PDA

View Full Version : Chicago NewsMedia Watch 2006


Hangar18
02-27-2006, 09:12 AM
Spring Training is in full effect and its time to keep tabs on the media. It will be very interesting to see how much coverage the SOX will get now that they are World Series Champs. Since 1990, the White Sox have had four 90 Win-Seasons, while that other team has had exactly ZERO, yet other team somehow incredibly still get 4 times the coverage as the SOX.

Critics and Apologists have said dont worry about it, why does one worry about that, who-cares, when the SOX win it all then they'll get the coverage etc etc............

That team has had miserable records, yet dominate the headlines despite having not won anything of significance since President Taft was in office.
Alaska wasnt even a state back then!

Which makes this season one of the most intrigueing in years, If that other team can finish in 4th place and get 5 times the coverage.......what will happen if our team Wins It All? Will we get 10x the Coverage?
Lets Find Out!

Sunday 3.26.06
Tribune:
3 Sox stories
2 Cub stories

Sun-Times:
2 Sox stories
4 Cub stories

Standings as of Sunday 3/26/06
Privileged Cubs 6
Underdog SOX 5

chisoxmike
02-27-2006, 09:17 AM
Spring Training has officially begun! :supernana:

VASoxfan1
02-27-2006, 09:18 AM
brilliant idea, i'd kinda been keeping track of it in my head as well

itsnotrequired
02-27-2006, 09:27 AM
Glad to see the return of the NewsMedia Watch. I always enjoy reading it.

:cool:

SOXPHILE
02-27-2006, 09:31 AM
Unfortunately, most of the press concerning the White Sox for the next few days is going to revolve around what KW said about Frank.:angry:

Hangar18
02-27-2006, 09:36 AM
Question: Team A finishes in 4th place, Team B finishes in 1st place & Wins World Series. Which team gets the lanslide coverage?
Despite Being World Series Champions ....... the SOX are certainly not seeing the landslide coverage one would expect.

Tribune:
3 Cubs stories
2 SOX stories

Sun-Times:
2 Cub stories
3 SOX stories

Standings as of Monday 2/27/06
4th Place in 2004 Cubs 11
WS Champs in 05 SOX 10

skottyj242
02-27-2006, 09:36 AM
brilliant idea, i'd kinda been keeping track of it in my head as well


You're obviously new.

onesox
02-27-2006, 09:36 AM
I just looked over the Suntimes and I am sorry but the sox got more coverage than the other guys.....Hangar why are you making up so many cub stories?? There are 2 cubs stories on 1 page while the sox have 3 stories on 3 pages including a full back page photo of KW. Can anyone else look at the times and find 4 cub stories???????

This media watch is Bunk

chisoxmike
02-27-2006, 09:38 AM
I just looked over the Suntimes and I am sorry but the sox got more coverage than the other guys.....Hangar why are you making up so many cub stories?? There are 2 cubs stories on 1 page while the sox have 3 stories on 3 pages including a full back page photo of KW. Can anyone else look at the times and find 4 cub stories???????

This media watch is Bunk

Its not today he's covering...

Sunday 2.26.06
Tribune:
3 Sox stories
2 Cub stories

Sun-Times:
2 Sox stories
4 Cub stories

Standings as of Sunday 2/26/06
Privileged Cubs 6
Underdog SOX 4

Jerko
02-27-2006, 09:40 AM
Its not today he's covering...

He DID add wrong though. 3 + 2 Sox stories = 5, not 4. No WONDER the Cubs always win; it's Hangar's creative accounting skills.

chisoxmike
02-27-2006, 09:42 AM
He DID add wrong though. 3 + 2 Sox stories = 5, not 4. No WONDER the Cubs always win; it's Hangar's creative accounting skills.

There are some typos too...

4th Place in 2004 Cubs 11



Standings as of Sunday 3/26/06

mjharrison72
02-27-2006, 09:50 AM
He DID add wrong though. 3 + 2 Sox stories = 5, not 4. No WONDER the Cubs always win; it's Hangar's creative accounting skills.
Hey... nobody said this was a scientific study. Keep up the good work, Hangar! :cool:

Hangar18
02-27-2006, 09:59 AM
He DID add wrong though. 3 + 2 Sox stories = 5, not 4. No WONDER the Cubs always win; it's Hangar's creative accounting skills.


