PDA

View Full Version : I'm a Flubsessed Lunatic 5/18/06


Hangar18
05-18-2006, 09:02 AM
No pictures or names of the Trixie McWrigley who whipped the baseball directly at Jacque Jones. The section, which had been hurling insults, racial epithets and jeers towards Jones most of the game, took it a step further
with the ball incident.

Mike North and Fred Huebner today talked about the mounting questions regarding how the Cubs, though in 5th place and having won nothing of significance in the last 90 or so years, are still getting MORE attention than the SOX in the newsmedia. They surmised that it must have to do with the Cubs losing this season, and theres "more to talk about when the cubs are losing". I almost buy that excuse, except we saw in 2003 those rules went by the wayside. That year shoudlve seen the SOX DOMINATING the Cubs, but it was the other way around HORSEJIVE

The Cubs today say they let Trixie McWrigley go because she was simply imitating people she saw on tv throwing homerun balls back on the field. She thought thats what all Cub fans are supposed to do when sitting in the bleachers. AMAZING how the Tribune thinks that we will buy this.
The Tribune in a blaring headline says "Baker: Isolated incident". But when you read the story, he said he was TOLD that it was an isolated incident.
BULLJUNK

Mike "Yellow" Kiley makes his first known attempt atethical journalism by admitting the Washington Nationals are a joke, and the Cubs will have to play a "good team" this weekend.
Chicago Tribune:
5 cub stories
3 sox stories
Chicago SunTimes:
5 cub stories
3 sox stories
Standings as of Thursday May 18th, 2006
Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 453
Underdog, Media maligned, Media Ignored, WorldSeries Champ SOX 384

daveeym
05-18-2006, 09:15 AM
That year shoudlve seen the SOX DOMINATING the Cubs, but it was the other way around HORSEJIVE
I'm adding that to my WSI insult lexicon right between Cheese Stick and Turkey Leg.

Sox Fan 1: You read that article in the Cubune by that Turkey Leg?
Sox Fan 2: Naw man, I read that Cheese Stick in the Scrubtimes.
Sox Fan 3: Neither of them are as bad as that Horsejive on the snore though.

rocky biddle
05-18-2006, 09:19 AM
In the online version of today's suntimes, in the standings they list the Sox after the Tigers even though they are tied for first. I remember when the cubs were tied with like 8 teams for the wild card a few years ago they were always listed first. It's disgusting the lengths these people will go to undermine the Sox' success. When you have to look to the windsock as a voice of reason, something is very wrong...

I'm really not ready to get bombarded with all the Kid K bs. I think it might be time for a vacation from the media.

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2006, 09:26 AM
Standings as of Thursday May 18th, 2006
Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 453
Underdog, Media maligned, Media Ignored, WorldSeries Champ SOX 384

The evidence is damning.

Has Brian Anderson gotten as much ink as Corey Patterson did in his first two months as the Cubs starting CF a few years back?

Where are all the puff pieces on Peoria's own Jim Thome? How does he feel/approach replacing both a grinder in Carl Everett and the Sox all-time greatest hitter, Frank Thomas? In what ways has he ingratiated himself into the fabric of the team off the field? How does he feel about being on pace for over 60 homers this year?

How about stories on Scott Podsednik's metoeric rise since his ice-cold start?

Where are the stories on Joe Crede? Aramis Ramirez has gotten much more press than Crede.

How many feature stories have been written about Ozzie's kids? One-tenth as many as Dusty Baker's kid, if that?

Any special features on Iguchi? He's only the first Japanese position player ever to start for a World Series winner, after all.

Does Bobby Jenks, with every bit the fastball and curveball as the media darling Carrie Wood, and who (according to Dave Wills) was the first rookie ever to earn the save in a deciding game of a World Series, and who has an interesting human interest story of overcoming a great number of obstacles in his life, deserve a puff piece by Melissa Isaacson or Carol Slezak?

How about a story on Tim Raines? Harold Baines? Joey Cora? Greg Walker? (FWIW, the "out loud" piece on Walker doesn't count as journalism, it's merely edited stenography of hooking up a tape recorder and pressing "record." Any trained money or office lackey could put it together.) All were Sox players at some point, and lived seasons of disappointment. How does it feel for them to have been a part of the championship team? How does it feel for them to enter into a new season as coaches for the defending champs?

How about a story about Javier Vasquez, the once-coveted starting pitcher, abandoned by the Yankees, coming to pitch as the #5 for the world champs? Can you imagine what kind of ink he would have gotten had he come to the Cubs?

Well?

Hello?

