PDA

View Full Version : Doesn't it seem the media, in general, is less "ga-ga" than in 2003?


Viva Medias B's
09-29-2005, 09:37 AM
I don't know if any of you (besides Hangar) have noticed this, but does it seem to you that the general media is far less "ga-ga" about us being on the verge of clinching than they were about you-know-who in 2003?

Dick Allen
09-29-2005, 09:52 AM
I don't know if any of you (besides Hangar) have noticed this, but does it seem to you that the general media is far less "ga-ga" about us being on the verge of clinching than they were about you-know-who in 2003?They've been spending too much of their time on the choke to be going ga-ga over us.

SOXPHILE
09-29-2005, 10:16 AM
Oh my god, definatly ! Weren't all the networks doing live remotes and even their newscasts from outside of Wrigley then ? Or was that just during the playoffs themselves ? Either way, in the days and weeks leading up to them clinching the division (eww, I just had a bad flashback), the networks were breathlessly starting out their broadcasts with the Cubs, the magic number countdown etc. Now, so far at least, they may mention it as a lead in, and then talk about it during the sports segment. It's like night and day. On a sidenote: Regardless of what anyone feels about the different channels and broadcasters, in all fairness, on NBC, Warner Saunders (sp ?) is a die-hard Sox fan. During transition to the sports segment, he's always saying things like "well, how'd my Sox do tonight ? " or the other anchors will say "Warner should be happy, the Sox won" etc.

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2005, 10:27 AM
I don't know if any of you (besides Hangar) have noticed this, but does it seem to you that the general media is far less "ga-ga" about us being on the verge of clinching than they were about you-know-who in 2003?If they get half the coverage for winning as they did when the media was predicting a choke, I'll be amazed.

TDog
09-29-2005, 10:29 AM
I don't know if any of you (besides Hangar) have noticed this, but does it seem to you that the general media is far less "ga-ga" about us being on the verge of clinching than they were about you-know-who in 2003?

How can people who have been so excited about reporting a Sox collapse get excited about the Sox clinching? How can people who, for the second straight year, picked the Cubs to finish first with a team "armed and ready" to go deep in to the postseason get excited about baseball when the Cubs were so disappointing?

Don't hold the Sox totally accountable for the disappointment doled out to Chicago baseball fans. After all, it was the Cubs who collapsed in 1969 to a team that had never come close to recording a winning season. It was the Cubs who inexplicably collapsed in the 2003 NLCS. Don't find losing so friggin' loveable on one side of town while turning into a reason to scorn the team that plays on the other side of town.

Chicago has one team that will be playing after Sunday. Get excited.

SoxFan78
09-29-2005, 10:45 AM
Thanks for pointing this out. I didnt even think about the coverage 2003 vs. 2005. Its not even close thats for sure!! Who wants to wager that if the Sox win today, it won't be the top story on any of the 5:00 news stations today?

maurice
09-29-2005, 11:15 AM
This morning, 780AM reported that Chicago doesn't care about the Sox making the playoffs. They proved this contention by interviewing 2 dimwits:
- Dimwit #1 claimed to be a Sox fan but couldn't name one player or the manager
- Dimwit #2 claimed that it's more exciting when the cubs make the playoffs, because of their "history"

After a series of headlines screaming "CHOKE" when no choke was occurring, the today's Trib screams "Close but no cigar."
:rolleyes:

kittle42
09-29-2005, 11:20 AM
It's because no one cares.

itsnotrequired
09-29-2005, 11:21 AM
This morning, 780AM reported that Chicago doesn't care about the Sox making the playoffs. They proved this contention by interviewing 2 dimwits:
- Dimwit #1 claimed to be a Sox fan but couldn't name one player or the manager
- Dimwit #2 claimed that it's more exciting when the cubs make the playoffs, because of their "history"

After a series of headlines screaming "CHOKE" when no choke was occurring, the today's Trib screams "Close but no cigar."
:rolleyes:

Idiotic, all around. Sox fan that can't name one player? Sounds like a real fan. Hell, even a casual baseball fan would be able to name at least a couple.