Good Catch. I corrected it. Note in todays Cubune, "Cub tickets go quickly".........Paul Sullivan goes out of his way to mention how to get more tickets, what numbers to call, where to look on the net, and seems to beg cub fans to get on the net in order to get more tickets. The story mentions how the Cubs "Broke their own major-league one-day ticket sales record Friday with more than 600,000 tickets sold".

Baby Fisk
02-27-2006, 10:07 AM
Hangar's media watch is interesting, but no one should get their hopes up that a World Championship will merit a surge in print coverage. If anything, watch for more stories along the lines of "the Sox are not doing nearly as well as they were this point last season; how bout them Cubs!" blah blah blah...

mjharrison72
02-27-2006, 10:10 AM
Good Catch. I corrected it. Note in todays Cubune, "Cub tickets go quickly".........Paul Sullivan goes out of his way to mention how to get more tickets, what numbers to call, where to look on the net, and seems to beg cub fans to get on the net in order to get more tickets. The story mentions how the Cubs "Broke their own major-league one-day ticket sales record Friday with more than 600,000 tickets sold".
And, of course, nary a mention of the Tribune Company's ownership of the Cubs. Buyer beware, indeed!

Baby Fisk
02-27-2006, 10:19 AM
That team has had miserable records, yet dominate the headlines despite having not won anything of significance since President Taft was in office.
Alaska wasnt even a state back then!

LOL! Do you use these lines in your barroom showdowns? :rolling:

Hangar18
02-27-2006, 10:25 AM
Hangar's media watch is interesting, but no one should get their hopes up that a World Championship will merit a surge in print coverage. If anything, watch for more stories along the lines of "the Sox are not doing nearly as well as they were this point last season; how bout them Cubs!" blah blah blah...

One thing ive noticed the past few weeks regarding the SOX coverage.
Having just come off their first World Title since 1917, one would think the dominant pre-season theme for SOX Coverage in Chicago Media would be ......"Can the SOX Repeat?".
No, instead, all weve heard overwhelmingly is "Can the Cubs win too?" & " Its the Cubs turn".
The Chicago Media is truly embarrassing they way they soil themselves year after year.

skottyj242
02-27-2006, 10:33 AM
I know it really doesn't matter but does anyone else get mad when after every mention of the Sox Championship it always put....after the Sox won their first World Series in 88 years. I don't know why but it seems to me like they're implying we got lucky or something. Small potatoes but it stilll upsets me.

Sox-on-TV44
02-27-2006, 10:36 AM
One thing ive noticed the past few weeks regarding the SOX coverage.
Having just come off their first World Title since 1917, one would think the dominant pre-season theme for SOX Coverage in Chicago Media would be ......"Can the SOX Repeat?".
No, instead, all weve heard overwhelmingly is "Can the Cubs win too?" & " Its the Cubs turn".
The Chicago Media is truly embarrassing they way they soil themselves year after year.
:whocares

Just as long as the Sox are the top story in October,again!!!!!

tebman
02-27-2006, 11:11 AM
And, of course, nary a mention of the Tribune Company's ownership of the Cubs. Buyer beware, indeed!
And that's a topic that wakes me out of my slumber!

In stories regarding the business of WGN, WGN-TV, the couple dozen other TV stations, or the various newspapers it owns, the Tribune always has a line in there like this: "The [station, newspaper] is owned by the Tribune Company, which also owns the Chicago Tribune." I can't remember ever seeing that disclaimer in stories about the Cubs.

Don Wycliff, the lame-duck "public editor," told us all last year to "get a grip," and stop bothering them about their ownership of the Cubs. All of this at the same time the Tribune is regularly congratulating itself for being a fine public citizen and defender of an independent press.

Bah.

robiwho
02-27-2006, 11:57 AM
Glad to see the Media Watch is back...I can almost taste the churros already!

thomas35forever
02-27-2006, 10:19 PM
This is the first time I'm seeing Media Watch. This looks awesome.

JohnBasedowYoda
02-27-2006, 10:29 PM
Glad to see this is back.
:thumbsup:

VASoxfan1
02-27-2006, 10:31 PM
the question now is how long it will take for the article to turn back to baseball rather than the whole KW/thomas situation. I'm flipping through the pictures on the cubune website and they keep mentioning the intrasquad scrimmage yet I still haven't seen an article mentioning anything regarding it.

edit: there was the material equivelent of two paragraphs versus about 3 or 4 full articles on kw-thomas 2006!