The silence is deafening from the so-called journalists at the Cub-Times and Cubune who make editorial decisions and assess news value on the basis of the canons of journalism.
:kukoo:

daveeym
05-18-2006, 09:31 AM
In the online version of today's suntimes, in the standings they list the Sox after the Tigers even though they are tied for first. I remember when the cubs were tied with like 8 teams for the wild card a few years ago they were always listed first. It's disgusting the lengths these people will go to undermine the Sox' success. When you have to look to the windsock as a voice of reason, something is very wrong...

I'm really not ready to get bombarded with all the Kid K bs. I think it might be time for a vacation from the media. It's amazing that the windsock is the most readable schmuck in the city right now. It's obviously he's just fluttering with the direction of the breeze as always but ****, he's the only one calling out the horsejive.

SOXPHILE
05-18-2006, 09:48 AM
Yup. And for the 3rd straight day, the Cubs get the HUGE color photo on page 1 of the sports section, (as well as 3 stories), while the Sox get 1 story at the top with a smaller (though in color !) photo of Dye and Ozuna high fiving each other. Mind you, the Sox have played a game in each of these past 3 days, going 2-1. The Cubs were off Monday, yet, Tuesday morning still waranted the full large color photo. So if I have this straight, it goes:

1) (Defending WS Champ & 1st place) Sox & Cubs play on same day, Cubs get most of the front page

2) Cubs play, Sox off, Cubs get most of front page

3) SOX play and Cubs off, Cubs get most of the front page

Scottiehaswheels
05-18-2006, 09:51 AM
Does it really matter? Cubs get no coverage in October but we're gonna get plenty!!!!

Hitmen77
05-18-2006, 09:56 AM
The evidence is damning.

Has Brian Anderson gotten as much ink as Corey Patterson did in his first two months as the Cubs starting CF a few years back?

Where are all the puff pieces on ...
How about stories on .....?

Where are the stories on ...........
.

Well?

Hello?

The silence is deafening from the so-called journalists at the Cub-Times and Cubune who make editorial decisions and assess news value on the basis of the canons of journalism.
:kukoo:

Nope, nothing interesting to discuss regarding the Sox. All these interesting players and staff, historic run to the world title last year, on pace to win 108 games this year, locked in a battle for 1st with a team that shares the best record in baseball. Face it, Chicagoans just don't care about any of this stuff.

The media for years have held the Cubs and Sox to a double standard.
Cub fans not pulling for Sox in playoffs = loyal, dedicated, sticking to principles
Sox fans not pulling for Cubs in playoffs = bitter, jealous, terrible fans

Fan incidents at Wrigley = passionate fans, lively crowd, best fans in baseball, "isolated" incidents.
Fan incidents at Cell = dangerous, violent, low-brow, worst fans anywhere, "recurring problems"

Media coverage when Cubs are doing well and Sox aren't ('98, '04) = Overwhelming Cubs coverage because everyone loves a winner. Ignore the Sox because they're not in contention and they're irrelevant.

Media coverage when the Sox are doing well and Cubs aren't ('00, '05, '06) =
The Sox are boring because they're winning. There's no controversy, thus no interest in a winning team. The Cubs are more interesting because there's so much more to talk about when a team is losing.


I really thought winning the World Series would change things in the media, but it hasn't changed that much. The problem is that the media is full of Cub-lovings boobs and the media outlets only care about pandering to the Cubs idiotic fan base instead of supporting a championship team.

Hangar18
05-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Nope, nothing interesting to discuss regarding the Sox. All these interesting players and staff, historic run to the world title last year, on pace to win 108 games this year, locked in a battle for 1st with a team that shares the best record in baseball. Face it, Chicagoans just don't care about any of this stuff.

The media for years have held the Cubs and Sox to a double standard.
Cub fans not pulling for Sox in playoffs = loyal, dedicated, sticking to principles
Sox fans not pulling for Cubs in playoffs = bitter, jealous, terrible fans

Fan incidents at Wrigley = passionate fans, lively crowd, best fans in baseball, "isolated" incidents.
Fan incidents at Cell = dangerous, violent, low-brow, worst fans anywhere, "recurring problems"

Media coverage when Cubs are doing well and Sox aren't ('98, '04) = Overwhelming Cubs coverage because everyone loves a winner. Ignore the Sox because they're not in contention and they're irrelevant.

Media coverage when the Sox are doing well and Cubs aren't ('00, '05, '06) =
The Sox are boring because they're winning. There's no controversy, thus no interest in a winning team. The Cubs are more interesting because there's so much more to talk about when a team is losing.


in 2004, the Cubs werent even doing GOOD, they were brutal most of the year. IN 03 the Media Told us that they were going Hog Wild with Media coverage for the Cubs was because they were "winning" and the Sox were losing, and if we "win" we'll get the "coverage" winkwink. The rules
changed the very next year ......

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=33538&highlight=chicago+newsmedia+watch

In case anyone needs proof, the Cubs that year led us by nearly
200 Stories !!!!!!!!! That was the year a tv station used a Traffic Copter to film Wood/Messiah throwing practice pitches!

