PDA

View Full Version : Chicago NewsMedia Watch 3/9/06


Hangar18
03-09-2006, 10:45 AM
The SOX arent having much luck trying to get their story count to the 4 to 1 margin many expected the SOX to have since they won the World Series.

The Cubs coming off a 3rd place finish Inexplicably were still able to get nearly 4 times the Media Coverage than the SOX did last Spring. The SOX having actually won something, are barely at .500 still. Disappointing, especially since others suggested to not worry about the media coverage disparity, and that winning would bring more than enough. Whats even more disappointing is that if the other team wins 3 games in a row, all of the hard-earned accolades will immediately fall to the wayside ...............

Chicago Tribune:
2 cub stories
2 sox stories

Chicago SunTimes:
2 cub stories
2 sox stories

Standings as of Thursday March 9th, 2006
Media-Owned and Priviledged ...Cubs 59
Media-slighted and Ignored .....SOX 66

WSox8404
03-09-2006, 11:37 AM
I bet by the end of the year the results will be fairly even. I bet the Cubs may even have a few more even if they do bad because if they do this could mean some big changes within their organization. So either way (if they do good or bad) it will be close in the standings.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2006, 01:14 PM
Hangar:

Just curious....where did you get that '4-1 ratio' that some people were expecting. Any specifics on who was expecting that?

As stated in the past, the coverage of the Sox is better because they won it all, things don't happen overnight....not when you have 20 years of things like SportsVision, the 94 strike and the White Flag Trade to deal with.

Patience is a virture my son.

Lip

He gone
03-09-2006, 01:18 PM
The Cubs coming off a 3rd place finish

Wasn't it a 4th place finish :D: Let's not give them anymore credit then they deserve.

Hangar18
03-09-2006, 01:22 PM
Hangar:

Just curious....where did you get that '4-1 ratio' that some people were excepting. Any specifics on who was expecting that?
Lip

4-1 ratio was something that popped in my head. The way I figured it, if the Cubs can finish in last place, 3rd place, 4th place generally, and somehow still get 2 and 3 times the media coverage as the SOX, than what would an Actuall World Series Championship be worth? The SOX should easily be getting at the LEAST ..............FOUR TIMES the coverage as the north side team. We did after all win something of substance, attendance trophies and popularity contests aside, we have a Trophy.

WSox8404
03-09-2006, 01:22 PM
Wasn't it a 4th place finish :D: Let's not give them anymore credit then they deserve.

Third place two years ago.

soxfanaticpaulie
03-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Wasn't it a 4th place finish :D: Let's not give them anymore credit then they deserve.

Yeah, I believe the FLUBS finished 4th behind the BREWERS...THE BREWERS!

:rolling:

patbooyah
03-09-2006, 01:27 PM
4-1 ratio was something that popped in my head. The way I figured it, if the Cubs can finish in last place, 3rd place, 4th place generally, and somehow still get 2 and 3 times the media coverage as the SOX, than what would an Actuall World Series Championship be worth? The SOX should easily be getting at the LEAST ..............FOUR TIMES the coverage as the north side team. We did after all win something of substance, attendance trophies and popularity contests aside, we have a Trophy.

henry, i love that you have a poor man's formula for this.

you might want to get resident professor tornlabrum to help you with the specifics.

Iwritecode
03-09-2006, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I believe the FLUBS finished 4th behind the BREWERS...THE BREWERS!

:rolling:

Coming off a 3rd place finish last spring.

kittle42
03-09-2006, 01:59 PM
As I have pointed out several times, people won't be happy until the coverage is as slanted for the Sox as it was/is for the Cubs.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I would be very happy with the Chicago media if the number of stories on each team was almost equal by the end of the year, with the team that performs better getting the slight edge in stories.

New York papers manage this pretty well.

SOecks
03-09-2006, 02:39 PM
4-1 ratio was something that popped in my head. The way I figured it, if the Cubs can finish in last place, 3rd place, 4th place generally, and somehow still get 2 and 3 times the media coverage as the SOX, than what would an Actuall World Series Championship be worth? The SOX should easily be getting at the LEAST ..............FOUR TIMES the coverage as the north side team. We did after all win something of substance, attendance trophies and popularity contests aside, we have a Trophy.

Hangar, maybe you could collaberate with Homefish to create some sort of graph to show these calculations in detail :tongue:

maurice
03-09-2006, 03:54 PM
Equal and fair are not always the same thing. I always argued that the coverage should reflect the relative success of the teams. I had no problem with the Cubs receiving more coverage during the rare years that they were relatively successful and the Sox were mediocre. (Plenty of Cubune apologists laughably claimed that this was the only reason that the Cubs received more coverage since Henry started counting.) According to this logic, because the situations are reversed, the coverage also should be reversed. As far as I know, even the most pro-Cub mediots aren't claiming that the 2006 Cubs will be as good as the 2006 Sox.

ChiSoxLifer
03-09-2006, 06:04 PM
How about a running total separating Cubune coverage with Sun-Times coverage? I would guess the Times would have more White Sox coverage than that other rag.

TomBradley72
03-09-2006, 06:52 PM
We need a media coverage VORP.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2006, 07:08 PM
How about including the Daily Southtown or the Daily Herald...or don't they count?

Lip

Hangar18
03-10-2006, 08:43 AM
How about including the Daily Southtown or the Daily Herald...or don't they count?

Lip

I only include the Trib & STimes because........it was the TRIB that I noticed really started to steer extra coverage to that other team, and slanting negative to the SOX. Not long after, I noticed the SunTimes followed suit ................ and the vicious circle began.

LauraJ14
03-10-2006, 11:06 AM
How about including the Daily Southtown or the Daily Herald...or don't they count?

Lip

I get the Daily Herald and they are pretty even with their coverage.
One article on the Cubs, one on the Sox, notes for both teams.
Sox article on the front page today.

Lip Man 1
03-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Hangar:

Not trying to pick on you or what your do but by not including those two newspapers your 'results' are skewed.

There are to the best of my knowledge, four major daily newspapers in the area and if you want to conduct a 'truer' study of the Chicago media you can't just limit it to the newspapers that suit your requirements.

However this is also your study and you can do it however you want. Just that the folks who read your results need to know that some papers who appear to be giving the Sox their due aren't being counted.

'Let the buyer beware!' -- Chicago Tribune

LOL

Lip

ondafarm
03-10-2006, 11:44 AM
Hangar:

Not trying to pick on you or what your do but by not including those two newspapers your 'results' are skewed.

There are to the best of my knowledge, four major daily newspapers in the area and if you want to conduct a 'truer' study of the Chicago media you can't just limit it to the newspapers that suit your requirements.

However this is also your study and you can do it however you want. Just that the folks who read your results need to know that some papers who appear to be giving the Sox their due aren't being counted.

'Let the buyer beware!' -- Chicago Tribune

LOL

Lip

Just to weigh in here but I have to say the two papers you mentioned have virtually zero Chicago-city circulation. In the city its Trib and Times. Because both those papers are so bad (my opinion) the Herald and Southtown have greater circulation in the burbs.

George Knue
03-10-2006, 11:48 AM
Chicago Tribune:
2 cub stories
2 sox stories



I read these reviews of the day’s newspaper baseball coverage with interest – especially because what you see often seems to be at odds with what I see. Thursday, for example, I see one Cubs story in the Tribune – notes leading with Baker answering more questions about Bonds. And I see two Sox stories – on the roster impact of the Cintron trade and notes leading with Hermanson. There were two Sox photos, none on the Cubs. The Sox were on page one, the Cubs on page 4. And there was a game recap and box for each team.

Is it possible that in doing these reports, you are seeing what you want to see as opposed to what is really there? Is it possible that maybe you are spinning things in much the same way you say the newspapers do, perhaps because that serves your agenda?

Just asking.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Hangar18
03-10-2006, 12:16 PM
I read these reviews of the day’s newspaper baseball coverage with interest – especially because what you see often seems to be at odds with what I see. Thursday, for example, I see one Cubs story in the Tribune – notes leading with Baker answering more questions about Bonds. And I see two Sox stories – on the roster impact of the Cintron trade and notes leading with Hermanson. There were two Sox photos, none on the Cubs. The Sox were on page one, the Cubs on page 4. And there was a game recap and box for each team.

Is it possible that in doing these reports, you are seeing what you want to see as opposed to what is really there? Is it possible that maybe you are spinning things in much the same way you say the newspapers do, perhaps because that serves your agenda?

Just asking.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

No ................. and I say that because when I observe whats an actual "story", say the Bonds/Baker thing, it was an article on Baker and not on Bonds. I counted that as an entire Cubs story (Bakers a cub after all)
If I try to slant the angles/counts towards my agenda, it would definitely not fly, especially here, (you cant bs sox fans) because there are a number of sox fans here who will call me out on it (and has been done so, to their credit). There are other media types I chat with who lurk here that watch my posts, and so I do have to make sure my posts have integrity as they will call me out also.
I have had to adjust by a story here and there from time to time ........ which I have no problem doing. Basically, what youve seen over the years has been pretty much 99% accurate

Dan Mega
03-10-2006, 12:26 PM
Oh boy! Royal rumble! Fight fight fight!

Hangar18
03-10-2006, 12:32 PM
Its a Fair Question ........

maurice
03-10-2006, 02:54 PM
Further proof that folks who say "nobody cares about Hangar's threads" are dead wrong. The Trib cares.

Lip Man 1
03-10-2006, 05:07 PM
Ondafarm:

Just because they aren't published inside the 'city limits' doesn't mean they don't count though. If that's the case then Hangar needs to redefine his threat title and terms in his 'media watch' don't you think? The Daily Southtown and Daily Herald are still mainstream newspapers read by fans in the Chicago-area.

Lip

maurice
03-10-2006, 05:12 PM
I stopped reading the Southtown when they started lifting Sox articles from the Sun-Times. Is that no longer the case? Cowley still appears in the Sun-Times.

There's also the question of circulation, which probably justifies Hangar's limitation (and also limits the amount of work he needs to do). Is somebody volunteering to cover the Southtown and Herald?

SoLongFrank
03-10-2006, 05:20 PM
I've always felt the more aggregious slant towards the Cubs was space. Cub photo's are bigger. Sox articles always appear next to Cub spreads that are many times larger. I never paid much attention to the count of articles.

Do other's feel the same way?

kittle42
03-11-2006, 06:38 PM
I've always felt the more aggregious slant towards the Cubs was space. Cub photo's are bigger. Sox articles always appear next to Cub spreads that are many times larger. I never paid much attention to the count of articles.

Do other's feel the same way?

I feel you need to take a look at my signature. :cool:

1951Campbell
03-11-2006, 09:26 PM
Ondafarm:

Just because they aren't published inside the 'city limits' doesn't mean they don't count though. If that's the case then Hangar needs to redefine his threat title and terms in his 'media watch' don't you think? The Daily Southtown and Daily Herald are still mainstream newspapers read by fans in the Chicago-area.

Lip

Like it or not, the Trib and the Sun-Times are the print media face of Chicago.

If the Braves were still in Boston, and Fenway was doing a "media watch," he'd tally the Globe and the Herald. The Phoenix and the Framingham Shopper or whatever would not be relevant.