I personally feel like it will be a long way through spring training before we're not hearing anything more about it.

Trav
02-27-2006, 10:33 PM
Count me as someone who likes the media watch. Perhaps the "Who cares" tag can be laid to rest.

VA_GoGoSox
02-27-2006, 10:34 PM
Kenny didn't rest on his laurels after the Sox won a championship, and neither is Hangar!:bandance:

Keep up the good work. This year will be interesting...

itsnotrequired
02-28-2006, 06:00 AM
Perhaps the "Who cares" tag can be laid to rest.

I wouldn't count on it...

VASoxfan1
02-28-2006, 09:13 AM
for those of you who had February 28, 2006 as the day Mariotti decided to start bashing the white sox again in any pools........today is your lucky day

SoxFan76
02-28-2006, 09:34 AM
:whocares

Just as long as the Sox are the top story in October,again!!!!!

I think it does matter though. This town isn't going to change until the Propoganda machine changes it's ways a little. It is going to be hard considering the Trib owns the Cubs, but this totally biase coverage the Cubs get only hurts the Sox popularity year after year.

miker
02-28-2006, 09:38 AM
...warmer weather
...flowers blooming
...pitchers and catchers reporting
...Hangar's media watch

Actually if Ozzie and Kenny keep talking, we might have a chance in this meaningless media contest...

daveeym
02-28-2006, 09:42 AM
...warmer weather
...flowers blooming
...pitchers and catchers reporting
...Hangar's media watch

Actually if Ozzie and Kenny keep talking, we might have a chance in this meaningless media contest... I think that's the point. Kenny and Ozzie and Brooks are waging a battle here for the city and the organization. Kenny and Oz as the mouthpieces, Brooks as the artistic assistance.

miker
02-28-2006, 09:56 AM
I think that's the point. Kenny and Ozzie and Brooks are waging a battle here for the city and the organization. Kenny and Oz as the mouthpieces, Brooks as the artistic assistance.
Well, you've convinced me. Personally, for me, the "fight" was to win the World Series before the "other" team.

I really shouldn't be surprised that all the people that dismissed the Sox and their fans have stepped up their attack. Now there is a new battle, for the respect that the White Sox organization and their fans have been denied for too long.

Sign me up...I want to win this one -- badly.:mad:

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 09:58 AM
...warmer weather
...flowers blooming
...pitchers and catchers reporting
...Hangar's media watch


.....25 more green seats installed

Baby Fisk
02-28-2006, 10:07 AM
.....25 more green seats installed
What, did they hire a second workman? :cool:

Lip Man 1
02-28-2006, 10:30 AM
Hangar:

Nothing changes overnight. The Sox practically gave the city to the Cubs on a platter thanks to the SportsVision, the 94 labor and the 97 White Flag debacles.

'It's going to take some time' as the Carpenters once sang. You expect twenty years to change overnight?

Now let me ask you a question....did you happen to be asleep during the playoff run and the off season? Did you miss all the coverage the Sox got?

Things ARE changing. I'm sorry you don't see that. :rolleyes:

Lip

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 11:05 AM
Now let me ask you a question....did you happen to be asleep during the playoff run and the off season? Did you miss all the coverage the Sox got?

Things ARE changing. I'm sorry you don't see that. :rolleyes:

Lip

Cmon Lip, you know better than to measure the amount of coverage the SOX got in the playoffs vs what the cubs got wouldnt be a true measurement. If I wouldve measured that, it wouldve come off as very Kiley-esque or Sullivan-esque. No ...the TRUE measurement
of how much coverage the SOX will really get is NOW, when both teams are both in Spring training. At this point last year, the Cubs already were leading with the amount of Fluff and Circumstance they were getting .......
The SOX won a World Championship, and for now, the best the Chicago Media can do is give the SOX 50/50 coverage? Ridiculous

I know its going to take time, but we cant rest now ...........

Lip Man 1
02-28-2006, 11:14 AM
Hangar:

Stated again...did you see the amount of 'off season' coverage the Sox got this winter?

