but it's successful marketing for sure. People have been buying it.

chitownhawkfan
09-08-2005, 11:16 AM
You cant honestly believe it is faster to get to the Urinal from the suburbs can you? I think you've been in Indianapolis too long. Sox Park is a stones throw from the expressway with loads of parking. People going to baseball games from the suburbs are largely driving, do you know how long it would take to get to the Shrine from Naperville? And like a previous poster said, it is just as fast taking Metra to Comiskey as it is to flubbieville. If you honestly dont think there is a media conspiracy or at the least a media bias, you need to take your head out of whatever hole it has been in the last decade. Just search for Hangar's media watch and tell me we get fair coverage.

:giantsnail

:knue: "What happenned in Wrigleyville?"

chitownhawkfan
09-08-2005, 11:18 AM
"It depends on who gets asked, but there's not much doubt that there's been an entire generation raised on the notion that maypole-dancing around the Wrigley Field Experience is good for the soul." (Courtesy of Tebman)

:rolling: POTW?

chopperjc
09-08-2005, 11:27 AM
I do not post much but I do enjoy reading them, this issue though seems to have a lot of people upset. Look we are sox fans, we have always been second class citizens. I am in Florida now but still read the trib and sun times on line. Do I wish we got more respect? In truth who cares. I have been a fan since I went to my first game in 1965 (when I was 3). It, as I have read from a lot of you, my dad who made me a fan. My dad passed away 15 years ago but I have always connected him through our sox. I really do not care who says what about us, all I can say I have enjoyed the summer more than any others in recent memory. I watch almost all the games. Appreciate the season and let whom ever say what they will. I think we all have realized how special the season has been and also realize there is more to come. DON'T WORRY ABOUT RESPECT! As long as we respect them I say again who cares what others think.

GO SOX:cool:

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 11:28 AM
Look around at the unimportant stories headlined instead and you will see that the Sox are being ignored nationally.

Why ? Probably because there is some perception that "there are no White Sox fans".

This is where a huge mega corporation like the Tribune Entertainment Corporation comes in. They simply make sure to show Cub fans on tv every single inning, they make sure to remind audiences that "everyone" loves the cubs ..... and that "everyone" wants to come to "beautiful" wrigley field. Do
this everyday for a decade, and everyone will think there arent any SOX fans,
only cub fans in Chicago. The SOX likewise will be ignored for this reason.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2005, 12:20 PM
There is no single answer to this issue. It's a combination of things, some the fault of the Sox organization, some outside of their control.

The power of the Tribune Company and their marketing division is obvious but as Hangar points out, the Sox for years spewing out falsehoods like, 'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...' (WMVP-June 2002) hasn't helped the situation. Until the tremendous hiring of Brooks Boyer the Sox marketing / PR department was under the control of Rob Gallas an individual who basically felt 'put upon' when fans offered suggestions, was arrogant and turned off more people then the other way around. Certainly not the qualities you are looking for in a marketing job.

The SportsVision debacle set the stage for the 'loss' of an entire generation of fans who couldn't watch the Sox on any kind of regular basis due to the cost of the equipment and cable fees, (meanwhile the Cubs continued to offer their games 'free' on WGN-TV), the fall out over Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall, the collapse in 1984, the near moving of the franchise following by owenrship's part in the 94 labor impasse and the 97 White Flag Trade all played a part in the reduction of the fan base. Not that the Cubs did significantly better on the field, but off the field they were able to grow their fan base through good marketing.

Cub fan are sheep no doubt, but their money spends as well as anybody's else's, something the Cub organization learned very quickly.

The fan base will come back and I'd argue has already started due to the increase in paid attendance but it's going to take time. It took 20 years to significantly reduce it, it'll take that long to get it back.

Lip

veeter
09-08-2005, 12:22 PM
I dunno, i've said it all year, from the Preseason baseball preview, to todays Sports page headline in the Trib... We've be covered by the Tribune and given far more time as the Sports front pager than the Cubs since day 1 of this season. I dont see how you can argue with that.

Nationwide, we've been overlooked a little bit, sure... No big names, thats easy. But here in chicago?? I'd say the Trib has given us credit where credit is due all year. I agree.

maurice
09-08-2005, 12:29 PM
It's sad to see that purported Sox fans have been brainwashed by decades of exposure to the Chicago and national media. If you're not familiar with anti-Sox bias, just read today's Trib sport section . . . and keep a barf bag handy, 'cause you're gonna need it. Props to Brooks for completely debunking a common anti-Sox-fan argument. Boo to the Trib for burying the quote and ignoring its iron-clad logic.

Phil Rogers is a complete moron for thinking the Angels and A's have better chances to go to the series than the White Sox.