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2006, 10:30 AM
The mediots told us that all the Sox had to do to get equal coverage was to win. They did. So what's the excuse now?

Losing is more interesting? :roflmao:

It's nothing more than a lame, stupid excuse to cover up the Tribune's BLATANT pro-Cubs, pro-corporate, pro-401K bias, and the rag with the second most subscriptions in the city chasing the rag with the most subscriptions.

:giantsnail

1951Campbell
05-18-2006, 10:47 AM
The mediots told us that all the Sox had to do to get equal coverage was to win. They did. So what's the excuse now?

Losing is more interesting? :roflmao:



I would also add that George Knue's absence in these threads is quite conspicuous and telling.

WizardsofOzzie
05-18-2006, 11:01 AM
Last line of sportscenter while talking about the sox/d-rays game on ESPN2

"The sox try to keep up with those detroit tigers"

KEEP UP WITH!??? ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME!!!????

voodoochile
05-18-2006, 11:11 AM
Funny you'd think the Sun-Times would figure it out. They have a huge market to tap if they just start covering the Sox with some fire. I mean flubbie fans are going to read the Cubune, it's that simple, but with more and more Sox fans fed up with the obvious bias in the Cubune, the Times has a chance to grab market share. All they have to do is start doing some of the stuff suggested in this thread. Human interest pieces, a little hype, a little passion and the tide will turn for them at least a little bit.

Still they persist in playing follow the leader...

BainesHOF
05-18-2006, 11:13 AM
Tribune and Sun-Times employees, why have you printed so many more stories on the Cubs than Sox stories?

George Knue
05-18-2006, 11:16 AM
I would also add that George Knue's absence in these threads is quite conspicuous and telling.

Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

Telling? Disagreeing with people on WSI would be a fulltime job -- and I do have other things to do. There is a series of baseball games this weekend that Chicago sports fans are interested in.

Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

If people need or want to talk to me, I have an e-mail address that is easy to find.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

maurice
05-18-2006, 11:16 AM
This is positively Orwellian. They'll spin any fact to suit their purposes, even if it requires them to contradict themselves in a single article.

The Cubs get more coverage in 2003, because they are winning. Winning = more coverage.
The Cubs get more coverage in 2006, because they are losing. Losing = more coverage.

Trixie doesn't get in trouble for assaulting a player, because it's common to throw balls onto the field. Throwing balls = okay / usual.
Trixie doesn't get in trouble for assaulting a player, because it's an "isolated incident." Thowing balls = okay / unusual.

*****. Stop embarrassing yourselves, Chicago media.

maurice
05-18-2006, 11:18 AM
Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

Telling? Disagreeing with people on WSI would be a fulltime job -- and I do have other things to do. There is a series of baseball games this weekend that Chicago sports fans are interested in.

Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

If people need or want to talk to me, I have an e-mail address that is easy to find.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

In other words, you have no substantive response to this nonsense.

Chip Z'nuff
05-18-2006, 11:21 AM
Hey Trib, Hey Times, guess what WSI is the voice of the people. And our voice can now be heard loud and clear!!! Your biased reporting no longer sits in the back of individuals minds, opinions can now be shared. I back WSI I do not back you guys.

EDIT: and I back the Southtown :)

BainesHOF
05-18-2006, 11:24 AM
Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Explain why you are printing so many more stories on the Cubs than the Sox. What's so difficult about that?

tebman
05-18-2006, 11:26 AM
Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

I suspect he's gone now, but thanks anyway, George.

Yeah, we have plenty of axes to grind with your company. To your enduring credit, however, you're the one who has tried to address our substantive complaints.

If nothing else, I hope that when you lurk and read that you pass on something of value to anyone inside the fortress who has more interest than Don Wycliff did when he told us all to get a grip.

Thanks for entering the hive again.

maurice
05-18-2006, 11:31 AM
This is positively Orwellian. They'll spin any fact to suit their purposes, even if it requires them to contradict themselves in a single article.

Some specific examples from today's Cubune:

Headline = Baker: Bleacher incident isolated....
"She said she saw people throwing balls back on TV," ....
The Cubs declined to have the woman arrested...because the [B]two-decade-old tradition of throwing back opposing teams' home-run balls makes it hard to single out someone for doing likewise. A marketing department official said the Cubs are not going to ask fans to stop the tradition, despite Tuesday's incident....
Baker said. "I don't think this will be a situation where people are copycats, because people don't want to get in trouble...."