Regarding this spring all I know is that Comcast Sports is devoting the majority of their coverage as well as on Chicago Tribune Live! to the Sox. The newspapers are full of stories and features.

I don't know what it is exactly that you want.

In fact that's a great question for you. What do you want? Exactly? How much coverage will satisfy you? I'm curious to hear your responses.

For some reason I get the feeling that part of what you want is for the media to 'fawn' over the Sox the way some of them do over the Cubs. That's not going to happen partially because as I said, the Sox practically gave the city to the Cubs especially during the 1980's and the fact that the Tribune Company owns the Cubs.

Personally I could care less if the media 'loves' the Sox or 'hates' them as long as they cover them. Any publicity good or bad is better then no publicity. That's just my opinion.

Lip

Chip Z'nuff
02-28-2006, 11:17 AM
Hangar:

Stated again...did you see the amount of 'off season' coverage the Sox got this winter?

Regarding this spring all I know is that Comcast Sports is devoting the majority of their coverage as well as on Chicago Tribune Live! to the Sox. The newspapers are full of stories and features.

I don't know what it is exactly that you want.

In fact that's a great question for you. What do you want? Exactly? How much coverage will satisfy you? I'm curious to hear your responses.

For some reason I get the feeling that part of what you want is for the media to 'fawn' over the Sox the way some of them do over the Cubs. That's not going to happen partially because as I said, the Sox practically gave the city to the Cubs especially during the 1980's and the fact that the Tribune Company owns the Cubs.

Personally I could care less if the media 'loves' the Sox or 'hates' them as long as they cover them. Any publicity good or bad is better then no publicity. That's just my opinion.

Lip

"If the cubs went to the world series it would make Sox coverage look like the preps section of the Ft Wayne Examiner" Rick Morrisey

ChiSoxLifer
02-28-2006, 11:21 AM
So how are you going to differentiate between positive and negative coverage? Sure, the Cubune might post a couple articles about the White Sox but I'm sure they're always happy to print negative articles. In the Sun-Times, Mariotti does a complete rip job today.

SOXPHILE
02-28-2006, 11:21 AM
What will be interesting to see, is how the T.V. networks will cover the opening day at both parks. I mean, this year, the White Sox are raising their 2005 World Champions flag on the Sunday night opener, then on opening day, they are getting their rings. The media should,- ("should" being the key word)- be all over these stories, and just going all out to cover the fact that it's opening day for a team that last year, won the first World Series for Chicago in 88 years ! Seeing as how they usually wet their pants covering opening days at "beautiful, historic" Wrigley every year, and cover every possible angle, and interview everybody,-drunken Chads & Trixies, old ladies with knit hats and 5000 Cub buttons, Ronnie Woo Woo, that rag time band that always plays there, etc., I'll be curious to see how the 2 compare. We all know who should get at least twice the amount of publicity and covergage, for obvious reasons. Just wonder if the T.V. wonks will realize it this year too.

Frater Perdurabo
02-28-2006, 11:23 AM
Hangar:

Stated again...did you see the amount of 'off season' coverage the Sox got this winter?

Regarding this spring all I know is that Comcast Sports is devoting the majority of their coverage as well as on Chicago Tribune Live! to the Sox. The newspapers are full of stories and features.

I don't know what it is exactly that you want.

In fact that's a great question for you. What do you want? Exactly? How much coverage will satisfy you? I'm curious to hear your responses.

For some reason I get the feeling that part of what you want is for the media to 'fawn' over the Sox the way some of them do over the Cubs. That's not going to happen partially because as I said, the Sox practically gave the city to the Cubs especially during the 1980's and the fact that the Tribune Company owns the Cubs.

Personally I could care less if the media 'loves' the Sox or 'hates' them as long as they cover them. Any publicity good or bad is better then no publicity. That's just my opinion.

Lip

Lip, I can't speak for Hangar, but I don't want the media to fawn over the Sox. I want them to cover the Sox fairly, reporting both the positives and negatives but not hyping either. Instead, they have hyped and indeed fueled the feud between KW and Frank. I want them to stop hyping any crime that takes place in or around the Cell. I want them to stop burying and ignoring any crime that takes place in or around the Urinal. I also want the media to stop fawning over the Cubs and report on their positives and negatives as fairly and objectively as possible. I want them to stop feeding the hype about the Cubs being "due," and being "lovable." In short, I want the so-called journalists to be, well, journalists (without the teal). Is that really so much to ask?

itsnotrequired
02-28-2006, 11:26 AM
In the Sun-Times, Mariotti does a complete rip job today.