Why is this in teal? The Sox have essentially locked up a playoff spot and currently have the best record in baseball. One of the other 2 teams probably won't even make the playoffs. It's hard to have much succes in the MLB playoffs when you're golfing. Moreover, why would a Chicago columnist go to great lengths to generate and manipulate numbers in an effort to bash the Sox chances in the same paper that regularly and relentlessly roots for a mediocre cub team?

paciorek1983
09-08-2005, 12:31 PM
The coverage that the Sox have not getting from the national media will only end up hurting ESPN and Fox if/when the Sox make it further into the post-season. The media has left nothing for themselves to build on when it comes to the Sox.

Noone nationally really knows who this team is outside of Chicago because of how ignorant the media has been. Therefore, they are creating less interst in this team because noone is familiar with them, which will probably will end up hurting the tv ratings for the LCS and World Series. It could end up being one of the lowest rated post seasons on record. Then, we'll hear the media say "see noone is interested in the White Sox---this IS a Cubs town!"

arbutron
09-08-2005, 12:31 PM
I don't get the transportation point. If you're in Naperville and want to go to a game on public transit, you ride the BNSF to Union Station and then walk to the Red Line to ride to 3500 S or 3600 N, right? What's the difference? If you drive, then you can park in, oh, about 10K (?) spaces next to USCF, and . . . well, where, exactly up north?

I'm talking about south suburbs. I live in naperville so i fly my private lear jet to the secret sub-cell airport for naperville residents.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 12:38 PM
You dont realize just how HUMONGOUS the Tribune Entertainment Corporation
really is do you?

Points to consider, and listen up. I'm tellin it like it is for you conspiracy junkies....

1. I guarantee you that the Tribune Newspaper management wishes they didnt have to deal with ownership of the Cubs, for obvious reasons of conspiracy theories of conflict of interest.

2. The Tribune sports editor worked at the Sun Times for 13 years before coming to the trib, he's not exactly a company guy.

3. Trib Co. is in business with Jerry Reinsdorf, as both teams own COMCAST, so its in the Trib's interest for the Sox to be promoted and do well!

4. Rogers column today expressed totally legit concerns that any Sox fan whose head is not inserted up his behind would share as potential threats to post season success.

5. Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles..


Conspiracy Theorists begone!!!

maurice
09-08-2005, 12:41 PM
I'm talking about south suburbs.

It doesn't make a difference, since neither park has a Metra stop, Metra lines end downtown, both parks are approximately the same distance from downtown, and both parks are serviced by the same or similar el and bus lines. In fact, the el runs much faster on the South Side, because there are fewer stops. If you're talking about driving, it's much easier and faster to get to the Cell from the S, SW, or W suburbs. The Cell is right off of one Interstate, near a second Interstate, and has tons of parking, while the Urinal requires you to take extremely crowded surface streets and has no parking.

Argalarga
09-08-2005, 12:41 PM
I don't live in Chicago anymore, so I can't speak about Sun-Times/trib coverage. But the national ESPN radio guys think the Sox are a joke, especially the morning guy. The other day I woke up to him saying "The Cardinals, Red Sox and Yankees are the class of baseball. No other team matters." Then this morning I had to listen to a 20 minute love fest between him and the Boston ESPN affiliate's afternoon guys, which basically consisted of them talking about how great Boston is and how no other baseball fans have the passion Red Sox fans have. Their national SportsCenter updates ALWAYS lead off with either Boston or New York, no matter what else happened in MLB.

I'm starting to hate the Red Sox.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 12:53 PM
It doesn't make a difference, since neither park has a Metra stop, Metra lines end downtown

It was simply one of my ideas, which I still believe is true.. Now I'll ask you, to give me your take on why I was one of 14,000 fans tuesday night. eh?

tebman
09-08-2005, 12:54 PM
Conspiracy Theorists begone!!!
Well that settles it, then!

Look, conspiracy is probably too harsh a word, but synergy-in-marketing is not. We had a lively and informative taffy-pull (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53026&highlight=revealed%21%21) with the Trib's online sports editor George Knue on this very topic a couple of months ago. Sure the newspaper people are conflicted about this -- that's what Don Wycliff wrote about a few weeks ago. But the Tribune Company is in the advertising/entertainment business, and the Cubs are a central showpiece that it uses to help "brand" itself. The newspaper staff are in the uncomfortable position of having to defend themselves against biases, real and imagined, that their corporate-namesake bosses have created for them.

Let's win the World Series and then see what gets printed and broacast. If the Sox and their fans are still portrayed as a curious subspecies after that, then we can talk about conspiracies.

SoxFan76
09-08-2005, 12:54 PM
5. Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles..


Conspiracy Theorists begone!!!