I wanted her—or whomever the guilty party was—to know the Cubs were willing to let it slide, just this once. No harm, no foul. "She probably had too much to drink," Dusty Baker said, which sure did seem to be the popular consensus in the park. According to the Cubs' manager, the woman had seen many a fan on TV throw a ball back onto the field....
It is no picnic out there in that outfield. Jacque Jones has found out the hard way that Wrigley Field is no Love Boat....
Jones shrugged off the near bleacher-beaning with a determined vow: "I am not going to let one isolated incident affect the way I play or the way I carry myself. I will not."...
Next time up, Jones got another hit. He smartly kept the ball in the park, so no drunk could heave it back....
In case overserved Bleacher Bums have been slow to notice, the right fielder is not the man to blame for the Cubs' early troubles....

Looks like the Cubs brass handed out talking points at the team meeting:
- Being drunk and throwing balls onto the field is an "isolated incident" that is extremely common.
- We won't punish irrational drunks when they continue to throw balls onto the field, but the drunks won't throw balls onto the field for fear of punishment.
Their mindless servants at the Cubune certainly got the message.

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2006, 11:37 AM
Their mindless servants at the Cubune certainly got the message.

For better or for worse, their 401K plans are tied to the success of the Tribune Corporation. They have positively no interest in doing anything that might hurt any subsidiary of the company that puts bread on their dinner tables.

Chip Z'nuff
05-18-2006, 11:48 AM
For better or for worse, their 401K plans are tied to the success of the Tribune Corporation. They have positively no interest in doing anything that might hurt any subsidiary of the company that puts bread on their dinner tables.

BINGO!!
And as for the Times, they have to follow suit cause the writers don't want to get "blackballed" in case they need to find another job. The broadcast media also plays along for the same reason.

1951Campbell
05-18-2006, 12:27 PM
Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

Telling? Disagreeing with people on WSI would be a fulltime job -- and I do have other things to do. There is a series of baseball games this weekend that Chicago sports fans are interested in.

Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

If people need or want to talk to me, I have an e-mail address that is easy to find.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Yes, conspicuous and telling. First off, 2006 provides a good answer to the question "who gets more coverage if the Sox are defending World Champs and the Cubs are out of it in May." Long we were told that winning would shift coverage. You need to have a year like 2003! Well, consider it done! The Sox even won it all in 2005. But lo, in 2006 it turns out a team that is coming apart at the seams and has no chance to make the playoffs is more interesting. Kind of like a car wreck, I guess. Why the dramatic reversal in the Trib's First Principle of which team should get more coverage? And answers came there none. All there was was "caveat emptor" and tut-tutting about "moral ambiguity." Of course, that was from Wycliff and not you, so let us not blame you for that.

However, Mr. Knue, you just typed about 100 words to simply say "it's not worth posting here." I'm sure you could answer the question "why do you do more stories about the Cubs" in about 25 words or less if you so desired. I'm sure you could tell us why Ligue sending back his eggs benedict at a diner is front page news but intoxicated bleacher creatures throwing around baseballs and the n-word is of no note to sports fans in the Chicago area. But instead we get "I'd tell you, but you wouldn't believe me anyway."

And Jesus, that's petulant kids' stuff.

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2006, 12:41 PM
However, Mr. Knue, you just typed about 100 words to simply say "it's not worth posting here." I'm sure you could answer the question "why do you do more stories about the Cubs" in about 25 words or less if you so desired. I'm sure you could tell us why Ligue sending back his eggs benedict at a diner is front page news but intoxicated bleacher creatures throwing around baseballs and the n-word is of no note to sports fans in the Chicago area. But instead we get "I'd tell you, but you wouldn't believe me anyway."

He could tell us, but the Tribune would fire him on the spot. At the very least he would get a long suspension without pay.

I would fully expect George to say something to the effect of "the Cubs are a bigger story/have greater news value/are of more interest to our readers/etc.," because that is standard, j-school indoctrinated, talking-points memo jargon to distract from the real truth, that financial interests subtly but significantly affect news coverage.

"Man bites dog" indeed. :rolleyes:

Someone once said that fish would be the last creatures on earth to declare the existence of water. Tribune employees are the last people on earth who would acknowledge or admit a pro-Cubs bias.

ChiSoxLifer
05-18-2006, 12:56 PM
George

I also wonder why in the online edition, the headline reads "Ex-Sox Slugger arrested for stalking." The actual AP headline in every other single website reads "Albert Belle arrested again on stalking charge". The actual freaking article barely even mentions that he played in Chicago. This is the bull**** that I'm so sick of reading about in the ****ing Tribune. You guys run with every opportunity to associate the White Sox with criminal activity. The Sun-Times runs the article and it reads "Ex-slugger". The Daily Herald and the Daily Southtown didn't even bother running it. Yes he played for the White Sox and he was a jerk. Why is it the Tribune is the only media outlet who highlights this fact?