The writings of He Who Must Not Be Named don't count as articles.

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 11:32 AM
Hangar:

Stated again...did you see the amount of 'off season' coverage the Sox got this winter?

Regarding this spring all I know is that Comcast Sports is devoting the majority of their coverage as well as on Chicago Tribune Live! to the Sox. The newspapers are full of stories and features.

I don't know what it is exactly that you want.

In fact that's a great question for you. What do you want? Exactly? How much coverage will satisfy you? I'm curious to hear your responses.

For some reason I get the feeling that part of what you want is for the media to 'fawn' over the Sox the way some of them do over the Cubs. That's not going to happen partially because as I said, the Sox practically gave the city to the Cubs especially during the 1980's and the fact that the Tribune Company owns the Cubs.



We are definitely in uncharted territory here, the media being "forced" to cover the SOX more because of their Championship. What do I want?
I want to see things swing proportionately towards the SOX. For instance,
in following the 1999 and 2000 seasons, seasons in which the Cubs were horrid even by their low standards (95 and 97 loss years), they Media still went hog wild giving them their customary 4to1 and 5to1 media slants in their coverage.

If the Chicago Media can embarrass themselves by giving ink-love to a team with 97 losses and 4 times the Media Coverage, what does actually WINNING a Championship translate to? In my rough estimate, this must translate into something like 8 to 10 times the Media Coverage. I want to see 8 stories, 5 of them fluff, on the SOX, and the bare minimum for that other team. Anything less is Unacceptable.

jdm2662
02-28-2006, 11:32 AM
It really amazes me that some people are just too damn worried about how the Sox compare to the Cubs and how this isn't right even after a World Series win. Who gives a crap? The best part of being a Sox fan is that I didn't have to share my team with anyone. The Chicago Fire prior to 2004 where very successful, and received little no coverage what-so-ever. As a huge fan, I didn't say anything and just supported them. What was the point? I'm just glad there is a team and enjoyed their on field success.

And yes, I've heard much more Sox talk in the offseason than I ever heard when they aren't playing. What more do you want? Do you want the media and everyone to go ga-ga over the Sox? Are you all going to get upset when something negative happens, it's a big conspriacy? Seriously, Hangar, this is especially directed towards you, are you ever going to be satisified? You sure haven't shown it even after the greatest season ever.

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 11:41 AM
The Chicago Fire prior to 2004 where very successful, and received little no coverage what-so-ever. As a huge fan, I didn't say anything and just supported them. What was the point? I'm just glad there is a team and enjoyed their on field success.



How long have the Chicago Fire been in existence?
How long have the Chicago White Sox been in existence? (1901)
How long has that other team been in existence? (1903)

Theres your reason why they received little/no coverage. Again, for those of you who would like to ignore the media. Go right ahead. Even Jerry has learned his bitter lesson.

doogiec
02-28-2006, 11:42 AM
I really think you need to factor in the reality that nothing really newsworthy is likely to come out of Sox camp this spring, barring injury. The lefty reliever competition, Uribe/Iguchi lineup switch, Borchard vs. Gload and Anderson's debut are the only legit stories. How much can be written about that? The Sox are pretty much set and just biding time until Opening Night.

The Cubs on the other hand have rotation/injury issues, bullpen changes, a completely different outfield including a rookie, and two infield positions in question. There's just more to analyze.

You really can't count stories until the regular season starts.

skottyj242
02-28-2006, 11:58 AM
I really think you need to factor in the reality that nothing really newsworthy is likely to come out of Sox camp this spring, barring injury. The lefty reliever competition, Uribe/Iguchi lineup switch, Borchard vs. Gload and Anderson's debut are the only legit stories. How much can be written about that? The Sox are pretty much set and just biding time until Opening Night.

The Cubs on the other hand have rotation/injury issues, bullpen changes, a completely different outfield including a rookie, and two infield positions in question. There's just more to analyze.

You really can't count stories until the regular season starts.