So you think if they just start having 6 Sox stories and 1 Cub stories a day for the rest of the season, everything is fine? I don't think so. The Tribune has been doing this crap for years now, and the rest of the 2005 season won't change my opinion on that POS newspaper. (ok, POS sports section...we can all admit it's one of the best newspapers in the midwest)

Another thing, I "think" I can speak for most Sox fans when we say that we don't want a total domination as far as stories for the Sox. I just want a little more balanced reporting. Not deliberately attacking a team from your own city. The "Chicago" Tribune consistently attacks the White Sox, and for what reason? Oh yeah, all Sox fans are drunk hicks and gangbangers who hate Cub fans for no apparent reason. Ridiculous.

Ol' No. 2
09-08-2005, 12:56 PM
Points to consider, and listen up. I'm tellin it like it is for you conspiracy junkies....Answers in blue.

1. I guarantee you that the Tribune Newspaper management wishes they didnt have to deal with ownership of the Cubs, for obvious reasons of conspiracy theories of conflict of interest. They may wish they didn't have to deal with it, but the fact is that they do have to deal with it. At issue is HOW they deal with it. They don't have to be told to instill bias in their stories. It just happens as a result of the circumstances.

2. The Tribune sports editor worked at the Sun Times for 13 years before coming to the trib, he's not exactly a company guy. So what? He works there and he knows on which side his bread is buttered.

3. Trib Co. is in business with Jerry Reinsdorf, as both teams own COMCAST, so its in the Trib's interest for the Sox to be promoted and do well! The Tribune Co. makes a little money when the Sox do well and a lot of money when the Cubs do well. Need I say more?

4. Rogers column today expressed totally legit concerns that any Sox fan whose head is not inserted up his behind would share as potential threats to post season success. Rogers' column was BS. If you want to find reasons why a team won't do well in the post-season you can complete the same exercise for any team. He didn't write any such article when the Cubs were in the playoffs. It was all puff pieces.

5. Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles.. Last year this time there were usually ZERO Sox articles other than wire service stories and those contributed by the stringer. They had pulled their beat reporter off the Sox altogether.

chitownhawkfan
09-08-2005, 12:59 PM
It was simply one of my ideas, which I still believe is true.. Now I'll ask you, to give me your take on why I was one of 14,000 fans tuesday night. eh?

Do the board a favor and keep going on this subject.

tebman
09-08-2005, 01:01 PM
Do the board a favor and keep going on this subject.
:rolling: :thumbsup:

Johnny Mostil
09-08-2005, 01:06 PM
4. Rogers column today expressed totally legit concerns that any Sox fan whose head is not inserted up his behind would share as potential threats to post season success.



I actually think Phil's result is about right. I'd rank the Sox about third, though I wouldn't put both the A's and Angels, one of whom may not even make the postseason, ahead of them. I'd also like to know where Phil's head was when he wrote the clear-as-mud explanation of his methodology and apparently neglected to test it against results for prior years.

maurice
09-08-2005, 01:11 PM
It was simply one of my ideas, which I still believe is true.

That's the problem with your posts. You have very many nonsensical "ideas" that have been proven false, yet you continue to believe them for no rational reason.

Now I'll ask you, to give me your take on why I was one of 14,000 fans tuesday night. eh?

I'm not touching this with a 10 foot poll, but please feel free to expound on this point.
:rolleyes:

maurice
09-08-2005, 01:15 PM
Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles..

Stop counting the articles and actually read them. The bias is apparent to anybody who doesn't work for the Trib . . . and even a few honest folks who do work for the Trib.

At this point, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this troll is faux Sox fan McGrath himself or one of his associates. How's your good friend Dusty doing these days, Danny boy? Still think the Sox have a "nagging sense of artificial dominance"?

C-Dawg
09-08-2005, 01:16 PM
...and all it took was a historically great season by the White Sox and the Flubs playing below .500 to get to this point.

True!

And I'm reminded that back on opening day, the "Sports" headline on the Yahoo news page was "Yankees, Cubs among Opening Day winners". Although the Cubs DID massacre the DBacks; maybe that had something to do with it. Never mind.

HotelWhiteSox
09-08-2005, 01:25 PM
Didn't read all the posts here, but my response to the original poster is I agree that there is no conspiracy, but only because the national media makes it obvious and doesn't worry about keeping it undercover!