I saw that Tribune headline as well. What a joke. The only way that headline works is if it reads "Close, but no cigar...yet"

jackbrohamer
09-29-2005, 11:24 AM
Hell, the media is less ga-ga about ths Sox than they were about the Cubs' glorious stretch drive in 2004, when IIRC the Cubune pulled its beat writer off of the Sox to cover the Cubs.

And did the Cubune or Cub Times ever use the word "CHOKE" last year while the Cubs were, you know, CHOKING? I'm too lazy to look it up but it would be interesting to know.

Dick Allen
09-29-2005, 11:30 AM
That "Sox fan" was probably a Cubs fan until this year.

Hitmen77
09-29-2005, 11:47 AM
I don't know if any of you (besides Hangar) have noticed this, but does it seem to you that the general media is far less "ga-ga" about us being on the verge of clinching than they were about you-know-who in 2003?

That is without a shred of doubt true. You have to love their circular logic: First they ignore the Sox and give them little coverage, then they say that "Chicago is not excited about the Sox". That's crazy!! When they say "Chicago is not excited", they're really talking about themselves, aren't they? So, they're questionning their own lack of excitement? :?:

They're going by the level of media hype to judge the level of excitement in Chicago. So, they totally downplay Sox coverage all year and then run stories about lack of excitement (translation: lack of MEDIA excitement) about the Sox.

Hitmen77
09-29-2005, 11:54 AM
This morning, 780AM reported that Chicago doesn't care about the Sox making the playoffs. They proved this contention by interviewing 2 dimwits:
- Dimwit #1 claimed to be a Sox fan but couldn't name one player or the manager
- Dimwit #2 claimed that it's more exciting when the cubs make the playoffs, because of their "history"



Oldest trick in the book. Take any issue and the news source in question (TV or print) can easily manipulate the "public reaction". Take any partisan issue and media outlets like to show a "sampling" of public reactin by showing 2 people "for" and two people "against" the issue. It gives the impression that people are evenly divided on an issue when that might not be the reality.

Now take an issue where they want to "show" that the public is totally behind the point they are trying to make. So, how hard is it to find 2 people who aren't interested in the Sox, Cubs, Bears, you name it - and put them on the air, print their letter, etc? It's very easy to do and it's a very powerful trick.

tebman
09-29-2005, 12:01 PM
This morning, 780AM reported that Chicago doesn't care about the Sox making the playoffs. They proved this contention by interviewing 2 dimwits:
- Dimwit #1 claimed to be a Sox fan but couldn't name one player or the manager
- Dimwit #2 claimed that it's more exciting when the cubs make the playoffs, because of their "history"
Did WBBM actually do a segment like that? Give me a [insert your favorite adjectival expletive here] break!

The former governor is on trial in federal court. The majority leader of the U. S. House has been indicted. Two hurricanes have hit the country with a body blow. The mayor of Chicago's top political aides have been indicted. I guess there's nothing else for an all-news radio station to cover (execept to find somebody out of a Tonight Show "Jaywalking" segment to talk about baseball).

Keep your heads up, my friends! This stuff will continue to be thrown at us.

C-Dawg
09-29-2005, 12:02 PM
And did the Cubune or Cub Times ever use the word "CHOKE" last year while the Cubs were, you know, CHOKING? I'm too lazy to look it up but it would be interesting to know.

I still have both papers' Sports sections, and main sections from that Thursday after we were saved from a Cub World Series in 2003. I'll look tonight to see if they use the word anywhere.

santo=dorf
09-29-2005, 12:05 PM
Did any of the major news stations send a reporter to Detroit for this series? :?:

kittle42
09-29-2005, 12:10 PM
**** the Trib. **** the media generally. **** anyone who believes any of it or uses it to support any "argument" stupid Cub fans have about their perceived "superiority."

TheOldRoman
09-29-2005, 01:31 PM
That is without a shred of doubt true. You have to love their circular logic: First they ignore the Sox and give them little coverage, then they say that "Chicago is not excited about the Sox". That's crazy!! When they say "Chicago is not excited", they're really talking about themselves, aren't they? So, they're questionning their own lack of excitement? :?:
Here is the key - the media can create or partially stifle excitement for the public. Think back to 1995. The Northwestern football team went to the Rosebowl. After they beat Notre Dame early in the season, the media jumped on their "cinderella" story. They kept winning, and the media kept reporting on them even more. The media made them Chicago's team. The huge majority of people in the Chicago area didn't go to NU, but almost everyone I know that didn't go to a rival school was rooting for them.