How dare you try to make a point with facts?

jdm2662
02-28-2006, 12:03 PM
How long have the Chicago Fire been in existence?
How long have the Chicago White Sox been in existence? (1901)
How long has that other team been in existence? (1903)

Theres your reason why they received little/no coverage. Again, for those of you who would like to ignore the media. Go right ahead. Even Jerry has learned his bitter lesson.

Thanks for the info Hangar. I'm well aware of that. So, since you shared that info to all of us, is that another reason everyone should go ga-ga about the Sox? They've been here longer, so they should be coddled more... I'm sure it will be thrown into there as another reason, as according to your world, the entire country should be around the Sox.

Ok then, how about this for a question. Why did the Bulls last season, who had their best season in seven seasons, with some good young talent, take a back seat to the Illini, a college team that doesn't even play in Chicago? That had to be a conspriacy, too. How can a team that had six championships in the 90s, the most sucessfull run this city ever seen, finally turning the corner and returning to a good team, take a back seat to a college team?? It's a travesity, I tell you..

What's the point to this? You should get by now. The media is a joke, always will be, and it's not going to change no matter what you do. I stopped paying attention to it, and wouldn't you know, it's made things so much more enjoyable. You all can just laugh all the way to the World Series trophy. It's great. If people would rather be rooting for a losing team, and it's cool, oh well. It's your loss.

SOecks
02-28-2006, 12:04 PM
The writings of He Who Must Not Be Named don't count as articles.

I just read that garbage article. Now it looks like he came up with a new funny nickname to go with Blizzard of Oz. Now we're going to have to hear him drone on all year about what's going on at "The Padded Cell". How witty and funny. I never thought someone could be more annoying with the names than Mike Murphy's "McPhail...F-A-I-L" or Rosenbloom's "OrganIzation" but Jay has topped them all tenfold.

SoxFan76
02-28-2006, 12:05 PM
Lip, I can't speak for Hangar, but I don't want the media to fawn over the Sox. I want them to cover the Sox fairly, reporting both the positives and negatives but not hyping either. Instead, they have hyped and indeed fueled the feud between KW and Frank. I want them to stop hyping any crime that takes place in or around the Cell. I want them to stop burying and ignoring any crime that takes place in or around the Urinal. I also want the media to stop fawning over the Cubs and report on their positives and negatives as fairly and objectively as possible. I want them to stop feeding the hype about the Cubs being "due," and being "lovable." In short, I want the so-called journalists to be, well, journalists (without the teal). Is that really so much to ask?

:worship:

comet2k
02-28-2006, 12:07 PM
I really think you need to factor in the reality that nothing really newsworthy is likely to come out of Sox camp this spring, barring injury. The lefty reliever competition, Uribe/Iguchi lineup switch, Borchard vs. Gload and Anderson's debut are the only legit stories. How much can be written about that? The Sox are pretty much set and just biding time until Opening Night.

The Cubs on the other hand have rotation/injury issues, bullpen changes, a completely different outfield including a rookie, and two infield positions in question. There's just more to analyze.

You really can't count stories until the regular season starts.

Come on, now, Doogie. You're being far too logical and sensible about this. Please don't let reality prevent you from venting your emotions,

kobo
02-28-2006, 12:56 PM
Why is this such a big deal to people? Who cares what kind of coverage the White Sox are getting in the local press? There is always going to be a bias in the coverage by the 2 Chicago papers when one of those papers owns one of the baseball teams in town. And who really cares at this point? Why bother reading the local papers to begin with? I don't know about anyone else, but I read my news on the internet. I don't have the paper delivered to my house, I don't go out in the morning and buy a paper, I get to work and read the news online. There is so much information out there I find it trivial to only read the local papers. And I don't care what the media has to say about my favorite team. If anything, what has gone on over the last few days should show everyone just how incredibly stupid the media is. When the biggest story at the beginning of spring training is about the GM and a former disgruntled player, and not about repeating as world champs, that should say it all. Stop worrying about the press and the coverage and the other team in town, there is no use in worrying over **** you can't control. Be happy the White Sox are trying to repeat as champions, and worry about things that have to do with the team. You'll be much happier if you do that.

TommyJohn
02-28-2006, 01:46 PM
How long have the Chicago Fire been in existence?
How long have the Chicago White Sox been in existence? (1901)
How long has that other team been in existence? (1903)

Theres your reason why they received little/no coverage. Again, for those of you who would like to ignore the media. Go right ahead. Even Jerry has learned his bitter lesson.