Come on, that article by the AP where the picture of the empty stands was taken 3 hours before a game and then used to try and make people believe that attendance is bad is fair? That was complete BS, especially after Yahoo! Sports and other sites put the picutre and story on their front page. And do we need to go back into the ESPN thing? BBTN preseason special that didn't even mention the White Sox? The only reference was to Sosa coming back to Chicago when the Orioles play in "what's that stadium called again?" Or then there was 50 states in 50 days where the focus of Illinois was Chicago and every other major franchise was mentioned but it was like the Sox didn't even exist? The way Phillips and Brantley were ranting and raving against the Sox early in the year showed the possibility of one of a couple of things:
a) They are mad at Reinsdorf for the strike, other reasons, or don't like him.
b) Ozzie Guillen slept with their wives.
c) The Sox didn't want to deal with Phillips in some possible trade scenario.

That's where I disagree with you

FoulTerritory
09-08-2005, 01:31 PM
Points to consider, and listen up. I'm tellin it like it is for you conspiracy junkies....

1. I guarantee you that the Tribune Newspaper management wishes they didnt have to deal with ownership of the Cubs, for obvious reasons of conspiracy theories of conflict of interest.

2. The Tribune sports editor worked at the Sun Times for 13 years before coming to the trib, he's not exactly a company guy.

3. Trib Co. is in business with Jerry Reinsdorf, as both teams own COMCAST, so its in the Trib's interest for the Sox to be promoted and do well!

4. Rogers column today expressed totally legit concerns that any Sox fan whose head is not inserted up his behind would share as potential threats to post season success.

5. Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles..

Conspiracy Theorists begone!!!

Regarding #5 though, it is interesting that 1 of those 5 articles about the Sox was devoted to ripping on our attendance the last 2 games . . . , despite the fact that attendance over the past 3 months has been way up, and that we set our sell-out record. Its that type of subtle stab that irritates us. Give me a break. Two games of poor attendance (against the royals on a school night) after like 30 games of excellent attendance, and they think they are justified in writing ANOTHER "sox aren't popular have bad attendance" column. Geesh. Pass me the tin foil hat please.

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2005, 01:32 PM
Now I'll ask you, to give me your take on why I was one of 14,000 fans tuesday night. eh?
http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/images/fire_alarm.gif

brewcrew/chisox
09-08-2005, 02:05 PM
Regarding #5 though, it is interesting that 1 of those 5 articles about the Sox was devoted to ripping on our attendance the last 2 games . . . , despite the fact that attendance over the past 3 months has been way up, and that we set our sell-out record. Its that type of subtle stab that irritates us. Give me a break. Two games of poor attendance (against the royals on a school night) after like 30 games of excellent attendance, and they think they are justified in writing ANOTHER "sox aren't popular have bad attendance" column. Geesh. Pass me the tin foil hat please.

uhmm would it be too late to ask this guy to read my sig?

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 02:06 PM
........... my response to the original poster is I agree that there is no conspiracy

........ do we need to go back into the ESPN thing? BBTN preseason special that didn't even mention the White Sox? The only reference was to Sosa coming back to Chicago when the Orioles play in "what's that stadium called again?" Or then there was 50 states in 50 days where the focus of Illinois was Chicago and every other major franchise was mentioned but it was like the Sox didn't even exist?


Anyone remember how, Basball Tonite on ESPN would always broadcast LIVE
from whatever stadium was hosting the All-Star Game? Anyone remember how in 2003, despite the fact that the game was being played at The Cell, BBTN defiantly set up their temporary studios ............ AT WRIGLEYFIELD????

Im still Furious about that .........

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 02:08 PM
Regarding #5 though, it is interesting that 1 of those 5 articles about the Sox was devoted to ripping on our attendance the last 2 games . . . , despite the fact that attendance over the past 3 months has been way up, and that we set our sell-out record. Its that type of subtle stab that irritates us. Give me a break. Two games of poor attendance (against the royals on a school night) after like 30 games of excellent attendance, and they think they are justified in writing ANOTHER "sox aren't popular have bad attendance" column. Geesh. Pass me the tin foil hat please.

YUP. The Trib went noticably quiet in July and August, when the SOX
were selling the place out and playing to crowds of 35K nitely ...........

arbutron
09-08-2005, 02:13 PM
You're all real real good at troll labeling a poster who disagrees with the majority. Thats nice. Doesnt affect me, I'll keep reading Gonzales, Rogers, et al for better or worse, because I like the Tribune and I'm not obsessive, or really concerned with coverage you dont think we get, or that the cubs do get. Or fairness or bias blah whatever, not a big deal.


When we perform in October no bias in the world will be able to keep us out of the headlines. Maybe we'll get ANOTHER espn Mag article, how bout a cover??



see you at the game tonight.

faneidde
09-08-2005, 02:20 PM
I am not talking about the Trib and Chicago media coverage. I am talking about people whining everytime a national personality doesn't pick the White Sox. Instead of looking for the very obvious reason that said person does not think the Sox are the best team in baseball, everyone jumps up and down and waives their arms like petulant children. "He hates the Sox." "He is a complete Moron." "Jay Marriotti is a complete moron." "All your base are belong to us."