Please, tell us again why you don't think the Tribune is biased against the White Sox?
-Karl

palehozenychicty
05-18-2006, 01:05 PM
George

I also wonder why in the online edition, the headline reads "Ex-Sox Slugger arrested for stalking." The actual AP headline in every other single website reads "Albert Belle arrested again on stalking charge". The actual freaking article barely even mentions that he played in Chicago. This is the bull**** that I'm so sick of reading about in the ****ing Tribune. You guys run with every opportunity to associate the White Sox with criminal activity. The Sun-Times runs the article and it reads "Ex-slugger". The Daily Herald and the Daily Southtown didn't even bother running it. Yes he played for the White Sox and he was a jerk. Why is it the Tribune is the only media outlet who highlights this fact?


Please, tell us again why you don't think the Tribune is biased against the White Sox?
-Karl


I just read it on the Tribune wire report as well, saying "Ex-Sox slugger again...". But on CBS Sportsline, it reads "Ex-Indian". Still, George, tell us how the Tribune is partial to both the Cubs and White Sox. Tell us. Especially when you print an article about a physicist's opinion on why the White Sox won the World Series. A PHYSICIST'S OPINION!??! The relevance of this is what....?

Your employer has brought journalism and intelligent reporting to shame, and that's being kind.

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2006, 01:07 PM
George

I also wonder why in the online edition, the headline reads "Ex-Sox Slugger arrested for stalking." The actual AP headline in every other single website reads "Albert Belle arrested again on stalking charge". The actual freaking article barely even mentions that he played in Chicago. This is the bull**** that I'm so sick of reading about in the ****ing Tribune. You guys run with every opportunity to associate the White Sox with criminal activity. The Sun-Times runs the article and it reads "Ex-slugger". The Daily Herald and the Daily Southtown didn't even bother running it. Yes he played for the White Sox and he was a jerk. Why is it the Tribune is the only media outlet who highlights this fact?


Please, tell us again why you don't think the Tribune is biased against the White Sox?
-Karl

With that in mind, can we all expect that whenever a player who played approximately two seasons with the Cubs gets into trouble, like, say, Candy Moldanado, Glenallen Hill or George Bell, the Tribune (print or on-line) will use the headline to identify them as "Ex-Cubs"?

Oh, and let's make sure Hangar updates his media watch stats to include this Albert Belle story in the Sox column....
:kukoo:

TDog
05-18-2006, 01:14 PM
I just read it on the Tribune wire report as well, saying "Ex-Sox slugger again...". But on CBS Sportsline, it reads "Ex-Indian". ....

It's a Chicago newspaper. In Baltimore, or Baton Rouge, La., he wouldn't be reported as "ex-Indian" either, unless the editors were extremely lazy.

maurice
05-18-2006, 01:16 PM
Why is it the Tribune is the only media outlet who highlights this fact?

For the same reason that the Tribune was the only media outlet to downplay Trixiegate, the Wrigley murder, the Wrigleyville rapists, the crumbling Wrigley ediface that nearly killed at least one customer, etc.

Contrast the treatment of Trixiegate in the Sun-Times, which called out the Cubs for their BS spin control and actually reported the racial ephitets being hurled at Jones.

With that in mind, can we all expect that whenever a player who played approximately two seasons with the Cubs gets into trouble, like, say, Candy Moldanado, Glenallen Hill or George Bell, the Tribune (print or on-line) will use the headline to identify them as "Ex-Cubs"?

Be fair, Frater. Don't you remember all the Trib headlines announcing that "Ex-Cub Rafael Palmiero" tested positive for steroids?
:rolleyes:

daveeym
05-18-2006, 01:41 PM
With that in mind, can we all expect that whenever a player who played approximately two seasons with the Cubs gets into trouble, like, say, Candy Moldanado, Glenallen Hill or George Bell, the Tribune (print or on-line) will use the headline to identify them as "Ex-Cubs"?

Oh, and let's make sure Hangar updates his media watch stats to include this Albert Belle story in the Sox column....
:kukoo: I believe that can be examined. Didn't George Bell get into some trouble over the last couple years? They'd still say ex-sox anyways since he had 2 years on the south side.

Hangar18
05-18-2006, 01:50 PM
...............................were extremely lazy.



I saw the Words EXTREMELY LAZY and figured you guys were talking about
the Chicago Media

kkappelk
05-18-2006, 02:28 PM
The evidence is damning.

Has Brian Anderson gotten as much ink as Corey Patterson did in his first two months as the Cubs starting CF a few years back?

Where are all the puff pieces on Peoria's own Jim Thome? How does he feel/approach replacing both a grinder in Carl Everett and the Sox all-time greatest hitter, Frank Thomas? In what ways has he ingratiated himself into the fabric of the team off the field? How does he feel about being on pace for over 60 homers this year?

How about stories on Scott Podsednik's metoeric rise since his ice-cold start?

Where are the stories on Joe Crede? Aramis Ramirez has gotten much more press than Crede.