The other team has been in existence since 1876, as I recall.

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 02:00 PM
The other team has been in existence since 1876, as I recall.

Well, the Chicago Media certainly keeps pumping that "fact" out there.
Truth is, they were the White Stockings back in 1876 to 1889, not the Cubs. They didnt become the Cubs til 1903 ..............Theyve done some very creative revisionist history over at the Ivory Tower ..........

soxinem1
02-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Good Catch. I corrected it. Note in todays Cubune, "Cub tickets go quickly".........Paul Sullivan goes out of his way to mention how to get more tickets, what numbers to call, where to look on the net, and seems to beg cub fans to get on the net in order to get more tickets. The story mentions how the Cubs "Broke their own major-league one-day ticket sales record Friday with more than 600,000 tickets sold".

Of course they sold that many, they are getting a free pass to a World Series Championship because they are next in line for breaking their drought!!! Where have you been hiding?:rolleyes:

TommyJohn
02-28-2006, 02:48 PM
Well, the Chicago Media certainly keeps pumping that "fact" out there.
Truth is, they were the White Stockings back in 1876 to 1889, not the Cubs. They didnt become the Cubs til 1903 ..............Theyve done some very creative revisionist history over at the Ivory Tower ..........

I had a feeling that is what you were leading up to. It is still the same
franchise.

Dan Mega
02-28-2006, 03:08 PM
Ok then, how about this for a question. Why did the Bulls last season, who had their best season in seven seasons, with some good young talent, take a back seat to the Illini, a college team that doesn't even play in Chicago? That had to be a conspriacy, too. How can a team that had six championships in the 90s, the most sucessfull run this city ever seen, finally turning the corner and returning to a good team, take a back seat to a college team?? It's a travesity, I tell you..

I agree with you on this. It begs the same question as to why do the Bears sometimes take a backseat to Notre Dame, a team that has absolutely no connection with the city of Chicago?

I think it boils down to the owners and writers of the media. If a few owners and writers love the Cubs, Fighting Irish, and other bullcrap teams, they'll get the herds to follow.

Baby Fisk
02-28-2006, 03:10 PM
Well, the Chicago Media certainly keeps pumping that "fact" out there.
Truth is, they were the White Stockings back in 1876 to 1889, not the Cubs. They didnt become the Cubs til 1903 ..............Theyve done some very creative revisionist history over at the Ivory Tower ..........
The Cubs franchise has existed since 1876. Comiskey stole the name White Stockings from that franchise. WE stole the name from THEM. Stop raising this.

DannyCaterFan
02-28-2006, 03:23 PM
I just made this comment to a friend last weekend..." Since the Sox won the series, they have become the Cubs as far a coverage is concerned". Just look at the Sun Times the past few weeks. Page after page of Sox news and usually a half or just a page devoted to the Cubs. I'm sorry, but I do see a sudden shift in reporting of the Sox. We are getting most of the space now. It's a refreshing change.

the gooch
02-28-2006, 03:28 PM
Good Catch. I corrected it. Note in todays Cubune, "Cub tickets go quickly".........Paul Sullivan goes out of his way to mention how to get more tickets, what numbers to call, where to look on the net, and seems to beg cub fans to get on the net in order to get more tickets. The story mentions how the Cubs "Broke their own major-league one-day ticket sales record Friday with more than 600,000 tickets sold".
if 'that team up north' set a one-day ticket sales record doesnt it mean that the number of season ticket holders has decreased?
look through the 'spin' and see that we ARE making progress. Or at least that the blue kool-aid has been watered down.

Hangar18
02-28-2006, 03:49 PM
if 'that team up north' set a one-day ticket sales record doesnt it mean that the number of season ticket holders has decreased?
look through the 'spin' and see that we ARE making progress. Or at least that the blue kool-aid has been watered down.


Love the sig by the way Gooch, but you forgot to mention the cliche I was speaking of .... "We Believe". Please everyone, Do not ever use this tired and unoriginal slogan ......

jdm2662
02-28-2006, 03:49 PM
The Cubs franchise has existed since 1876. Comiskey stole the name White Stockings from that franchise. WE stole the name from THEM. Stop raising this.