My point is really two fold. One, it doesn't matter, at all. Last time I checked, baseball games weren't decided by the number of minutes of coverage on BBTN or SI or Magic numbers on Yahoo. Secondly, it really isn't there. The people who don't think the Sox will win have legitimate concerns about the line-up and lack of playoff experience, they are not just trolling.

Hey Arbutron, I agree with most of what you have to say, of course everyone is all ready resorting to calling you a troll because you don't agree with their paraniod mommy likes him better than me ideas.

arbutron
09-08-2005, 02:22 PM
Well that settles it, then!

But the Tribune Company is in the advertising/entertainment business, and the Cubs are a central showpiece that it uses to help "brand" itself. .


What has this immense marketing/branding BS done for the cubs teams lately? Sure they have more fans scattered throughout the parks on the road, but they've barely been able to string together consecutive .500 seasons, and made a little noise in 2003. Its not like they have the tractor beam of the yankees on every 5 mil free agent that hits the market. Its also not affecting the team we've got on the field this year....The Best Team In Baseball.

miker
09-08-2005, 02:38 PM
Everyone take a deep breath and say it with me, "There is no national media conspiracy against the White Sox."
All right, so there is no conspiracy. Next your going to tell me that the media is always totally fair and objective and never has any hidden agendas. All hail the virgin-white purity and sanctity of the media!

tebman
09-08-2005, 02:43 PM
What has this immense marketing/branding BS done for the cubs teams lately? Sure they have more fans scattered throughout the parks on the road, but they've barely been able to string together consecutive .500 seasons, and made a little noise in 2003. Its not like they have the tractor beam of the yankees on every 5 mil free agent that hits the market.
The marketing effect on the performance of the Cubs has been minimal. But the team's ownership doesn't much care how well the team does, only that it's a viable brand that can be used to sell advertising in the company's platforms.

Bill Veeck did an interview on Channel 11 in the early '80s in which he said that the Tribune Company cares about the Cubs won-loss record only as it affects the ratings on WGN and WGN-TV. As he usually did, he showed a lot of insight. What the Trib's marketing staff has done very well over the last 20 years is sell the "Wrigley Field Experience," which was brilliant because then it doesn't matter whether they win or lose: the broadcast ratings and revenue are healthy, the print ads remain strong, and the ticket sales and related products keep selling.

Over 20+ years they've grown a whole generation of people who respond warmly when they think about the Cubs. The Sox, on the other hand, have made as many marketing mistakes as the Cubs have made marketing hits, and so we're where we are today.

I'm a Sox fan, and like I described Sox fans in an earlier post, I don't have much patience with phonies. If the Cubs owners actually tried to improve the team instead of selling a lifestyle, it probably wouldn't bother me so much.

I just want to see them play ball, and play it well, and don't want to see them get pushed to the side of the media road because they (and we) are not cute enough.

Ol' No. 2
09-08-2005, 02:49 PM
What has this immense marketing/branding BS done for the cubs teams lately? Sure they have more fans scattered throughout the parks on the road, but they've barely been able to string together consecutive .500 seasons, and made a little noise in 2003. Its not like they have the tractor beam of the yankees on every 5 mil free agent that hits the market. Its also not affecting the team we've got on the field this year....The Best Team In Baseball.Actually, the effect is the INVERSE of what you suppose. The marketing/branding has enabled the Cubs to send out inferior teams secure in the knowledge that their lack of on-field success will have only minimal effect on their revenues. You have to tip your hat to them. They've pulled off a marketers dream. They've sold the sizzle without ever having to deliver the steak.

MisterB
09-08-2005, 02:52 PM
What has this immense marketing/branding BS done for the cubs teams lately? Sure they have more fans scattered throughout the parks on the road, but they've barely been able to string together consecutive .500 seasons, and made a little noise in 2003. Its not like they have the tractor beam of the yankees on every 5 mil free agent that hits the market. Its also not affecting the team we've got on the field this year....The Best Team In Baseball.

One word:

REVENUE

The Cubs/TribCo make money hand over fist because they've promoted the 'Wrigley Experience' so well that it no longer matters how crappy the team is on the field. Compare Flubbie attendance over the last 15 years to their W-L record - there's no correlation whatsoever. TribCo doesn't care if the team wins or not - as long as the cash keeps coming in.

faneidde
09-08-2005, 02:55 PM
All right, so there is no conspiracy. Next your going to tell me that the media is always totally fair and objective and never has any hidden agendas. All hail the virgin-white purity and sanctity of the media!
If you read the rest of my post, I acknowledged the bias towards the Red Sox and Yankees. But, just because there is a bias towards those teams, even over the Angles, Dodgers, and Cubs, doesn't mean that everytime a media member picks against the Sox its because they are a moron, troll, or there is some vast conspiracy against the team.

miker
09-08-2005, 03:08 PM
If you read the rest of my post, I acknowledged the bias towards the Red Sox and Yankees. But, just because there is a bias towards those teams, even over the Angles, Dodgers, and Cubs, doesn't mean that everytime a media member picks against the Sox its because they are a moron, troll, or there is some vast conspiracy against the team.
My fault for not putting my tongue firmly enough in my cheek with my original post.