How many feature stories have been written about Ozzie's kids? One-tenth as many as Dusty Baker's kid, if that?

Any special features on Iguchi? He's only the first Japanese position player ever to start for a World Series winner, after all.

Does Bobby Jenks, with every bit the fastball and curveball as the media darling Carrie Wood, and who (according to Dave Wills) was the first rookie ever to earn the save in a deciding game of a World Series, and who has an interesting human interest story of overcoming a great number of obstacles in his life, deserve a puff piece by Melissa Isaacson or Carol Slezak?

How about a story on Tim Raines? Harold Baines? Joey Cora? Greg Walker? (FWIW, the "out loud" piece on Walker doesn't count as journalism, it's merely edited stenography of hooking up a tape recorder and pressing "record." Any trained money or office lackey could put it together.) All were Sox players at some point, and lived seasons of disappointment. How does it feel for them to have been a part of the championship team? How does it feel for them to enter into a new season as coaches for the defending champs?

How about a story about Javier Vasquez, the once-coveted starting pitcher, abandoned by the Yankees, coming to pitch as the #5 for the world champs? Can you imagine what kind of ink he would have gotten had he come to the Cubs?

Well?

Hello?

The silence is deafening from the so-called journalists at the Cub-Times and Cubune who make editorial decisions and assess news value on the basis of the canons of journalism.
:kukoo:

That is an impressive list. You should send it in to suntimes and cubune to give there lazy behinds some help. Perhaps we should even start writing the articles for them.

chuckn98229
05-18-2006, 03:07 PM
I would also add that George Knue's absence in these threads is quite conspicuous and telling.

Yeah, where is George Knue - Chicago's very own version of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. I am sure we would find his vigorous defense of his cubune management and their journalistic integrity very, very amusing.

tebman
05-18-2006, 03:10 PM
Yeah, where is George Knue - Chicago's very own version of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. I am sure we would find his vigorous defense of his cubune management and their journalistic integrity very, very amusing.
You missed him...he made a brief guest appearance earlier today. Scroll up in this thread and you can read of his exasperation.

He says we always find that the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. How does that go? If the shoe fits...

maurice
05-18-2006, 03:18 PM
He says we always find that the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty.

In his twisted mind, this unsubstantiated catchphrase creates a "reason" to discount the mountain of evidence against the Cubune. Apparently, if the burden of proof is skewed, then the overwhelming evidence of guilt does not need to be rebutted.
:rolleyes:

He's taking a page from the late great Jonnie Cochran. When the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, try to baffle the jury with bull**** catchphrases. This is just Knue's version of "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

miker
05-18-2006, 04:00 PM
It's amazing that the windsock is the most readable schmuck in the city right now. It's obviously he's just fluttering with the direction of the breeze as always but ****, he's the only one calling out the horsejive.
Well since Moronotti has never met a butt he couldn't kiss, it's not that much a surprise. But we Sox fans still should have enough sense to dismiss his attempts to get on our good side.

Sorry Jay...you still suck!

1951Campbell
05-18-2006, 07:03 PM
In his twisted mind, this unsubstantiated catchphrase creates a "reason" to discount the mountain of evidence against the Cubune. Apparently, if the burden of proof is skewed, then the overwhelming evidence of guilt does not need to be rebutted.
:rolleyes:

He's taking a page from the late great Jonnie Cochran. When the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, try to baffle the jury with bull**** catchphrases. This is just Knue's version of "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

Agreed, counselor.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Behold with your own eyes the "inherently conflicted situation" (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=1&id=2947&PHPSESSID=f59575bfb75c0eeb7f0a5cbe74aff22f) Cubune CEO Dennis FitzSimmons has placed poor, poor George Knue...

:roflmao:

Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

Telling? Disagreeing with people on WSI would be a fulltime job -- and I do have other things to do. There is a series of baseball games this weekend that Chicago sports fans are interested in.

Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

If people need or want to talk to me, I have an e-mail address that is easy to find.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Don Wycliff was right. At least he had enough integrity to stop being a hypocrite and quit his public editor's job at the Tribune. What excuse can we make for someone as petulant as you, George?

Johnny Mostil
05-19-2006, 08:06 AM
Conspicuous? I post here about once every two months, generally in response to something that is wrong. I look -- because it's important to me to hear what are saying. But I don't always post.

Telling? Disagreeing with people on WSI would be a fulltime job -- and I do have other things to do. There is a series of baseball games this weekend that Chicago sports fans are interested in.

Lastly -- why should I come here? Everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if I present arguments that refute the often ridiculous statements that are made here, those arguments are mocked ... and given no credence. In the eyes of the people who post here, the Tribune is guilty until proven guilty. I have a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

If people need or want to talk to me, I have an e-mail address that is easy to find.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Wow! Is the Cub series this weekend! Thanks for pointing that out! I'll bet nobody here knew that! I guess that means, by (your?) definition, coverage of the teams will be equal this weekend, and we should check out the Tribune and chicagosports.com for all our Sox news! Thanks for the tip!