That is indeed a factual statement:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/

TaylorStSox
02-28-2006, 06:20 PM
That is indeed a factual statement:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/

He won't acknowledge it. He won't acknowledge anything that goes against his agenda. It's like having a conversation with Dale from King of the Hill.

TornLabrum
02-28-2006, 08:15 PM
The other team has been in existence since 1876, as I recall.

They actually began in 1871 but had to take a few years off after the city caught fire.

chisoxfanatic
02-28-2006, 08:21 PM
What's the point to this?

I don't see it anymore. Everyone should take the DumpJerry approach and point to the World Series Championship banner that will be raised in our rafters in 33 days. NOONE can argue with that! Our organization has won the ULTIMATE prize.

itsnotrequired
02-28-2006, 08:29 PM
They actually began in 1871 but had to take a few years off after the city caught fire.

That team always gives up when times get tough!:tongue:

Hangar18
03-01-2006, 08:06 AM
The Cubs franchise has existed since 1876. Comiskey stole the name White Stockings from that franchise. WE stole the name from THEM. Stop raising this.

That other team became the Colts in 1890 to 1897, the Orphans from 1898 to 1902 ............then finally settling for the dumbest name of all in 1903.
So your saying were not really the White Sox, they are since they used it first? At what point does an organizations name start/stop? Do the Tennessee Titans start their history at 1998? What about the Texans?

jdm2662
03-01-2006, 08:17 AM
That other team became the Colts in 1890 to 1897, the Orphans from 1898 to 1902 ............then finally settling for the dumbest name of all in 1903.
So your saying were not really the White Sox, they are since they used it first? At what point does an organizations name start/stop? Do the Tennessee Titans start their history at 1998? What about the Texans?

The Tennessee Titans are the Houston Oilers franchise. Hence, they are the same team, same history, founded in 1960, etc. It's the same for the Washington Nationals, KC Chiefs, who where the Dallas Texans, etc. The only exception is the Balitmore Ravens, who were the Browns, but were forced to leave the history and colors in Cleveland for a new Browns team. The Ravens history starts in 1996. Sorry Hangar, as much as you like to think the White Sox franchise has been around longer, it's not the case. Then again, since everything in your world is against the White Sox, I don't find this too surprisening that you want people to believe since the Sox have been around longer (which is not a factual statement), you believe the city, and the world for that matter, should revolve around the Sox...

Orta 4-6-3
03-01-2006, 10:28 AM
Spring Training is in full effect and its time to keep tabs on the media. It will be very interesting to see how much coverage the SOX will get now that they are World Series Champs. Since 1990, the White Sox have had four 90 Win-Seasons, while that other team has had exactly ZERO, yet other team somehow incredibly still get 4 times the coverage as the SOX.

Critics and Apologists have said dont worry about it, why does one worry about that, who-cares, when the SOX win it all then they'll get the coverage etc etc............

That team has had miserable records, yet dominate the headlines despite having not won anything of significance since President Taft was in office.
Alaska wasnt even a state back then!

Which makes this season one of the most intrigueing in years, If that other team can finish in 4th place and get 5 times the coverage.......what will happen if our team Wins It All? Will we get 10x the Coverage?
Lets Find Out!

Sunday 3.26.06
Tribune:
3 Sox stories
2 Cub stories

Sun-Times:
2 Sox stories
4 Cub stories

Standings as of Sunday 3/26/06
Privileged Cubs 6
Underdog SOX 5

Hangar,

I always enjoy your posts, and greatly appreciate your eternal vigilance, but I must make a correction. Teddy Roosevelt was President in 1908. And, as an added historical note, there were only 46 states in the Union in 1908. New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii have been admitted since then (and Oklahoma just the year before).

My favorite sports factoid is that Halley's Comet has come by twice since the Cubs last won the World Series.

Thanks again, and please keep up the good work.

spiffie
03-01-2006, 12:08 PM
if 'that team up north' set a one-day ticket sales record doesnt it mean that the number of season ticket holders has decreased?
look through the 'spin' and see that we ARE making progress. Or at least that the blue kool-aid has been watered down.
More likely is that they added 1,800 of their most in-demand seats (bleachers), which over 81 games gives them a bump of nearly 150,000 right off the bat.