This has a lot to do with them winning, but it also has to do with the media's reaction. The media shoved NU down everyone's throats to the point that people rooted for a team many had never heard of before that season. The media talks about how "the city is electric" and such.

This is what happened with the Cubs in 03. The media completely ran away with the Cubs, saying the city was electric, the whole world loves the Cubbies, and crap like that. The Cubs were leading off the news every day. They create the image that it is such a HUGE story that everyone wants to know about, in in turn people think they should feel the same way.

The Cubune and Cub-times have been screwing the Sox over for years. They give the Cubs 5x the media coverage, thus creating more Cubs fans. When people see all the coverage going to the Cubs, they think: 1)everyone cares about the Cubs, not the Sox; and 2)the Cubs are very important. As they create more Cubs fans and talk about the Sox even less, it makes it easy for them to claim that nobody cares about the Sox. While I agree there are more Cubs "fans" than Sox fans, if the media decided to run with the Sox this season, EVERYONE would have a Sox flag in their front yard or on their car. Every bar not on the northside would have the Sox games on, and everyone would be talking about the Sox. People believe what them media tells them.

antitwins13
09-29-2005, 03:30 PM
I noticed

SoxFan78
09-29-2005, 04:15 PM
I LOVE ESPN.com

Its been a couple of hours since the Sox have clinched and what did they have on the front page? ASU Football.

What do they have now? Donovan McNabb

Upper right hand corner
"White Sox Clinch AL Central Title in Detroit"

Lip Man 1
09-29-2005, 04:19 PM
WGN-TV and Comcast Sports Chicago have sent reporters to Detroit this week. I don't know about the other stations.

Lip

TheDarkGundam
09-29-2005, 06:43 PM
Around the Horn, PTI, and even Sportscenter today all started with a segment about the Sox clinching the division. Of course, Sportscenter followed it with a clip from each game of the 2000 ALDS, in which we got swept...

slavko
09-29-2005, 07:17 PM
WLS-TV sent Brad Palmer and the dreaded (at least to me) Jeff Blanzy.

SoxRulecubsdrool
09-29-2005, 07:36 PM
Excellent thread! I do start them few and far between but when I watched the coverage this afternoon I thought the same thing and thought about bringing up the same question.

Comcast was live and I thought covered the excitement pretty well. However, as I quickly surfed through the other channels, I only saw FOX breaking in about a half hour later. Not even the lowly CLTV did anything except during the sports section of the hour.

I remember that when the cubs made the playoffs the world stopped as if aliens had landed on the White House lawn. Amazing!

The Dude
09-29-2005, 07:51 PM
And did the Cubune or Cub Times ever use the word "CHOKE" last year while the Cubs were, you know, CHOKING? I'm too lazy to look it up but it would be interesting to know.

Yes they did I believe. I had it on my wall in my room. Not sure if it was Times or cubune but Choked or Chokers was the headline and Why do they keep doing this to us? followed by Cubs choked again.

Vernam
09-29-2005, 07:51 PM
They've been spending too much of their time on the choke to be going ga-ga over us.Yeah, **** 'em. During the playoffs, I'll be surprised if I read a single story that illuminates some aspect of the team.

I did enjoy reading the new Sports Illustrated over lunch while watching the game in a sports bar. SI clearly laid out the cover (see below) in hopes that the Sox would cooperate by falling out of first place. Instead, it hit newsstands the day they clinched! So sorry to disappoint the East Coast media snobs.

Vernam

http://www.cipherdom.com/pix/si_cover1003.jpg

Lip Man 1
09-29-2005, 09:10 PM
For what it's worth the WGN News did not lead with the Sox divisional crown tonight, which surprised me very much. I mean in 2003 it was wall to wall Cubs all the time.Lip

Kogs35
09-29-2005, 09:20 PM
Did any of the major news stations send a reporter to Detroit for this series? :?:

yes CBS Channel2 had howard sudberry
NBC Channel5 had Ryan Baker
ABC Channel7 had brad palmer
WGN Channel9 had Rich King
FOX Channel32 had Jill Carlson
Comcast had Chuck Garfien and Gail Fisher