Here's one from me! Sox fans--who, by my definition, include a great number of Chicago sports fans--think all Sox series are important. In fact, some of us even think series against ALC rivals are more important than those against a fifth-place NLC team.

Aw, heck, I'm feeling generous, so here's another tip! You do much better--as you have sometimes albeit only in part in the past--when you point out that story count isn't everything, that the "methodology" used for the story count is sometimes bizarre, that content, context, and placement can all be more important. You might even want to discuss word count or column inches. Surely somebody at the Tribune has analyzed the potential problem and can either systematically debunk perceptions of it, or correct it, no? You could even note that with the plethora of web sites such as WSI or those for your competitors the Sox can't possibly be undercovered, but the Trib aims for different types of stories such as those you could discuss in general terms. Some of us would like to know about that, and what unique general angle we can expect from Trib or chicagosports.com coverage of the team!

Which brings me to a third tip! Not "[e]veryone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds" on this topic! At least I hadn't until I read your post--and now I'm wondering if I was a fool not to do so beforehand.

And here's a fourth, unrelated, tip! Get somebody from here to redesign your Gil Thorp message boards! I don't think Gil is biased against the Sox (a topic of discussion last fall, I recall), but the message boards for him sure are tough to navigate . . .

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 08:19 AM
Don Wycliff was right. At least he had enough integrity to stop being a hypocrite and quit his public editor's job at the Tribune. What excuse can we make for someone as petulant as you, George?

How about "moral ambiguity is part of the human condition"?

SBSoxFan
05-19-2006, 10:32 AM
Now I don't even come close to sharing Hangar's passion regarding media bias. However, I read this yesterday, and just had to comment.

The chat transcript is here. (http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=722)

Below is the response I sent to USAToday, asking them to forward it to Hal Bodley, and to the folks at the tribune.

************************

Dear Mr. Bodley,

I wanted to comment on your responses to "Chicago, Illinois" and "Charleston, South Carolina" regarding the Cubs during USAToday's online chat of Thursday, May 18. Why is it that many Cubs' fans and the media portray the Cubs as victims? Granted, losing an every-day player the caliber of Derek Lee would negatively impact any team. However, the Cubs haven't been "dealt a terrible hand with injuries" as you suggested. In recent years, other than Ramirez on and off, the rest of the team's major injuries have been to the same players in consecutive years. Players who constantly get hurt are either injury prone or poorly coached/trained. If it's the previous, you change the player. If it's the latter, you change the coaches. Let's look at what the Cubs did to address these problems.

First, in the case of Lee, who plays FIRST base, they brought up Theriot, a SECOND baseman. So, after that move, they still have no regular first baseman and 3 second basemen on the roster. Theriot was called up 11 days ago and has a grand total of 3 at bats in 9 games! Second, in the case of losing two starters, the apparent move was to overpay for middle relief. Mind you, this was not a sudden loss of two starting pitchers; they knew well before the season started neither Wood nor Prior would be back anytime close to the start of the season. And let's not kid ourselves, as Chicago, Illinois wrote, that Wood is one of the top 2 pitchers on the Cubs' staff. The reactions to these injuries speak to two glaring weaknesses: a lack of depth in the minor leagues, and a lack of ability to make short-term adjustments. Who's to blame for this, bad luck as the reader from Chicago suggested? No, this is simply a result of poor planning, and the inability of the organization's GM and manager to concoct a coherent, long-term plan.

On a second issue, you added to the delusions of the reader from Charleston, South Carolina by partly blaming the 2003 playoff debacle on fan interference. Let us all be reminded that it was NOT fan interference. The ball was in the stands, and, thus, was fair game for the fans. After that play, there was plenty of blame to go around; however, it all lay with the players on the field, not a single fan in the stands. It's bad enough that 3 years later the Cubs still blame a fan for losing the chance to go to the world series. It's even worse that national media perpetuates this inane position.

It takes a little luck to get to and to win a world series. The rest relies on talent, playing as a team, and intestinal fortitude to weather the inevitable storms of a 7-month season. Failure to display these characteristics on the baseball field, and failure to prepare for contingencies doesn't make an organization a victim. Rather it makes an organization a loser, and not a lovable one. Let's try to remember that.

BainesHOF
05-19-2006, 10:35 AM
Knue's rambling post is hardly befitting of a journalism professional. It might be time to start conducting drug testing not only in the Cubs clubhouse, but also in the Tribune tower. The post was just plain weird.

voodoochile
05-19-2006, 11:16 AM
Knue's rambling post is hardly befitting of a journalism professional. It might be time to start conducting drug testing not only in the Cubs clubhouse, but also in the Tribune tower. The post was just plain weird.