I mostly agree with your position, but knowing what I do about human behavior (most notably, because I am human), many of these "journalists" say what they say because they know it will piss off Sox fans.

How 'bout we just win the whole darn thing and make it a moot point?

arbutron
09-08-2005, 03:29 PM
One word:

REVENUE




The responses to my question of what advantage have the cubs enjoyed by seems to all lead to this one point, its made them money and done nothing to help put a winning team on the field. So..... SO WHAT?! I am fully aware of this marketing blitz and I think its great! Let them have the "Wrigley Experience", its not all bad! and I enjoy taking in a cubs game a couple times every summer, when a good NL opponent is in town, because I like watching baseball.

What I was getting at is.......... If the favoritism that the cubs are afforded doesn't get them jack on the field, then who cares?? They'll be the loveable losers far into the future... Hooray Capitalism.

So if you're sad because you believe we get pooped on by the Tribune, well go ahead and be sad, mad and downright angry. But if I were you I wouldnt give a damn because our team gettin it done. Plain & Simple.

FoulTerritory
09-08-2005, 03:30 PM
uhmm would it be too late to ask this guy to read my sig?

For the record, I did not START an attendance thread, but merely commented on the tribune's coverage of our attendance which is relavent, I believe, to the larger context of this thread.

My apologies for not categorically following the rules and regulations set forth by your sig. I'll try to do better in the future.

skobabe8
09-08-2005, 03:36 PM
The SOX have been the best team in Baseball, and in 1st Place the entire season ..... The Cubs have been below .500 and have basically stunk all season, yet somehow, the CUBS got MORE COVERAGE than the SOX.
Only in the last couple of weeks (with the cubs being knocked out of playoff contention), has the coverage become EVEN and BALANCED. RIDICULOUS.

SunTimes:
3 cub stories
4 sox stories
Tribune:
3 cub stories
3 sox stories this is from TODAY!
At this time in 2003, The Cubs had Quintupled the SOX coverage, with bombastic headlines, lead story qualification on the nitely news, full-color pictures daily in both papers, every news outlet reporting from wrigley,
Cub-Fluff articles on a daily basis, "celebrity" musings on the team, stories
on vendors, stories on bar owners, stories about goats, the Media basically went Hog Wild. "Its because the cubs are in 1st place, when the SOX are in 1st, you'll see the same coverage" yeah right.

You dont have a database from your research, do ya? It would be extremely enlightening to find out the headlines/coverage today vs. the same day in 2003.

faneidde
09-08-2005, 03:37 PM
My fault for not putting my tongue firmly enough in my cheek with my original post.

I mostly agree with your position, but knowing what I do about human behavior (most notably, because I am human), many of these "journalists" say what they say because they know it will piss off Sox fans.

How 'bout we just win the whole darn thing and make it a moot point?
I agree 100% with the last line. Sorry about not getting your post.

maurice
09-08-2005, 04:11 PM
[the existence of bias] doesn't mean that everytime a media member picks against the Sox its because they are a moron, troll, or there is some vast conspiracy against the team

This is certainly true. OTOH, many negative articles are caused by media bias. It's assinine for any poster to claim (1) that media bias doesn't exist, (2) that media bias is unimportant, or (3) that media bias is okay. It's even stupider for a single poster to make all three claims, since they contradict one another.

I'm not claiming that you hold any of these views, but they do appear from time to time . . . usually posted by Trib employees living in a dreamland or lying to conceal their company's bias. Either way, they qualify as a
:dtroll:

voodoochile
09-08-2005, 09:27 PM
The responses to my question of what advantage have the cubs enjoyed by seems to all lead to this one point, its made them money and done nothing to help put a winning team on the field. So..... SO WHAT?! I am fully aware of this marketing blitz and I think its great! Let them have the "Wrigley Experience", its not all bad! and I enjoy taking in a cubs game a couple times every summer, when a good NL opponent is in town, because I like watching baseball.

What I was getting at is.......... If the favoritism that the cubs are afforded doesn't get them jack on the field, then who cares?? They'll be the loveable losers far into the future... Hooray Capitalism.

So if you're sad because you believe we get pooped on by the Tribune, well go ahead and be sad, mad and downright angry. But if I were you I wouldnt give a damn because our team gettin it done. Plain & Simple.

Really? You don't think that $100M payroll has anything to do with them having their first back-2-back winning seasons in nearly 30 years? Has nothing to do with their ability to afford the team that came within 4 outs or whatever of going to the WS? Has nothing to do with their ability to sign big name FA's and go after offensive talent, and starting pitchers like Maddux?

I am in awe of your ability to ignore all of these facts...

Wouldn't it be nice if the Sox could afford all that money? Can you picture this team with ARod and Griffey? I sure can...

woodenleg
09-09-2005, 01:03 AM
Points to consider, and listen up. I'm tellin it like it is for you conspiracy junkies....

1. I guarantee you that the Tribune Newspaper management wishes they didnt have to deal with ownership of the Cubs, for obvious reasons of conspiracy theories of conflict of interest.

2. The Tribune sports editor worked at the Sun Times for 13 years before coming to the trib, he's not exactly a company guy.

3. Trib Co. is in business with Jerry Reinsdorf, as both teams own COMCAST, so its in the Trib's interest for the Sox to be promoted and do well!

4. Rogers column today expressed totally legit concerns that any Sox fan whose head is not inserted up his behind would share as potential threats to post season success.

5. Today's tribune had 5 Sox articles.....2 Cub articles..


Conspiracy Theorists begone!!!

Fair enough, but you're not looking at the big picture.

It's much more subtle than that...it's the way things are selected and framed. It's not about who wrote what column and who is the editor of what.

The real reason some people have an interest in "ignoring" the Sox is because the Sox make them look real bad....that's because they're ass-deep in sleaze. You can tell something's up by how they work so hard to deny it.

It doesn't make a difference, since neither park has a Metra stop, Metra lines end downtown, both parks are approximately the same distance from downtown, and both parks are serviced by the same or similar el and bus lines. In fact, the el runs much faster on the South Side, because there are fewer stops.

It's not about how "fast" the train runs...it's about how efficiently the line runs, how many cars and trains there are, and how many so-called "breakdowns" and delays there are.

Anyone who has used the L regularly knows that for some strange reason, the Red Line is not running to playoff-team standards before and after the Sox games. I live on the north side, and there is simply no comparison. I'm not sure I've ever seen people waiting down the block just to get into the station (during the Red Sox series, they were literally waiting for 45 minutes to an hour just to get into the station, let alone get on a train). That is unacceptable for a playoff situation. Thank god the weather has cooled off - otherwise we might have people dehydrating and passing out.

(and sometime I'll have to tell you the story about the Twins fans who refused to board a rush hour L to the park because it was packed with black people)

The number of stops really has nothing to do with how "fast" it runs. If anything, it doesn't run as well with fewer stops. Besides, it only runs that way south of Roosevelt. Most of those fans commuting to the park were coming from the north, but somehow they weren't getting the same service as the Cub fans. I mean, I can count on getting a seat on the north side, even if it is before or after a Cubs game. The Cub fans take up a lot of space, yes, but there always seem to be enough trains and seats and far fewer "sardine" situations. I have experienced so much b.s. going to and from Sox games this year. The south side gets the shaft when it comes to transportation - this has even been covered in the media, so we can't get away with pretending it doesn't exist.

ilsox7
09-09-2005, 01:18 AM
I didn't read the whole thread, but was wondering if it has been determined which Tribune columnist/editor arbutron is? I am not one of the big conspiracy guys, but there is a bias. And this guy cares way too much to not have a vested interest in trying to debunk the bias.

maurice
09-09-2005, 11:50 AM
The number of stops really has nothing to do with how "fast" it runs.

That's ridiculous. The Red Line is a classic example. Downtown to 95th St. is very fast. It takes much, much longer to get to Howard from downtown (even though the distance is shorter), because there are stretches where the train stops every couple of blocks, ever since they got rid of the A and B trains. Additional speed is lost every time that the train needs to slow down and speed up when entering or departing a station. On the South Side, it's more than 1 mile between stops on average. On the Green Line, there are zero stops between Roosevelt and 35th Street, a distance of about 3 miles.

Besides, it only runs that way south of Roosevelt. Most of those fans commuting to the park were coming from the north

*** are you talking about? Who are "those fans"?

The discussion in this thread is about how long it would take to get to the parks if you're coming from the suburbs and transfer from the Metra. If you transfer from Union Station, LaSalle Station, or the Roosevelt platform, you're starting in the southern part of the Loop (Jackson or Roosevelt). If you're transfering to the Red Line from the former NW station, it's only 2 extra stops. Heck, you can get on the Green Line a block from that station and take it all the way to the Cell.

maurice
09-09-2005, 11:51 AM
I didn't read the whole thread, but was wondering if it has been determined which Tribune columnist/editor arbutron is?

I guessed McGrath or a close associate in post #61. He rufused to confirm or deny.

antitwins13
09-09-2005, 12:16 PM
All year we get put down and overlooked. Now, because they have no other choice, the national meddia is paying attention and giving credit where was it due months ago, and you think there isn't a bias?

:bong:






ESPN's 50 states in 50 days mentioned every sports team in Illinois, including the Fire and no coverage of the first place Sox! There is definatly a conspiracy:mad: :mad:

woodenleg
09-09-2005, 12:36 PM
That's ridiculous. The Red Line is a classic example. Downtown to 95th St. is very fast.

I suppose that once you manage to get onboard an actual train, it IS.
I was talking about the number of trains, the number of train cars,
and the frequency of operation. This actually wasn't a problem until
this year. It was a huge problem during the Sox / Red Sox series.
Not so much a problem during Cubs / Sox....what a surprise!! Can't
inconvenience those north siders.

On the Green Line, there are zero stops between Roosevelt and 35th Street, a distance of about 3 miles.

Well, thanks for all of the last-minute "research".
I'm sorry you had to go through all that trouble refuting
a point I didn't make. Please go back and read what I said.
Moreover, the Green Line doesn't run as often as the
Red Line, and is less convenient to the park...many
people can't even locate the station.

*** are you talking about? Who are "those fans"?

Apparently (since I attend 2-3 games a month), there are lots of
Sox fans on the north side, not to mention our guests (especially
Red Sox, Cubs and Yankees fans) who go to games from the
north side.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The discussion in this thread is about how long it would take to get to the parks

Well, you did say..." In fact, the el runs much faster on the
South Side, because there are fewer stops." Transportation
problems aren't limited to Metra and the expressway, nor
is the commute time strictly determined by "the number of stops".
During the Red Sox series, there was a serious problem getting
people onto trains and getting them home at a reasonable hour.
Other times, there are problems with rush hour service to the
Cell - problems that seem to be managed much better on the
north side.

Since this is the "tinfoil hat" thread, I thought it appropriate.

maurice
09-09-2005, 01:13 PM
I suppose that once you manage to get onboard an actual train, it IS [faster].

Yeah, no ****. That's the point. The word "fast" ordinarily refers to the speed of a moving object. There's no question that the average speed of an el train on the South Side is significantly faster than the average speed of an el train on the North Side. This directly relates to the number and frequency of stations.

Unfortunately, your inane penchant for riding the el 5 minutes after the game ends and traveling to the North Side has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If you think it's all gum drops and lolly pops getting on the Red Line at Addison 5 minutes after a cub games ends, you're out of your ****ing mind.

Yes, I'm sure it takes longer to get to the Cell than it does to get to the Urinal when you're coming from the North Side. In other breaking news, the Earth is round. If you want to address the actual point -- how long it takes to get to the Cell from the suburbs -- then be my guest. Just stop bitching that nobody wants to address your irrelevant point. Better yet, post your gripe in a thread where it's marginally relevant. Oh, wait. You already did -- 2 months ago (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=816859&postcount=51). Obsess much?

I live on the north side

Yeah, we got that. Unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

this has nothing to do with the point I was making

And the point you are making has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Nobody cares how long it takes you to get to your home on the North Side if you leave the park 5 minutes after a sold out game ends. We're talking about people who live in the suburbs. It's entirely possible that our hypothetical friend from the suburbs might stop for a drink at Jimbo's or leave early to beat the rush. It's also possible that he might attend a day game or a night game that's not sold out. Those things have been known to happen from time to time.

And stop complaining that my posts have nothing to do with your so-called "point." They obviously weren't intended to have anything to do with your point. My posts and actually relevant posts written by others refute a patently false comment made by somebody else in the thread. You're the one who chimed in out of the blue with a completely irrelevant and narcissistic reply. Get over it.

miker
09-09-2005, 01:16 PM
What, you can't be a Sox fan on the north side?

What were we arguing about...or was it just arguing for the sake of arguing?

arbutron
09-09-2005, 01:36 PM
Really? You don't think that $100M payroll has anything to do with them having their first back-2-back winning seasons in nearly 30 years?

Wouldn't it be nice if the Sox could afford all that money? Can you picture this team with ARod and Griffey? I sure can...


Well, the 100M Payroll is the reason for that, but they're under .500, its not doing that much for them now is it. We would've got Griff Jr if the Reds would've agreed, its not like we chose not to. This team with A-Rod & Griffey? I'd probably be sick if we got A-Rod, and I dont want this organization to turn into the Yankees anyways. I'm quite content with the way things are.