Even weirder that he would take the time to come post it strictly because someone mentioned his name...:?:

:knue
"I'm still here. I read this site all the time. You say Knue and I appear like magic. However, I got nothing to say, because all of you are crazy delusional and nothing I say would have any effect on your beliefs. So all I stopped by to say is, 'I got nothing to say'. "

Hangar18
05-19-2006, 11:19 AM
Now I don't even come close to sharing Hangar's passion regarding media bias. However, I read this yesterday, and just had to comment.

The chat transcript is here. (http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=722)

Below is the response I sent to USAToday, asking them to forward it to Hal Bodley, and to the folks at the tribune.

************************

Dear Mr. Bodley,

I wanted to comment on your responses to "Chicago, Illinois" and "Charleston, South Carolina" regarding the Cubs during USAToday's online chat of Thursday, May 18. Why is it that many Cubs' fans and the media portray the Cubs as victims? Granted, losing an every-day player the caliber of Derek Lee would negatively impact any team. However, the Cubs haven't been "dealt a terrible hand with injuries" as you suggested. In recent years, other than Ramirez on and off, the rest of the team's major injuries have been to the same players in consecutive years. Players who constantly get hurt are either injury prone or poorly coached/trained. If it's the previous, you change the player. If it's the latter, you change the coaches. Let's look at what the Cubs did to address these problems.

First, in the case of Lee, who plays FIRST base, they brought up Theriot, a SECOND baseman. So, after that move, they still have no regular first baseman and 3 second basemen on the roster. Theriot was called up 11 days ago and has a grand total of 3 at bats in 9 games! Second, in the case of losing two starters, the apparent move was to overpay for middle relief. Mind you, this was not a sudden loss of two starting pitchers; they knew well before the season started neither Wood nor Prior would be back anytime close to the start of the season. And let's not kid ourselves, as Chicago, Illinois wrote, that Wood is one of the top 2 pitchers on the Cubs' staff. The reactions to these injuries speak to two glaring weaknesses: a lack of depth in the minor leagues, and a lack of ability to make short-term adjustments. Who's to blame for this, bad luck as the reader from Chicago suggested? No, this is simply a result of poor planning, and the inability of the organization's GM and manager to concoct a coherent, long-term plan.

On a second issue, you added to the delusions of the reader from Charleston, South Carolina by partly blaming the 2003 playoff debacle on fan interference. Let us all be reminded that it was NOT fan interference. The ball was in the stands, and, thus, was fair game for the fans. After that play, there was plenty of blame to go around; however, it all lay with the players on the field, not a single fan in the stands. It's bad enough that 3 years later the Cubs still blame a fan for losing the chance to go to the world series. It's even worse that national media perpetuates this inane position.

It takes a little luck to get to and to win a world series. The rest relies on talent, playing as a team, and intestinal fortitude to weather the inevitable storms of a 7-month season. Failure to display these characteristics on the baseball field, and failure to prepare for contingencies doesn't make an organization a victim. Rather it makes an organization a loser, and not a lovable one. Let's try to remember that.

WELL DONE

Jerko
05-19-2006, 11:20 AM
Even weirder that he would take the time to come post it strictly because someone mentioned his name...:?:

:knue
"I'm still here. I read this site all the time. You say Knue and I appear like magic. However, I got nothing to say, because all of you are crazy delusional and nothing I say would have any effect on your beliefs. So all I stopped by to say is, 'I got nothing to say'. "

Sounds like he wrote Sammy's Capital Hill lines. "All I can say, is I can not say", or "All I know, is that I do not know". :rolleyes:

ode to veeck
05-19-2006, 11:22 AM
amidst a lot of amazingly stupid drivel it just hits me how clueless (or intentionally deluded) this guy is

hard to imagine a person in such a position placing the blame on the Scrubs playoff collapse on "fan interference".

I'm surprized the Trib gets the date correct on the front page!

gobears1987
05-19-2006, 11:25 AM
George Knue's refusal to answer a simple question on why there is such an imbalance in Hangar's count is very damning against the Cubune.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 11:29 AM
George Knue's refusal to answer a simple question on why there is such an imbalance in Hangar's count is very damning against the Cubune.

Not as damning as what's coming out about MacPhail/Hendry and McGrath/Sullivan.

Johnny Mostil
05-19-2006, 11:31 AM
hard to imagine a person in such a position placing the blame on the Scrubs playoff collapse on "fan interference".


Say what? What else could it have been? A $5M/yr. shortstop blowing a routine double-play ball? That's routine in Cubdumb! But a hapless fan reaching for a foul ball--that's special . . .

SBSoxFan
05-19-2006, 11:31 AM
WELL DONE

Thanks! :smile: