PDA

View Full Version : Sneed: McGrath/Sullivan Berated by MacPhail/Hendry


Viva Medias B's
05-19-2006, 09:10 AM
Michael Sneed is reporting (http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed/cst-nws-sneed19.html) this morning that Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry talked like an angry Ozzie to Dan McGrath and Paul Sullivan last week at Wrigley Field. Wow. And I thought we were tough on McGrath and Sully.

The image of Andy McSweaterVest spewing expletives would be a sight to behold.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 09:29 AM
HA!

Boy, that Chinese wall between business and editorial is high and impenetrable! Yep! No biases or conflicts here!

I know a certain someone whom I'm sure could explain why Cubs' brass is trying to dictate how coverage will go, but everyone who frequents these forums has already made up their minds and even if that person presents 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. This certain someone has a hard time justifying spending too much time here when it's that kind of game.

cheeses_h_rice
05-19-2006, 10:00 AM
Hey, Andy and Jim, what's that phrase? You can't polish a turd? Deal with it. You guys suck.

:)

Dan Mega
05-19-2006, 10:01 AM
Boy, that Chinese wall between business and editorial is high and impenetrable! Yep! No biases or conflicts here!

Nope, not at all!

MadetoOrta
05-19-2006, 10:04 AM
What stuns me about this thread is the absence of Hangar. :tongue:

tebman
05-19-2006, 10:19 AM
HA!

Boy, that Chinese wall between business and editorial is high and impenetrable! Yep! No biases or conflicts here!
It's a shame. Here's what George Knue posted last year in response to something I wrote regarding this topic:

Lastly, one of you says this: “George's whole premise seems to be that the newspaper has a holy moat around it that is never, ever, under any circumstances, breached by the rabble in the corporate business office.”

I wouldn’t phrase it quite that way because I don’t think people in the corporate business office are rabble, but yes, that’s it. The editorial department of the newspaper is an entity that maintains a distance from the rest of the company – including the Cubs. It is affected by business decisions – as noted above. But its job is not to be a corporate shill.

And it isn’t. And no one has asked it to be.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

Now, we can take some of what Sneed writes with a grain of salt because she's a gossip columnist and she clearly has an interest in dissing the competition. But I'd like to see whether we're going to read a denial of this incident in the Tribune. I doubt it.

And the beat goes on.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 10:41 AM
It's a shame. Here's what George Knue posted last year in response to something I wrote regarding this topic:



Now, we can take some of what Sneed writes with a grain of salt because she's a gossip columnist and she clearly has an interest in dissing the competition. But I'd like to see whether we're going to read a denial of this incident in the Tribune. I doubt it.

And the beat goes on.

A shame, perhaps, but entirely predictable.

Hangar18
05-19-2006, 11:24 AM
Thats awesome. There are people (flub fans, mediots, other fanbases)
who laugh and say SOX fans are jealous, conspiracy theorists etc. Why would the president of a team yell at the editor and reporter? Yup, who says the Tribune (and the copycat/afraid-to-take-a-stand SunTimes) doesnt
have an INTEREST in promoting a team it owns?

SOXPHILE
05-19-2006, 11:41 AM
http://www.tribune.com/images/stock/dennisbw.jpg
"NOW HEAR THIS ! You must have a talk with those whelps over in our sporting department. While I was at this afternoon's polo match, it came to my attention that they may have spoken or written ill of this Chicago Baseball Club that we own. I WILL TOLERATE NONE OF THIS INSOLENCE ! That is Chicago Tribune property they dare defile, and this shall not stand. I have so decreed ! Off with you now ! Go, go !


:lynch&mcfail
"Yes, Your Majesty ! Right Away Sir ! We'll take care of them right away. Will there be anything else sir ? Did you want us to make them and that Eric Zorn fella' wash your Rolls Royce again ? I think they're still cleaning all your chandeliers at one of your summer cottages with Teddy Greenstein, and feeding the horses, but as soon as they're done, we'll get them started on that right away !

DrCrawdad
05-19-2006, 11:43 AM
It's a shame. Here's what George Knue posted last year in response to something I wrote regarding this topic:



Now, we can take some of what Sneed writes with a grain of salt because she's a gossip columnist and she clearly has an interest in dissing the competition. But I'd like to see whether we're going to read a denial of this incident in the Tribune. I doubt it.

And the beat goes on.

Put away that grain of salt. Sullivan was on with Mike North and he said that it all happened. Sully said he and his boss were called into McFail's office where Sully was berated for his negative coverage of the Cubs.

Amazing, simply amazing.
http://www.spiderwebart.com/images/art/101946.jpg
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 12:01 PM
Put away that grain of salt. Sullivan was on with Mike North and he said that it all happened. Sully was called down to berate him on his "negative" coverage of the Cubs.

Amazing, simply amazing.


Mr. Knue, is Cub brass discussing coverage in this manner with McGrath and Sullivan appropriate?

voodoochile
05-19-2006, 12:21 PM
So when do McGrath and Sully visit USCF to hear what Ozzie and KW have to say about their coverage of the Sox? :?:

maurice
05-19-2006, 12:22 PM
we can take some of what Sneed writes with a grain of salt because she's a gossip columnist and she clearly has an interest in dissing the competition.

Normally I'd agree, but Sullivan not only confirmed the story, he also added details that make it worse. Here's what Sullivan said on the radio this morning (I took notes):

The Sneed article is true. He's surprised that it got out, because he thought the conversations were private. It actually was multiple conversations. The conversation with McPhail was a set meeting in McPhail's office with McGrath present about 4 weeks ago. Sullivan and other Trib employees have had multiple other conversations with Hendry and other Cubs officials on the same topic, to wit: they complained that the Trib should be more biased in favor of the Cubs, and that the Sun-Times is "out-Tribbing the Trib" in terms of positive Cubs content. McPhail feels that the Trib is the "house organ" of the Cubs, because they are both subsidiaries of the same corporation. This type of conversation has occurred repeatedly over the years that the Trib has owned the Cubs, because Cub officials believe that the Trib is their "house organ" (Sullivan used this term repeatedly). Sullivan feels that he is less pro-Cub that the Sun-Times, and that McGrath supports him against McPhail. He offered to provide much more negative information on this topic but doesn't want to do it on the air.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 12:27 PM
The Sneed article is true. He's surprised that it got out, because he thought the conversations were private. It actually was multiple conversations. The conversation with McPhail was a set meeting in McPhail's office with McGrath present about 4 weeks ago. Sullivan and other Trib employees have had multiple other conversations with Hendry and other Cubs officials on the same topic, to wit: they complained that the Trib should be more biased in favor of the Cubs, and that the Sun-Times is "out-Tribbing the Trib" in terms of positive Cubs content. McPhail feels that the Trib is the "house organ" of the Cubs, because they are both subsidiaries of the same corporation. This type of conversation has occurred repeatedly over the years that the Trib has owned the Cubs, because Cub officials believe that the Trib is their "house organ" (Sullivan used this term repeatedly). Sullivan feels that he is less pro-Cub that the Sun-Times, and that McGrath supports him against McPhail. He offered to provide much more negative information on this topic but doesn't want to do it on the air.

Quite the smoking gun there.

jdm2662
05-19-2006, 12:28 PM
I'd like to think the reporters at the Trib would be happy if the TribCo sold the Cubs. I mean, come on. It's one thing when the team is playing well, but how many fluff pieces can you write when the state of the team is what it is? All you would be doing is insulting the intelligence of your readers. I know Paul Sullivan is a Cubs fan as well. You don't think he's got his own opinions he'd like to lash out? He gets some flack here (maybe some deserved), but I don't care to be influenced on how to do my job. I don't think he likes it either.

maurice
05-19-2006, 12:30 PM
Mr. Knue, is Cub brass discussing coverage in this manner with McGrath and Sullivan appropriate?

Also, why do the Cubs feel that the Trib is their "house organ"? Why do they share WSI's alleged irrational feeling that the Trib is "guilty until proven guilty"? Why does a Cub executive have the power to summon the Trib sports editor and a columnist into his office for a dressing down? Why didn't McGrath just tell him to **** off in the interests of journalistic integrity? What reason does he have to allow this repeated occurrence to keep repeating, other than the obvious (fear of reprisal)?

That old, tired "separate entity" argument sure went up in smoke fast.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 12:37 PM
Also, why do the Cubs feel that the Trib is their "house organ"?

That's what gets me. 1,000 times we've been told otherwise, but the Cubs themselves feel that the Trib serves them.

Scottiehaswheels
05-19-2006, 12:40 PM
If the castle is truly crumbling, something like that is a battering ram against the gate..

ode to veeck
05-19-2006, 12:42 PM
just friggin hilarious, but sad

MadetoOrta
05-19-2006, 01:12 PM
just friggin hilarious, but sad

OTV,

I agree it's sad but it's also creepy. This simply proves what we've been saying for years about the bias. It's creepy because it's worked for them. They are a second class baseball operation with more money than God, they haven't won squat and yet the lemmings continue to show up in droves. Media control is creepy. The cubune laughs in the face of American anti-trust laws. [I know they don't apply to baseball but that's what it is.]

MTO

tebman
05-19-2006, 01:12 PM
Normally I'd agree, but Sullivan not only confirmed the story, he also added details that make it worse. Here's what Sullivan said on the radio this morning (I took notes):

The Sneed article is true. He's surprised that it got out, because he thought the conversations were private. It actually was multiple conversations. The conversation with McPhail was a set meeting in McPhail's office with McGrath present about 4 weeks ago. Sullivan and other Trib employees have had multiple other conversations with Hendry and other Cubs officials on the same topic, to wit: they complained that the Trib should be more biased in favor of the Cubs, and that the Sun-Times is "out-Tribbing the Trib" in terms of positive Cubs content. McPhail feels that the Trib is the "house organ" of the Cubs, because they are both subsidiaries of the same corporation. This type of conversation has occurred repeatedly over the years that the Trib has owned the Cubs, because Cub officials believe that the Trib is their "house organ" (Sullivan used this term repeatedly). Sullivan feels that he is less pro-Cub that the Sun-Times, and that McGrath supports him against McPhail. He offered to provide much more negative information on this topic but doesn't want to do it on the air.
Wow.

Here's what George Knue told us some months ago:

...Everyone who works any place knows what is expected of them.”

If I were speaking to you in person, I’d use a commonly used expletive for bull manure. But since I don’t like those words on our message boards, I won’t use it here.

But it is appropriate. First of all, the company does not treat its employees like vassals. Secondly, it does not expect us to promote the Cubs and rip the Sox. No, it does not. Never once. Ever.

I have worked for the Tribune Company every year it has owned the Cubs – all but four years in sports. Never once have I felt pressure to do that. Never once. Never. You and everyone else who thinks that way is dreaming.

And, contrary to what many of you believe to be true, the Chicago Tribune maintains a wall between its editorial and business sides. And the Chicago Tribune, a large part of a large company, will not risk its reputation for some small benefit to a smaller part of that same large company.

I'll give George Knue the benefit of a doubt here -- maybe he's not invited to those meetings. But Sullivan has no reason to make these things up; it just confirms what we've suspected for many years and posted about for the last couple of years.

Anybody want another argument against media consolidation?

...And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
(P. B. Shelley)

Lip Man 1
05-19-2006, 01:14 PM
Has anyone e-mailed this Sun-Times story to some of the folks at the Tribune for comment?

George Knue seems to be pretty good at popping in here at WSI from time to time maybe he'll do so again.

Lip

Scottiehaswheels
05-19-2006, 01:17 PM
Has anyone e-mailed this Sun-Times story to some of the folks at the Tribune for comment?

George Knue seems to be pretty good at popping in here at WSI from time to time maybe he'll do so again.

LipDoubtful, surprised Sullivan did so.... He may have committed professional hari kiri (whatever the Japanese guys falling on their own swords is called) Anyone else would have to either really have a guilty conscience or be a few cards short of a fulldeck to agree with him.... Sullivan is gone, no one else will walk a mile in those shoes for certain

34 Inch Stick
05-19-2006, 01:24 PM
I think we are setting our scope too narrowly with this discussion.

If the Tribune allows this kind of action in it's sports department, it would not be a stretch to think they are manipulating the news in other departments. This includes anything from entertainment to politics.

This should really be a huge concern to all of us. The unfiltered reporting and analysis of stories is critical to the survival of this country.

Scottiehaswheels
05-19-2006, 01:28 PM
I think we are setting our scope too narrowly with this discussion.

If the Tribune allows this kind of action in it's sports department, it would not be a stretch to think they are manipulating the news in other departments. This includes anything from entertainment to politics.

This should really be a huge concern to all of us. The unfiltered reporting and analysis of stories is critical to the survival of this country.

Well... what other things would they benefit from financially? That would be the main driver.... look into their subsidiaries and go through their print media... maybe they tried to influence the stock market without disclosing their interests in a particular company... Major SEC no-no....

maurice
05-19-2006, 01:42 PM
But Sullivan has no reason to make these things up

Also, Sullivan was not the person who leaked it to the Sun-Times. He was completely blindsided by Sneed's article: (1) because he expected the meeting to remain private, and (2) because the meeting happened 4 weeks ago.

PaulDrake
05-19-2006, 01:50 PM
I can smell the smoke from that gun all the way down here in South Carolina.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-19-2006, 01:54 PM
The funny thing is I've lived here my whole life and never heard of McGrath or Sullivan until reading this thread. Outside of John Kass' articles (after hearing about him here on WSI) I have the same inclination of buying / reading the Cubune as I do a paper written in Korean or Swahili.

I don't know how many times these issues have been publically disclosed but you don't have to go too far back in recalling the Cubs / Tribune vs. Steve Stone incident in September 2004 to realize this happens on a regular basis. This really isn't news but I'm enjoying the Schandenfreude nonetheless.

JohnBasedowYoda
05-19-2006, 02:16 PM
Hey, Andy and Jim, what's that phrase? You can't polish a turd? Deal with it. You guys suck.

:)


Well put. What the hell do they expect? THEY SUCK. If they put any more spin on that team the tribune will come with axle grease.

Also, what do we expect? They yelled and changed commentators last year because they were too critical.

Chip Caray. Too critical. He is the ultimate Homer!

MadetoOrta
05-19-2006, 02:23 PM
John Kass seems to be the guy who needs to be contacted. He doesn't pull punches.

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-19-2006, 02:30 PM
Sullivan's comments give WSI credence...but at the same time they almost make my skin crawl. It is sad that a baseball organization feels it is entitled to "spin" what is supposed to be an objective reporting medium into their own PR machine. As a previous poster said, it makes one wonder what ELSE that paper does with "real" news.

Tekijawa
05-19-2006, 02:33 PM
So when do McGrath and Sully visit USCF to hear what Ozzie and KW have to say about their coverage of the Sox? :?:

Right after they Google it, get the address, and Mapquest the Directions!

34 Inch Stick
05-19-2006, 02:35 PM
On another note, Jay Mariotti has said that JR did the same thing with ESPN1000 bosses who subsequently pulled him off the air.

Break out my tin foil hat because this seems to be prevelant with all forms of media.

voodoochile
05-19-2006, 02:38 PM
On another note, Jay Mariotti has said that JR did the same thing with ESPN1000 bosses who subsequently pulled him off the air.

Break out my tin foil hat because this seems to be prevelant with all forms of media.

There's at least a couple of differences here...

1) ESPN does not own the Sox

2) ESPN1000 was being paid to broadcast the Sox and to be the flagship station of the team. Some bias would be expected. Heck, they had Wills doing the post game show and hanging up on trolls. So it's not like they were completely without financial reason to give the Sox some good press.

Tekijawa
05-19-2006, 02:39 PM
On another note, Jay Mariotti has said that JR did the same thing with ESPN1000 bosses who subsequently pulled him off the air.

Break out my tin foil hat because this seems to be prevelant with all forms of media.

There's a difference in being told you need to bend the truth in a positive light and getting someone canned because they don't have a clue what they are doing....

tebman
05-19-2006, 03:03 PM
There's at least a couple of differences here...

1) ESPN does not own the Sox

2) ESPN1000 was being paid to broadcast the Sox and to be the flagship station of the team. Some bias would be expected. Heck, they had Wills doing the post game show and hanging up on trolls. So it's not like they were completely without financial reason to give the Sox some good press.
Absolutely true -- the critical difference here is that the Tribune company is a dominant media corporation in the midwest that wants us to believe that it's just like Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams cranking out freedom flyers on their courageous little presses.

Let *me* say "harrumph" this time. That felt good.

All you need to do is go back and read George Knue's posts on the WSI boards, telling us that we're conspiracy theorists and dreamers, or Morrissey's ravings a couple of months ago in which he called us insane, or Don Wycliff's patronizing dismissal of our complaints with "get a grip," and then read what Sullivan revealed today. Were we dreaming, insane, or without a grip? I think not.

My problem with the Tribune, as personified by its Cubs ownership, is the melodramatic charade it puts on about being first and foremost a selfless public servant. The Tribune is, and always has been, a money machine. We take the Cub-worship thing personally because it affects us as a group.

Remember that they're in the advertising and marketing business, not the news business, and this all makes more sense.

HotelWhiteSox
05-19-2006, 03:22 PM
So to all that rip Sox fans for being cynical or conspiracy theorists, stick it. No, when the Sox are about to open up the playoffs and a front page story is about the smell of the surrounding neighborhood, it's not a sick coincidence.

gobears1987
05-19-2006, 03:44 PM
So when do McGrath and Sully visit USCF to hear what Ozzie and KW have to say about their coverage of the Sox? :?:I would personally love to hear Ozzie go off on that topic. If they thought McFail and Hendry gave it to them. Wait until they hear Ozzie.

buehrle4cy05
05-19-2006, 05:15 PM
That's the most riduculous thing I've ever heard.

A) Overly critical coverage? :rolling:
B) If you team SUCKS, the paper SHOULD be critical of you.

I've lost all respect for Hendry and McPhail, being a newspaper man myself. Unbelievable.

maurice
05-19-2006, 06:29 PM
Trib 'blogger Adam Caldarelli (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cubicle/cs-060519cubicle,1,2601035.column?coll=chi-news-hed) makes a joke about SullyGate:
This year, however, is different. You see, one team is the defending World Series champion. I'll give you a hint. It ain't the one owned by the Tribune Company, which, by the way, owns the basement in which I'm currently sitting, the keyboard on which I'm typing, the monitor I'm reading, the TV to the right, and the post-its, pencils and pens scattered over the desk. All theirs. Sneedless to say, I better watch what I say now that Andy MacPhail is doing Kent Mercker's dirty work. I assume this picture of my late dog is mine, as is the bottle of generic ibuprofen I keep within reach. But you never can be too sure.
:D:

He aslo had an interesting perspective re. the bias of the Cubs' announcers:
Third inning
....Crede is thrown out at second and he throws a minor hissy fit about the call. End of the inning, but the Sox get four....
Ozzie came out to argue but both channels sadly went to commercial....The replay shows Crede over-slid, but Neifi pushed his hand off the base, which is a Bozo no-no....More replay and Len and Bob refuse to acknowledge what is pretty obvious: that Neifi pushed Crede's hand off the bag....

maurice
05-19-2006, 06:51 PM
In other news, George Knue elsewhere (http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_whatsgoinon/2006/05/andy_sully_and_.html#more) has declared that: "The thinking usually goes this way -– the Tribune owns the Cubs so the newspaper is the baseball team’s house organ and we’re the Cubs official Website." Significantly, he refuses to acknowledge that, in this case, it is the Cubs who think that the Trib is the team's "house organ" and that a Trib writer is the source of this revelation.

Mr. Knue also claims that things analogous to the MacPhail meeting "happen[] all the time," though he completely fails to cite even a single instance where a baseball executive was able to summon the sports editor and columnist from a non-affiliated newspaper into his office for a dressing down. Sullivan himself concedes that informal griping occurs all the time, but this type of formal meeting arranged by executives is completely unprecedented.

He then speculates, without any evidence whatsoever, that "if Sox GM Kenny Williams wanted a meeting with McGrath and Tribune Sox writer Mark Gonzales, it’d probably get done in a day or two." I suppose now that the McGrath / MacPhail meeting has been exposed, McGrath would have to set up such a meeting, just to save face and avoid further public embarrassment. Sullivan certainly seems to be embarrassed by the whole thing and hoped that it would stay under wraps.

Finally, Mr. Knue claims that the meeting proves that the Trib is not biased. Again, we see the Chicago media employing the Orwellian method. (War=Peace, etc.) MacPhail's complaint was not that the Trib was unfairly hard on the Cubs. His complaint was that they were not sufficiently biased. Specifically, he was upset that McGrath would allow the Sun-Times to "out-Trib the Trib" in terms of pro-Cubs bias. As Hangar's MediaWatch concedes both papers are biased in favor of the Cubs. MacPhail felt that, since they are the Cubs' "house organ," the Trib should not be outdone by the Sun-Times, whose bias in favor of the Cubs is comparatively irrational.

Mr. Knue apparently believes that this expression of the conflict of interest is perfectly appropriate and ethical. However, he entirely fails (MacPhails?) to back up his claim with argument or evidence, and fails to address the other obvious questions expressed in this thread, namely:
- Why do the Cubs feel that the Trib is their "house organ"?
- Why do they share WSI's alleged irrational feeling that the Trib is "guilty until proven guilty"?
- Why does a Cub executive have the power to summon the Trib sports editor and a columnist into his office for a dressing down?
- Why didn't McGrath just tell him to **** off in the interests of journalistic integrity?
- What reason does he have to allow this repeated occurrence to keep repeating, other than the obvious (fear of reprisal)?
- What's the basis for the continued, pronounced discrepancy in coverage, now that the Sox have won the World Series?

While I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer, the silence is deafening.

maurice
05-19-2006, 07:07 PM
To be abundantly clear, Sullivan's comments completely obliterate one of Knue's traditional talking points. Knue has consistently claimed that Trib employees are under no pressure to favor the Cubs as a result of the ownership situation. In this case, Sullivan was extremely clear that the argument MacPhail and other Cub executives use to apply pressure is all about the ownership situation. In this respect, Sullivan has conclusively proven that Knue was flat wrong.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2006, 07:25 PM
Maurice:

Some very good questions. I appreciate George (Knue not PHG :D: ) taking the time to read my e-mail to him.

I can see his point but to me the situation is still very conflicted and muddled. I guess the good news is that George flat out admitted the difficulty it places on the sports guys at the Tribune as well as the perception that apparently has now been taken notice of by both Sox fans and Cub fans.

It is a very difficult situation to be in and like you, I feel for those guys, many of whom I know, many of whom are nice folks.

I hope the Tribune Company sells the Cubs soon and we can put an end to all this crapola.

Am very curious to see what our PHG makes of this situation.

Also just for the record someone asked about other examples of team management/ownership calling to complain. I knew a number of folks at what was One On One Sports. I was told by one of their executive producers that when Jay Mariotti worked both for that radio station and the Sun-Times, Jerry Reinsdorf called the owners/publishers and wanted him fired from his job(s.)

The producer told me that he heard the owners/ publishers basically laughed over the phone at him.

Lip

George Knue
05-19-2006, 07:50 PM
Maurice:

First of all, you ought to listen to what Paul Sullivan said on the air first.

MacPhail didn’t ‘summon’ Sullivan and Dan McGrath to a meeting. He asked to talk to them. They agreed. What’s wrong with talking to the person in charge of a major sports franchise that you cover? Similarly, the participants didn’t know they were going in for a ‘dressing down’ until it started. As Paul said on the air, he didn’t have to go.

I cited no specific instances, but I did say that I was told by a former Tribune sports editor that he did have two meetings with the management of Chicago sports teams – just like what happened here.

Re this: … this type of formal meeting arranged by executives is completely unprecedented.” You are absolutely 100 percent wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I wasn’t speculating about any meeting between McGrath/Gonzales/Williams; I attributed that thought to John Cherwa. He may have been speculating, but I wasn’t.

I’m sure Paul was embarrassed by this; he thought this was a private meeting and he gets awakened to go on the air to talk about it.

As to the whole paragraph that includes this: “His complaint was that they were not sufficiently biased.” That isn’t what Paul said. Those are your words – and they are biased to your viewpoint. Were you in the meeting? How do you know what Andy MacPhail felt?

Why do the Cubs feel that the Trib is their "house organ"?

I have no idea. Probably because both companies are part of Tribune Company. But please note this – you are talking here about a relationship from the Cubs to the Tribune, not from the Tribune to the Cubs.

Why do they share WSI's alleged irrational feeling that the Trib is "guilty until proven guilty"?

These are your words. I don’t know what their feelings are. You don’t either.

Why does a Cub executive have the power to summon the Trib sports editor and a columnist into his office for a dressing down?

What power? Dan and Sully could have not gone. But why would they do that? If the boss of the Cubs wants to talk to you, why wouldn’t you talk? You might learn something. If the boss of WGN made the same request, I’m sure they’d go talk to him too.

Why didn't McGrath just tell him to **** off in the interests of journalistic integrity?

Why should he? Is it journalistic integrity to refuse to speak to sources? Is it journalistic integrity to blow off people who want to talk to you? Is it journalistic integrity to act like a jerk? I think journalistic integrity should instead demand that you listen to what he has to say. You may learn something.

What reason does he have to allow this repeated occurrence to keep repeating, other than the obvious (fear of reprisal)?

What repeated occurrence? Sully talked to Hendry; Dan and Sully talked to MacPhail. What’s repeated about that? If you know of some other meetings, maybe you should enlighten us.

What's the basis for the continued, pronounced discrepancy in coverage, now that the Sox have won the World Series?

If you want to play this game, let’s start with this: Look at the upper left-hand corner of this page. It says White Sox Interactive. Totally biased. So any numbers produced here have to be judged on that basis. Secondly, let’s add this: I have noted several instances where Hangar’s results didn’t match reality … and he acknowledged his errors … but the numbers didn’t change. Gee, one more story every day for the Sun-Times and Tribune … and one less every day for the Sox. Do that long enough and you get real discrepancies.

Which leads me to this: Some people here are fond of talking about Cubs fans as ‘sheep.’ Well some of you are sheep as well – and Hangar is your shepherd. I doubt that many of you ever look at the Chicago Tribune. I’d also guess that many don’t question the numbers Hangar produces; he says something that fits the way you want to think and you accept it uncritically. If you want to let him do your thinking for you, that’s fine by me. But they don’t show anything more than this: Totally biased. If you want to study alleged bias in the Chicago media against the Sox, you need to come up with a better methodology than the ones he uses.

Lastly, for the people who went ballistic over the Albert Belle headline: That story was posted on our site for one reason – he was an ex-Sox player and we figured maybe Sox fans would be interested in reading about it. If you attribute any other motive to it, you are very mistaken. So we wrote a headline that said he’s an ex-Sox player because that would the best way to communicate to the reader the reason the story is on the site – because he’s an ex-Sox player.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

George Knue
05-19-2006, 07:53 PM
To be abundantly clear, Sullivan's comments completely obliterate one of Knue's traditional talking points. Knue has consistently claimed that Trib employees are under no pressure to favor the Cubs as a result of the ownership situation. In this case, Sullivan was extremely clear that the argument MacPhail and other Cub executives use to apply pressure is all about the ownership situation. In this respect, Sullivan has conclusively proven that Knue was flat wrong.

You are flat wrong. The only way MacPhail could apply pressure is if MacPhail were Sullivan's boss. Which he isn't. And if you listen to what Paul said (a novel concept, I know), you'd hear him saying that his boss (Dan McGrath) backed Sullivan up completely.

cheeses_h_rice
05-19-2006, 07:59 PM
So George, just because Hangar adds an extra story here or there to his running tally, that negates the documented, years-long bias the Cubune and Cub-Times have shown towards the Coob?

As of today, it's 465-390 in favor of the Coob. Even taking into account a mistake here or there by Hangar, are you really trying to tell us Sox fans that the balance is even close to being equal? And, do keep in mind that the White Sox are defending World Champions with one of the 2 best records in all of baseball this year...and the Cubs suck.

If the situations were reversed, are you really trying to tell us that the balance in stories would be anywhere near equal?

Sorry George, that dog don't hunt.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-19-2006, 08:21 PM
Here's the mp3 file of Sullivan's on-air interview.

"Some in the Cubs heirarchy think we're supposed to be their house organ." (http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/1/919/paul_sullivan.mp3)

Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees think about or tacitly understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides ALL these Cubune employees the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it.

Pathetic, George.... really really pathetic.

It's Time
05-19-2006, 08:36 PM
Here's the mp3 file of Sullivan's on-air interview.

"Some in the Cubs heirarchy think we're supposed to be their house organ." (http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/1/919/paul_sullivan.mp3)

Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees think about or tacitly understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides ALL these Cubune employees the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it.

Pathetic, George.... really really pathetic.

George:

Sullivan is going to be on 720AM in two minutes to discuss this. I am loving this. The Trib is getting that they deserve!!

It's Time
05-19-2006, 08:40 PM
WOW! Now Sullivan (Being that he is on the flagship) is totally backing down. He said he was a bit out of line (Or something like that). The smackdown has made Sully change his stance.

That organization is a joke.

tebman
05-19-2006, 08:44 PM
Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees don't think about or understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it.
You know, I couldn't help but think of the late Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, who was put in the unenviable position of justifying or minimizing unethical actions during the unraveling of the Watergate scandal. When finally faced with documented proof of the things he'd been busy denying, he famously said that "earlier statements are inoperative." I'm standing by for a similar statement from the Tribune. Not holding my breath, though.

I marvel at George Knue's extraordinary ability to stand apart, bravely facing the winds of conflicted interest without flinching. Sullivan and McGrath are heroic figures, never intimidated by a mid-level executive of their company who calls on them to compromise the hard-fought integrity that Colonel McCormick planted deep in the gothic buttresses of The Tower.

No, no conflict here. Why, I am as a lamb led to slaughter by the siren song of Hangar18, incapable of independent thought or any power of observation. The Tribune will set me free! Like repeating the Nicene Creed, I will remind myself that The World's Greatest Newspaper, led by the World's Most Selfless Executives, is simply incapable of regarding anything other than Truth. Nothing as base or vulgar as corporate synergy can stain the garment of the Tribune scribe and his editor.

Bah.

PHG calls it pathetic. I call it remarkable. And brazen.

Chisox003
05-19-2006, 08:46 PM
I’d also guess that many don’t question the numbers Hangar produces; he says something that fits the way you want to think and you accept it uncritically. If you want to let him do your thinking for you, that’s fine by me.
HYPNOTIZED!
-Reasons for rapidly growing Sox fan base finally uncovered
-97.6% of Tribune criticism stems from race of super robots built by Southside potheads

It's Time
05-19-2006, 08:49 PM
HAHA! Sullivan has been beatdown by the Tribune and it's showing in the interview he is doing with David Kaplan and Tom Waddle. Sullivan is now being very cautionary in his words.


Mr Knue, with all due respect, try and defend this.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-19-2006, 08:51 PM
Sullivan was just asked, and offered, that it's his opinion that such a dressing down wouldn't have happened IF the Cubs weren't owned by the Tribune.

I don't know the Latin legal term, but it roughly translates to English as, "Here's the demonstrated proof."

And George Knue just descended one rung lower into hell.

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 09:02 PM
MacPhail didn’t ‘summon’ Sullivan and Dan McGrath to a meeting. He asked to talk to them. They agreed. What’s wrong with talking to the person in charge of a major sports franchise that you cover? Similarly, the participants didn’t know they were going in for a ‘dressing down’ until it started. As Paul said on the air, he didn’t have to go.


Summon this, summon that. Semantic quibbling. Yes, no harm in seeing the folks in charge of a team you cover. You then go on to ask whether Maurice was at the meeting. Of course he wasn't. Were you? Do you know what in MacPhail's mind? It seems pretty clear from Sullivan that there was an agenda, that agenda being "treat the Cubs with kid gloves." Is that not the case? Can you read Sullivan's mind as well as MacPhail's?

I have no idea. Probably because both companies are part of Tribune Company. But please note this – you are talking here about a relationship from the Cubs to the Tribune, not from the Tribune to the Cubs.


That's the friggin' point, Mr. Knue--the Cubs feel that they can dictate coverage to the Trib. This attempt to draw a distinction without a difference overlooks the obvious fact that the Cubs wouldn't make such an attempt if they didn't think it would work. Lip pointed out that Reinsdorf tried this with Mariotti. Reinsdorf got laughed at. The Cubs actually got a sit down meeting, one where it appears that the reporters were scolded. See a difference?

If you want to play this game, let’s start with this: Look at the upper left-hand corner of this page. It says White Sox Interactive. Totally biased. So any numbers produced here have to be judged on that basis. Secondly, let’s add this: I have noted several instances where Hangar’s results didn’t match reality … and he acknowledged his errors … but the numbers didn’t change. Gee, one more story every day for the Sun-Times and Tribune … and one less every day for the Sox. Do that long enough and you get real discrepancies.


Totally biased, yes. Didn't Wycliff say as much about the Trib? What is it that makes the members of this website willing to admit bias, but the rank-and-file at the Trib cannot? Caveat emptor, remember? Did the Public Editor make that statement for no reason, or did I imagine it?

In the end, Mr. Knue, don't bull**** a bull****ter. I worked in media too, of course not on such a level as for the Chicago Tribune. But I do know this: if one of your advertisers spends money with you over a long period of time, and then wins a mention one of those "Best of " articles, well, that's not a ****ing coincidence. However, when the Cubs get more press--and more [I]good press--somehow we're to believe that's all above board. You call it "meeting with sources"--well, it's meeting with people who help pay the bills.

But I guess if Legal Seafoods spends $25,000 a year advertising in Boston Magazine, and then they get voted "Best Seafood in Boston", I guess it must be so, right? Even if some from Legal Seafoods reminded an ad rep from Boston Magazine how much they spend, that's sort of "meeting with a source," right? You could "learn something," after all. The profit motive means nothing, right?

:rolleyes:

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 09:04 PM
I don't know the Latin legal term, but it roughly translates to English as, "Here's the demonstrated proof."



QED!

1951Campbell
05-19-2006, 09:10 PM
HYPNOTIZED!

-Reasons for rapidly growing Sox fan base finally uncovered
-97.6% of Tribune criticism stems from race of super robots built by Southside potheads


MacPhail, Hendry Join Tribune Sports Page as Columnists

Millions of Readers Applaud Inside Look at Cubs, Unbiased Info

PaleHoseGeorge
05-19-2006, 09:51 PM
QED!

Latin. quod erat demonstrandum

"which was to be demonstrated"

Wycliff admits it. Morrissey admits it. Sullivan admits it. Knue denies it.

And White Sox Interactive is the one Knue accuses of being totally biased?

:roflmao:

DrCrawdad
05-19-2006, 09:53 PM
You are flat wrong. The only way MacPhail could apply pressure is if MacPhail were Sullivan's boss. Which he isn't. And if you listen to what Paul said (a novel concept, I know), you'd hear him saying that his boss (Dan McGrath) backed Sullivan up completely. George, Did you hear Sullivan use the term "house organ" regarding the Tribune? Did you hear Sullivan tonight on WGN's SportsCentral where Sullivan said that this type of meeting was unprecented? You are on the inside, how often does it happen where a beat reporter is yelled at by a team president THEN called into a meeting where the beat writer is chastised for being what they perceive to be too negative and then the beat writer NOT mentioning this?

Irishsox1
05-19-2006, 09:57 PM
This is not the first time Paul Sullivan has voiced that he has been criticized or "punished" for negative treatment of the Cubs. Paul has gone on the record that he thought that he was transfered to the Sox beat back around 2000 because he wrote too many negative Cubs articles.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-19-2006, 10:11 PM
WOW! Now Sullivan (Being that he is on the flagship) is totally backing down. He said he was a bit out of line (Or something like that). The smackdown has made Sully change his stance.

That organization is a joke.

When ones paycheck is on the line, some people will say anything to keep their job.

Poor Sullivan. I don't read the rag but I bet he is trying to give the fans an accurate position on how utterly pathetic that team is while spinning it in as positive a light as he possibly can. Than McFail, the pathetic inept President / CEO of the team with the longest championship drought in professional sports history (12 seasons on his watch), has the nerve to "get personal" in his criticism of Paul Sullivan.

I still do not understand why anyone purchases the Tribune - outside of Kass, the rest of the newspaper is either bland or blatantly wrong - be it in news, editorials or sports. The Sun Times is also pathetic but it is written for five year olds vs. the typical eight year old reading comprehension level most papers strive for.

For the love of God:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58956&highlight=boycott

SouthSide_HitMen
05-19-2006, 10:14 PM
HYPNOTIZED!
-Reasons for rapidly growing Sox fan base finally uncovered
-97.6% of Tribune criticism stems from race of super robots built by Southside crackheads

Fixed it for you. Want to keep it on the Tribune's level - accurate and fair. :rolleyes:

Chisox003
05-19-2006, 10:26 PM
Fixed it for you. Want to keep it on the Tribune's level - accurate and fair. :rolleyes: Bah... crackheads, potheads, gangbangers, trash....

We're all part of the same lower class, brainless, cluless, **** eating scum fanbase anyway, right?

:rolleyes:

Note to Tribune: It's been a while since the last Ligue update, hasn't it?

Lip Man 1
05-19-2006, 10:35 PM
With respect to George, Sully and this entire issue I guess what bothers me the most is Sully's comment on the Mike North show (I listened to the MP3 cut) where he said and I'm paraphrasing here, 'that some folks in the Tribune Company expect the newspaper to be the house organ...'

Sully did in fact say 'house organ...' that wasn't made up.

I don't know where he got that impression but just the fact that a single reporter felt this was happening is dangerous to a free, impartial media.

With regret I can easily see where the higher up's in the Tribune Tower could in fact feel this way. They feel everything is connected since they own the Cubs, WGN TV, the Chicago Tribune...to them it's all one big business venture with the object being to make money.

Again for them to pressure the media this way is dangerous and I applaude Sully for making it public (Granted I'm sure he probably didn't want to do it but when the story broke he confirmed it...)

For the sake of some good folks at the Tribune I hope to God those dopes sell the Cubs quickly. When they want is uncalled for.

Lip

Vernam
05-19-2006, 11:16 PM
Here's the mp3 file of Sullivan's on-air interview.

"Some in the Cubs heirarchy think we're supposed to be their house organ." (http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/1/919/paul_sullivan.mp3)

Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees think about or tacitly understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides ALL these Cubune employees the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it.

Pathetic, George.... really really pathetic.I am SO gratified by this response, because I was prepared to quit WSI forever if people granted Knue the standard "celebrity exemption" for his latest steaming pile of pseudo-journalism. As I just submitted to his blog -- comments I doubt he'll have the guts to allow to actually be posted there publicly -- if he and McGrath had a shred of integrity, they'd resign their posts immediately. Sullivan's mea culpa was lacking, but at least he's not insulting everyone's intelligence by claiming the arm-twisting by MacPhail actually proves the Trib's independence. Nice try, Mr. Knue, nice try. You have a bright future at the Trib. Just not in journalism. You forfeited that today.

Vernam

George Knue
05-19-2006, 11:42 PM
Re Hangar’s numbers: I stand by what I say – I still don’t believe them. And until he comes up with a better methodology, I won’t. You can believe what you want. And you will.

Here’s what I find pathetic – people turning what I say into something I didn’t say. Happens a lot here.

PHG -- Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

I never said either of those things.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees think about or tacitly understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides ALL these Cubune employees the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

Victim? You’ve got a great imagination. And I’m not at all conflicted – a concept that I know you simply will never get. The Tribune Company owns the Cubs – and I’ll continue to treat the Cubs like any other team. Am I happy Tribune Company owns the Cubs. No. Can I do anything about the Tribune Company owning the Cubs? No. Can I do my job anyway? Yes. Has anyone ever told me I can’t? No.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it. Pathetic, George.... really really pathetic.

Spinning it? I’ve got nothing on you when it comes to spinning it. Except I spin with facts and you do it with imagination.

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN. I will not trust the characterization of anyone here on what he says – completely biased, remember? However, I would like to know, PHG, how Paul’s opinion is “demonstrated proof.” And what it’s demonstrated proof of. That the
Cubs don’t think the Tribune’s coverage of their team is as biased as all of you do? That they think they can call Paul and Dan into an office and intimidate them? Did you just join me in descending another rung into hell thanks to an overactive imagination?

Tebman – I don’t get where I’ve done anything unethical or Paul Sullivan has done anything unethical or Dan McGrath has done anything unethical. Andy MacPhail wants to talk – so you talk and you listen. And you keep doing your job – which is what Paul Sullivan has been doing. The rest of your garbage isn’t worth responding to.

To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

I don’t remember what statement the public editor made and I’m doing this at home, so I can’t look it up. But I can speak for myself. I’m not biased. I have no conflict of interest – I serve the readers, not the Cubs. And by doing that, I serve my company’s best interests – many, many times more than I would if I were attempting to serve the interests of the Cubs. And, sorry – you may think you know the way I think because you worked in media but I find your intimation that I operate that way offensive. In addition to being wrong. Oh, and the Cubs must be getting a lot of good press – that’s why they wanted to talk.

PHG – “Wycliff admits it. Morrissey admits it. Sullivan admits it. Knue denies it. And White Sox Interactive is the one Knue accuses of being totally biased?” Admits what? That the Tribune Company owns the Cubs? That Tribune Company owns the Chicago Tribune. That those two things create an uncomfortable situation for people on the newspaper side? And your site admits its bias – it’s not an accusation, it’s a statement on each and every page.You’re looking for something that isn’t there. No matter how much you want it to be.

DrCrawdad: Finally an interesting point. Should the public be informed in a situation like this? In this case, Paul thought it was a private meeting – so it would have been at least a little bit of a breach to write about it. Should he be telling the public whenever Jim Hendry or Dusty Baker or a player takes issue with him – something that probably happens more often than situations like this? Does the public care? I don’t know the answers to those questions – and to a certain extent the point is moot because people know now.

To Lip Man 1: With respect to George, Sully and this entire issue I guess what bothers me the most is Sully's comment on the Mike North show (I listened to the MP3 cut) where he said and I'm paraphrasing here, 'that some folks in the Tribune Company expect the newspaper to be the house organ...' Sully did in fact say 'house organ...' that wasn't made up. I don't know where he got that impression but just the fact that a single reporter felt this was happening is dangerous to a free, impartial media.

Fair point – though Sully said it was “some of the people in the Cubs hierarchy” and not Tribune Company. But the last words of that clip are telling. Dan McGrath backed him, basically saying that isn’t the way it is.

Vernam: Why should I resign my job immediately? For disagreeing with White Sox fans? For not letting you and the other members of your flock continue to perpetrate a myth based on an unreasoning hatred. For demonstrating – again – that their fantasies about the Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune, and the Cubs are nothing more than that?

The boss of a major sports franchise in Chicago talks with the head of the Tribune Sports Department and asks to meet to discuss coverage of his team. This meeting takes place. From what we hear, the Tribune reporter was jumped on pretty good. It probably wasn’t pleasant. Three-four weeks later, the reporter is still on the job.

Did the team get the meeting? Yes. Did anything change? Doesn’t look like it.

There is an insatiable need here to find evil in the Tribune Company and in the Chicago Tribune based on the company’s ownership of the Cubs. This situation doesn’t prove anything more than this – the Cubs don’t tell the Chicago Tribune what to do.

I know that’s a tough pill for you to swallow, but maybe you’d better try.


George Knue

ChicagoSports.com

Scottiehaswheels
05-19-2006, 11:47 PM
I'll say this for you George... You're not gonna be canned in a week or two like your good buddy Sullivan... How much do you wanna bet that when he got that call this morning, the second thing he did was to update his resume?

DrCrawdad
05-20-2006, 12:02 AM
Mr. Knue,

This may be news to you, but it's not simply "biased" Sox fans who have troubles with McPhail/Hendry berating Sullivan and attempting to affect what Sullivan writes.

Here are a few comments from Cub blogger (http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/story/2006/5/19/161025/534#27) (and Cubs season ticket holder) Al Yellon has had to say on this matter:I have to say... ... I'm absolutely appalled by this. The Tribune has always insisted that their reporters were free to write what they wanted about the Cubs, to report the facts as they saw them.


Sullivan wrote what all of us saw about Jacque Jones.

Good for McGrath for supporting him. MacPhail and Hendry should be ashamed of themselves.
Maybe... ... but that's still no reason for the slam he got from both MacPhail and Hendry.

I don't see it as... ... having anything to do with money. To me, it smacks of trying to control something that they have no right to control. That's just as wrong.


We're pursuing it here, in this diary. It was all over sports talk radio today -- I heard about it from several different people at the Cell.


Kudos to you, Al Yellon!

Vernam
05-20-2006, 12:15 AM
George, I'm tempted to expose all those shibboleths, but I wouldn't want to deny your targets the fun of responding themselves. So here's my personal shot: Vernam: Why should I resign my job immediately? For disagreeing with White Sox fans? For not letting you and the other members of your flock continue to perpetrate a myth based on an unreasoning hatred. For demonstrating – again – that their fantasies about the Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune, and the Cubs are nothing more than that? If you had checked in here more often since last October -- instead of waiting until there was another conflict-of-interest fire to stamp out -- you'd have noticed that by far most of the WSI community has sworn off the whole stereotypical obsession with Cub/Trib conspiracy theories. Speaking just for myself, until today I hadn't commented on the 800-pound gorilla even once since we won the World Series. It wasn't until the gorilla started jumping up and down this week that we all got fired up again, so don't try to pin this outbreak of Trib bashing on paranoid Sox fans, unless Michael Sneed counts.

I didn't suggest that you and McGrath resign because you disagree with me or other Sox fans.

I didn't suggest it because my flock and I have an unreasoning hatred, much less because we want to perpetrate a myth. (I'm thinking you meant "perpetuate," right? Either way, you're wrong.)

I didn't even suggest it because you, the Trib, and/or the Cubs are the object of a fantasy that exists only in my head.

Read carefully: I suggested it because you and your colleagues have dug yourselves a hole from which you cannot emerge as self-respecting journalists. The honorable thing would be for you to fall on your sword. I didn't actually expect you to do the honorable thing after all this time, but frankly, I'm shocked at your insistence on a version of reality that the facts so clearly do not support. That's a breach of the most basic journalistic principle, which is to uphold the truth.

The more insistent you become at this point, the less self-respect you'll be left with when you wake up tomorrow morning. I wouldn't trade places with you for anything.

Vernam

SoxandtheCityTee
05-20-2006, 12:48 AM
Saying "this wasn't Tribune to Cubs, it was Cubs to Tribune" omitted a crucial word or two. The Tribune Company owns the Cubs, and the story being reported is that an irate Cubs executive asked some folks who cover sports, including the Cubs, for the Chicago Tribune newspaper, to drop by for a chat about how unhappy he was with their coverage of the Cubs. So it was Tribune Co. subsidiary (sports side) to Tribune Co. subsidiary (journalism side). If Sullivan and McGrath resisted any attempt to influence their coverage that does not change that the attempt was made, if that is what happened, nor does it answer questions about whether there have been other attempts we don't know about, how one can tell that they resisted, etc.

That the meeting was "supposed to be private" changes the truth of what happened there (whatever that may be) how? If anything, this assertion raises more questions. A person often in the news might indeed ask those covering him or his organization to come in and see him; would he expect what was discussed at such a meeting to be kept "private" unless so specified? Does one subsidiary of a common parent talk "privately" with another that happens to be a newspaper, unless confidential matters proprietary to one or both of their businesses or their parent company are under discussion? In which case, isn't it really a business meeting?

Seizing on WSI's playful "Totally Biased" slogan to dismiss broadly all points, no matter how thoughtful, raised by people who also happen to be WSI posters reminds me of the sour grapes from a broadcast TV network exec a couple years ago when HBO cleaned up at the Emmys: he cited HBO's tag line "It's not TV, it's HBO" to argue that there should be a separate Emmys for cable as it just wasn't fair. HBO's response: It's a slogan, for God's sake.

1951Campbell
05-20-2006, 12:58 AM
To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

I don’t remember what statement the public editor made and I’m doing this at home, so I can’t look it up. But I can speak for myself. I’m not biased. I have no conflict of interest – I serve the readers, not the Cubs. And by doing that, I serve my company’s best interests – many, many times more than I would if I were attempting to serve the interests of the Cubs. And, sorry – you may think you know the way I think because you worked in media but I find your intimation that I operate that way offensive. In addition to being wrong. Oh, and the Cubs must be getting a lot of good press – that’s why they wanted to talk.



Mr. Knue:

In re negotiation, you bring up the fact that negotiators try things even if they don't whether it'll work or not. As my mom says "it never hurts to ask, the worst they can do is say no." True. However, Reinsy picking nits about Mariotti is different than Hendry/MacPhail picking nits about Sullivan. Reinsy got laughed at; Sullivan and McGrath felt the need to go down and talk. As an attorney, I know that if another attorney suggests a truly craptacular settlement offer that in no way comports with my client's parameters, I can laugh it off as well. On the other hand, if a judge leans on me for settlement, well, maybe I have to listen harder. The judge has the hammer over me more than opposing counsel, and Cubs' brass has more of a hammer over Trib reporters than Reinsy could ever have. Don't believe me? Well, the invisible hand tells me that, judging by what MacPhail/Hendry take home, they are more valued than McGrath and Sullivan.

Also, you say that the Cubs failed to influence coverage. How do you know? It hasn't even been a month yet. As someone who works in media, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "chilling" effects on speech. Could it be possible that this meeting had a chilling effect on the Trib's beat writers? Or was the entire concept of chilling speech made up by fanciful J-school profs and old coot Supreme Court justices? Any decent appraisal of human nature who lead any sensible person to believe that Sullivan and McGrath will have some additional considerations now that the fabled meeting happened. I say that not to knock them, but to acknowledge reality.

Finally, I do not think that you should be offended by any "intimations" you infer. I'm not saying you're personally trying to stop the publishing of the Pentagon Papers for some nefarious reason. We're talking about sports, after all, not something of great import. I just think that your bread is clearly buttered on one side. And I think a lot of silliness could be avoided if the Trib came out and said "yes, like the National Review or The Nation in the realm of politics, we have a clear bias." But there's this clinging to the idea that the Trib is 100% objective and fair in regard to the Cubs. I know you're at home right now and can't read Wycliff's piece word for word, but "caveat emptor"...really, what else can that mean but "there's a bias, and you, the reader, should know it?"

Perhaps you remember the uproar surrounding the Kelo decision about eminent domain. The New York Times, in the midst of trying to get the city of New York to take land they wanted for a new building, somehow became just about the only major news organ to come out in favor of the decision. I'm sure they feel they serve their readers as well. And perhaps they do.

DrCrawdad
05-20-2006, 01:07 AM
Mr. Knue:

In re negotiation, you bring up the fact that negotiators try things even if they don't whether it'll work or not. As my mom says "it never hurts to ask, the worst they can do is say no." True. However, Reinsy picking nits about Mariotti is different than Hendry/MacPhail picking nits about Sullivan. Reinsy got laughed at; Sullivan and McGrath felt the need to go down and talk. As an attorney, I know that if another attorney suggests a truly craptacular settlement offer that in no way comports with my client's parameters, I can laugh it off as well. On the other hand, if a judge leans on me for settlement, well, maybe I have to listen harder. The judge has the hammer over me more than opposing counsel, and Cubs' brass has more of a hammer over Trib reporters than Reinsy could ever have. Don't believe me? Well, the invisible hand tells me that, judging by what MacPhail/Hendry take home, they are more valued than McGrath and Sullivan.

Also, you say that the Cubs failed to influence coverage. How do you know? It hasn't even been a month yet. As someone who works in media, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "chilling" effects on speech. Could it be possible that this meeting had a chilling effect on the Trib's beat writers? Or was the entire concept of chilling speech made up by fanciful J-school profs and old coot Supreme Court justices? Any decent appraisal of human nature who lead any sensible person to believe that Sullivan and McGrath will have some additional considerations now that the fabled meeting happened. I say that not to knock them, but to acknowledge reality.

Finally, I do not think that you should be offended by any "intimations" you infer. I'm not saying you're personally trying to stop the publishing of the Pentagon Papers for some nefarious reason. We're talking about sports, after all, not something of great import. I just think that your bread is clearly buttered on one side. And I think a lot of silliness could be avoided if the Trib came out and said "yes, like the National Review or The Nation in the realm of politics, we have a clear bias." But there's this clinging to the idea that the Trib is 100% objective and fair in regard to the Cubs. I know you're at home right now and can't read Wycliff's piece word for word, but "caveat emptor"...really, what else can that mean but "there's a bias, and you, the reader, should know it?"

Perhaps you remember the uproar surrounding the Kelo decision about eminent domain. The New York Times, in the midst of trying to get the city of New York to take land they wanted for a new building, somehow became just about the only major news organ to come out in favor of the decision. I'm sure they feel they serve their readers as well. And perhaps they do.

AWESOME!

:worship:1951Campbell

Scottiehaswheels
05-20-2006, 01:07 AM
Also George, since the reporters there are only allowed to write positive Cub articles from now on; I guess the Sox will get the front page, back page, and everywhere in between from now on eh?

SouthSide_HitMen
05-20-2006, 01:35 AM
http://www.shifting-gears.com/graph-down.jpg

Tribune Corporation Consolidated Graph:

Corporate Earnings - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/business/media/14adco.html?ex=1302667200&en=6573f95d49122556&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Audited Newspaper Circulation - http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-newspapers9may09,1,3784025.story?coll=la-headlines-business
WB Television Ratings - http://mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp
Cubs on field performance - http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/standings/index.jsp
Credibility & Relevance - http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed/cst-nws-sneed19.html
Stock Price - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TRB&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=%5EGSPC,%5EIXIC,%5EDJI(I had a better graph but couldn't edit the swear word - http://www.enduringvision.com/archives/graph.jpg )



http://www.dickinson.edu/news/features/2003/baseball/tmf3.jpg

Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
If it weren't for my last name, I'd be selling Mai Tais
The Cubs are playing great, and they're always getting better

A few bumps in the road and closed door tirades
The future's so bright, turn down the window shades

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/547676/2/istockphoto_547676_businessman_yelling_on_phone.jp g

"Get Sullivan in here NOWWWWWWWW!!!!!"

buehrle4cy05
05-20-2006, 01:42 AM
This whole thing still pisses the hell out of me. If a team is doing poorly, the articles should reflect that. Writing fair articles should bring a reporter respect. Instead, McPhail and Hendry come out and do the exact opposite.

I am a reporter, and while only being for a high school paper, I think it carries over. Our hockey team was something like 5-24-1 on the season, and I called their season "abysmal". Players on the hockey team didn't beat the **** out of me when I wrote that, they respected me for writing it. McPhail and Hendry need to grow the **** up.:angry:

voodoochile
05-20-2006, 02:18 AM
No, no conflict here. Why, I am as a lamb led to slaughter by the siren song of Hangar18, incapable of independent thought or any power of observation. The Tribune will set me free! Like repeating the Nicene Creed, I will remind myself that The World's Greatest Newspaper, led by the World's Most Selfless Executives, is simply incapable of regarding anything other than Truth. Nothing as base or vulgar as corporate synergy can stain the garment of the Tribune scribe and his editor.

Pure art... George, you just got pwned...:tongue:

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN.

Did you click PHG's link? I can't or could, but being hard of hearing it wouldn't do me much good. What's your excuse?



To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

Right... A sister division of the same company attempted to convince another sister division to lighten up on the bad stuff they were slinging their way. But of course, it's just the same as any old attempt to manipulate the media that any company would employ. Hold on to that dream, George...

That's the friggin' point, Mr. Knue--the Cubs feel that they can dictate coverage to the Trib. This attempt to draw a distinction without a difference overlooks the obvious fact that the Cubs wouldn't make such an attempt if they didn't think it would work. Lip pointed out that Reinsdorf tried this with Mariotti. Reinsdorf got laughed at. The Cubs actually got a sit down meeting, one where it appears that the reporters were scolded. See a difference?

I do... I see a BIG difference.

Now add in that one of the sister divisions is THE major written news provider in the third largest market in the United States and it really starts to smell.

If JR tried this, it would get a 3 editorial rip job from two sports columnists and one on the main editorial page. Then the Moron would chime in when the wind blew his direction. The Sox would be the laughing stock of the city quite quickly. Anyone who doesn't believe that is deluding themself or spinning spinning spinning the truth. It isn't the first time Dusty's whined about the coverage his boys get. The last guy got fired for speaking out about it. Makes one wonder what is going to happen next...

Do yourselves a favor, sell the freaking flubbies or all of you are lost...

voodoochile
05-20-2006, 02:19 AM
No, no conflict here. Why, I am as a lamb led to slaughter by the siren song of Hangar18, incapable of independent thought or any power of observation. The Tribune will set me free! Like repeating the Nicene Creed, I will remind myself that The World's Greatest Newspaper, led by the World's Most Selfless Executives, is simply incapable of regarding anything other than Truth. Nothing as base or vulgar as corporate synergy can stain the garment of the Tribune scribe and his editor.

Pure art... George, you just got pwned...:tongue:

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN.

Did you click PHG's link? I can't or could, but being hard of hearing it wouldn't do me much good. What's your excuse?



To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

Right... A sister division of the same company attempted to convince another sister division to lighten up on the bad stuff they were slinging their way. But of course, it's just the same as any old attempt to manipulate the media that any company would employ. Hold on to that dream, George...

That's the friggin' point, Mr. Knue--the Cubs feel that they can dictate coverage to the Trib. This attempt to draw a distinction without a difference overlooks the obvious fact that the Cubs wouldn't make such an attempt if they didn't think it would work. Lip pointed out that Reinsdorf tried this with Mariotti. Reinsdorf got laughed at. The Cubs actually got a sit down meeting, one where it appears that the reporters were scolded. See a difference?

I do... I see a BIG difference.

Now add in that one of the sister divisions is THE major written news provider in the third largest market in the United States and it really starts to smell.

If JR tried this, it would get a 3 editorial rip job from two sports columnists and one on the main editorial page. Then the Moron would chime in when the wind blew his direction. The Sox would be the laughing stock of the city quite quickly. Anyone who doesn't believe that is deluding themself or spinning spinning spinning the truth. It isn't the first time Dusty's whined about the coverage his boys get. The last guy got fired for speaking out about it. Makes one wonder what is going to happen next...

Do yourselves a favor, sell the freaking flubbies or all of you are lost...

voodoochile
05-20-2006, 02:20 AM
No, no conflict here. Why, I am as a lamb led to slaughter by the siren song of Hangar18, incapable of independent thought or any power of observation. The Tribune will set me free! Like repeating the Nicene Creed, I will remind myself that The World's Greatest Newspaper, led by the World's Most Selfless Executives, is simply incapable of regarding anything other than Truth. Nothing as base or vulgar as corporate synergy can stain the garment of the Tribune scribe and his editor.

Pure art... George, you just got pwned...:tongue:

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN.

Did you click PHG's link? I can't or could, but being hard of hearing it wouldn't do me much good. What's your excuse?



To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

Right... A sister division of the same company attempted to convince another sister division to lighten up on the bad stuff they were slinging their way. But of course, it's just the same as any old attempt to manipulate the media that any company would employ. Hold on to that dream, George...

That's the friggin' point, Mr. Knue--the Cubs feel that they can dictate coverage to the Trib. This attempt to draw a distinction without a difference overlooks the obvious fact that the Cubs wouldn't make such an attempt if they didn't think it would work. Lip pointed out that Reinsdorf tried this with Mariotti. Reinsdorf got laughed at. The Cubs actually got a sit down meeting, one where it appears that the reporters were scolded. See a difference?

I do... I see a BIG difference.

Now add in that one of the sister divisions is THE major written news provider in the third largest market in the United States and it really starts to smell.

If JR tried this, it would get a 3 editorial rip job from two sports columnists and one on the main editorial page. Then the Moron would chime in when the wind blew his direction. The Sox would be the laughing stock of the city quite quickly. Anyone who doesn't believe that is deluding themself or spinning spinning spinning the truth. It isn't the first time Dusty's whined about the coverage his boys get. The last guy got fired for speaking out about it. Makes one wonder what is going to happen next...

Do yourselves a favor, sell the freaking flubbies or all of you are lost...

PaleHoseGeorge
05-20-2006, 07:58 AM
PHG – “Wycliff admits it. Morrissey admits it. Sullivan admits it. Knue denies it. And White Sox Interactive is the one Knue accuses of being totally biased?” Admits what? That the Tribune Company owns the Cubs? That Tribune Company owns the Chicago Tribune. That those two things create an uncomfortable situation for people on the newspaper side? And your site admits its bias – it’s not an accusation, it’s a statement on each and every page.You’re looking for something that isn’t there. No matter how much you want it to be.

Admit what? In your case George, admit nothing at all.

You WANT the Tribune owning both the Cubs and the newspaper to be nothing more than that. You WANT the Tribune's journalistic integrity to cover its sister baseball division to be unquestioned. And you WANT Andy MacPhail's belief that he as a Cubune employee is entitled to special treatment by the Tribune newspaper to be no different than anyone else seeking special treatment in the Tribune. You DENY there is any difference.

In short, George, you as a Cubune employee want to have your cake and eat it, too.

To their credit, both Don Wycliff and Rick Morrissey have both publicly commented about why covering the Cubs puts them in an awkward position, Morrissey speaking for himself and Wycliff for the entire organization as public editor. Wycliff offered us (not YOU, the rest of us besides you) the following warning: Caveat emptor. Morrissey flat-out stated he wished the Tribune would sell the Cubs -- it would make his job easier.

And now we have demonstrated proof courtesy the stated feelings of Paul Sullivan that the special pressure he feels to cover the Cubs comes from a fellow Cubune employee (MacPhail and Hendry). Sullivan flatly stated this situation wouldn't have occurred if the Tribune didn't own the Cubs. He called it UNPRECEDENTED.

"Quod erat demonstrandum" (What was to be demonstrated).

If you didn't hear it, then go ahead and plead ignorance. That's the one thing you say I will find believable.

Your personal credibility is sinking fast because you refuse to give an inch where others have given miles. Blame yourself and quit whining to us.

Johnny Mostil
05-20-2006, 08:17 AM
As I just submitted to his blog -- comments I doubt he'll have the guts to allow to actually be posted there publicly -- if he and McGrath had a shred of integrity, they'd resign their posts immediately.

It looks like he did indeed "have the guts to allow" your comments "to actually be posted there publicly." I'd be interested in knowing if these are indeed the same you submitted.

FWIW, Knue also had this comment on his blog:


I don’t think there’s any person in the Tribune’s editorial department who wouldn’t be happy to see the Cubs sold off to eliminate all the crap.


I'm assuming this means he'd like to see the team sold, but maybe I'm misinterpreting who is "in the Tribune's editorial department" or even the double negative . . .

Vernam
05-20-2006, 09:04 AM
It looks like he did indeed "have the guts to allow" your comments "to actually be posted there publicly." I'd be interested in knowing if these are indeed the same you submitted.Yeah, they were mine, even the typo. :redface: That's probably what sold it to him, because everyone knows our "flock" can't spell!

Vernam

tebman
05-20-2006, 09:58 AM
Tebman – I don’t get where I’ve done anything unethical or Paul Sullivan has done anything unethical or Dan McGrath has done anything unethical. Andy MacPhail wants to talk – so you talk and you listen. And you keep doing your job – which is what Paul Sullivan has been doing. The rest of your garbage isn’t worth responding to.

It's obvious that this topic makes you edgy. But I would encourage you to read before you make a reference, something that you often claim is too rarefied a concept for us at WSI. I did not say that you or Sullivan or McGrath had done anything unethical. I drew a parallel to Nixon's press secretary's situation and your own. Ziegler found himself betrayed by the "executives" highest in his organization, and was put in a tragicomic position of saying his previous statements were "inoperative."

As someone once said, "Here’s what I find pathetic – people turning what I say into something I didn’t say. Happens a lot here." Read again:

You know, I couldn't help but think of the late Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, who was put in the unenviable position of justifying or minimizing unethical actions during the unraveling of the Watergate scandal. When finally faced with documented proof of the things he'd been busy denying, he famously said that "earlier statements are inoperative." I'm standing by for a similar statement from the Tribune. Not holding my breath, though.

I'm crushed to think that you find the rest of my glistening prose to be "garbage." But beyond literary criticism, your devotion to your employer's mythology blinds you to the fact that we really are on your side. Of course you could do your job better if the Tribune didn't own the Cubs -- that's what this is all about. Can you influence that? Probably not, but like Morrissey and Wycliff, you do have the option of calling it what it is.

Rapacious corporate executives are not going to change. But thankfully, neither are the great unwashed who pay for their East Bank Club memberships. Your paper is compromised by having a corporate relationship with the Cubs, just like the New York Times was in the eminent-domain example given in a previous post. Do yourself a favor and stop pretending that it isn't.

daveeym
05-20-2006, 10:09 AM
The facts as I see them:

George is the editor of a website that is not part of the Tribune Corporation (according to him some time ago in another debate).

Said website's only source of content appears to be from the Tribune.

Without the content the website and editor position wouldn't exist.

Spin spin spin every issue, yammer on about facts, but as usual completely ignore the major issue, heart of the matter, actual facts and call us all nuts.

If you truly believe Reinsy picking up a phone is anywhere close to executives under the same corporate umbrella having a sit down behind closed doors you're calling the wrong people nuts.

My question to you is if you can't see the bias why do you on a regular basis change Sox headlines on your website from the those the Tribune have created? I'll give you credit your headlines are much more favorable to the Sox and usually more reflective on what happened in a given Sox game or given team related issue. But the fact you feel the need to do so on a regular basis indicates to me that you do notice a bias.

1951Campbell
05-20-2006, 10:21 AM
AWESOME!

:worship:1951Campbell

Thanks.

I'm all typed out on this little issue. Unless something new comes up, I think Mr. Knue and I have reached an impasse.

voodoochile
05-20-2006, 11:02 AM
I guess it will eventually come down to which division the Tribune Media Corporation feels is more important to their continued success. While the newspaper is their namesake and their identity, but, to a large extent, they have outgrown it. In today's world, paper printed news is on the way out. More so as wireless broadband becomes more and more accessible and major cities talk about installing free WiFi loops which in turn would allow anyone with a Blackberry to access all written news for free anytime they are within the WiFi access area. The Tribune Corporation continues to move itself away from a strictly news content format, buying radio and TV stations across the country and broadcasting the WB lineup wherever it can. It's a hop skip and a jump from becoming a national broadcast company ala the big three. It's already one of the major cable stations available in most markets.

So with declining sales of the newspaper and the continued loss of revenue, which division goes away? Do they sell the flubbies or do they sell the newspaper?

I guess it will depend on whether they want to be a news company and be ethical or be a media giant and make money.

Vernam
05-20-2006, 11:47 AM
I guess it will depend on whether they want to be a news company and be ethical or be a media giant and make money.All due respect, Voodoo, but they made their choice a long time ago. Once a company stops practicing ethical journalism, it can't go back. I think they know that selling the Cubs wouldn't do much to repair their reputation at this point.

Anyone spot a mention of the MacPhail/Sullivan incident in today's Trib? I sure didn't.

One funny aspect of this controversy is that the Trib's coverage of their team has been SO mild compared to what we'd see if the Sox were that deep down the toilet. The GM gets re-upped just in time to watch his team implode, and hardly anyone at the paper protests his new contract? A fan nearly hits their right-fielder in the face with a thrown ball, and it's shrugged off, with no charges pressed? No double standard at work there, none at all.

Vernam

voodoochile
05-20-2006, 11:51 AM
All due respect, Voodoo, but they made their choice a long time ago. Once a company stops practicing ethical journalism, it can't go back. I think they know that selling the Cubs wouldn't do much to repair their reputation at this point.

Anyone spot a mention of the MacPhail/Sullivan incident in today's Trib? I sure didn't.

One funny aspect of this controversy is that the Trib's coverage of their team has been SO mild compared to what we'd see if the Sox were that deep down the toilet. The GM gets re-upped just in time to watch his team implode, and hardly anyone at the paper protests his new contract? A fan nearly hits their right-fielder in the face with a thrown ball, and it's shrugged off, with no charges pressed? No double standard at work there, none at all.

Vernam

Oh I completely agree. I just wonder if they will actually consider selling their namesake and original corporation piece.

I figure a decision is coming in the next 2 years one way or the other if not sooner...

Tragg
05-20-2006, 12:20 PM
Awesome thread.

I am really surprised that a major US publisher like the Tribune Company doesn't have procedures and controls set up to ensure that there IS no bias nor appearance of bias. Calling reporters into their office should a)be expressly forbidden by policy and b)reporters should be expressly forbidden by policy to attend such meetings.
The lack of controls really hurts the integrity of the Tribune's core business, whether or not Cubs management actually pressures reporters, etc....what is true is that they are free to do so with at least the tacit approval of the Tribune Corp.

That said, Sullivan shouldn't have attended the meeting...he should have told McPhail to ***of (or gone to his boss and have him tell McPhail to **** off).

Johnny Mostil
05-20-2006, 12:48 PM
Anyone spot a mention of the MacPhail/Sullivan incident in today's Trib? I sure didn't.


Was it mentioned anywhere in the Trib, S-T, Southtown, or Daily Herald but Mariotti's column? I didn't see it anywhere else, but maybe I missed something.

nedlug
05-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Morrissey flat-out stated he wished the Tribune would sell the Cubs -- it would make his job easier.

I heard an interview with Dan McGrath on the Score before the game yesterday where he said the same.

34 Inch Stick
05-22-2006, 04:20 PM
Awesome thread.

I am really surprised that a major US publisher like the Tribune Company doesn't have procedures and controls set up to ensure that there IS no bias nor appearance of bias. Calling reporters into their office should a)be expressly forbidden by policy and b)reporters should be expressly forbidden by policy to attend such meetings.
The lack of controls really hurts the integrity of the Tribune's core business, whether or not Cubs management actually pressures reporters, etc....what is true is that they are free to do so with at least the tacit approval of the Tribune Corp.

That said, Sullivan shouldn't have attended the meeting...he should have told McPhail to ***of (or gone to his boss and have him tell McPhail to **** off).

This is what I was thinking. If the Tribune Corporation wants to show that the Tribune newspaper is journalistically independent, wouldn't they punish McPhail and Hendry in some way for the content of that meeting. Wouldn't they follow that punishment with an internal memo/external statement saying that it values journalistic independence and any infringement on independence will not be tolerated.

One of the unstated issues for me in this matter is whether there was a percieved threat by Sullivan or Mc Grath. If there is a percieved threat that was not approved by the corporation, the corporation should be acting to diminish the affect's of actions taken by its rogue executives.

tebman
05-22-2006, 04:42 PM
This is what I was thinking. If the Tribune Corporation wants to show that the Tribune newspaper is journalistically independent, wouldn't they punish McPhail and Hendry in some way for the content of that meeting. Wouldn't they follow that punishment with an internal memo/external statement saying that it values journalistic independence and any infringement on independence will not be tolerated.

One of the unstated issues for me in this matter is whether there was a percieved threat by Sullivan or Mc Grath. If there is a percieved threat that was not approved by the corporation, the corporation should be acting to diminish the affect's of actions taken by its rogue executives.
You'd think so. McPhail works for the Tribune Company. The Tribune Company owes its name and whatever reputation it has to the newspaper. One would think that the company would have guidelines about attempts within the company to mess with the paper's coverage of a story.

George Knue insists -- no, "insists" isn't a strong enough word. He demands that we stop questioning the absolute integrity of the newspaper. Despite all of our to-and-fro with him on this issue, I believe he means what he says. That is, as far as he and his fellow writers are concerned. The real issue over there is in the executive offices, which McPhail occupies in a separate divison. The company wouldn't hang on to an amusing baseball team unless it was useful to its purposes, and it is. It's a brand icon and a source of material for the broadcast stations and fodder for the publishing division.

The stockholder pressure will get too great at some point, and they'll sell the team. Then we'll see how many Cub shirts, books, and posters they sell at the Tribune Tower gift shop.

TDog
05-22-2006, 05:32 PM
First of all, I think it reflects well on Mr. Knue that he posts here, facing certain hostility. His responses and the responses of WSI members reflect differences that won't be resolved in this debate.

I have no question that reporters like Sullivan are trying to do a fair job in objectively covering Chicago baseball. Expressing that the Cubs brass believes the Tribune Co. should be a pro-Cubs publication and that some corporate officials agree is not the same as saying the reporters are just following orders by making it a pro-Cubs publication. Sullivan works at the level of his trade where professional standards mean more than fandom. If he were following corporate orders to bury the Sox, he wouldn't have talked about it.

Being fired by the Tribune Co. for failing to twist the truth about Chicago baseball actually would look good on his resume if he wanted to work for a company that didn't own a baseball team.

Sports editors and resporters often are conflicted with management, as are news reporters who may have to report on the publisher's parish priest and golfing buddy being indicted on sexual abuse charges. Where I live in Alaska, the sports editor was questioned about running negative stories about the Masters (as if golf even belongs on the sports pages) because the Augusta-based owner of the newspaper chain is one of the Neanderthals that belongs to the golf club there. He did what he did and it blew over.

Editorials and columns are different. You will see the publisher at many papers looking over the editorials to make sure they don't violate corporate interests, and columnists often are hired specifically for their slant. News objectivity, since the beginning of the 20th century, is supposed to be sacred.

It is easy to blame perceived Tribune bias on corporate ownership. I read the Tribune's coverage over the weekend, and I believe people are exaggerating the bias. It is not as easy to explain perceived Sun-Times bias or perceived Times of Northwest Indiana bias. If the Tribune is the Cubs' house organ, the Sun-Times would be able to profit by telling the objective story of Chicago baseball, if not becoming the defacto Sox house organ. If a newspaper based a half-hour from the Cell (when the roads aren't being torn up) and maybe two hours from Wrigley Field can't put the Sox first, who can?

It may be that sports is so unimportant that professional journalism standards don't apply. I have always suspected that to be the case with much of sports journalism. I think this whole story is more damning for the Cubs than for the Tribune.

The Cubs are upset about Sox coverage? Maybe Jim Hendry should take a swing at Kenny Williams.

maurice
05-22-2006, 05:53 PM
As the World's Greatest Newspaper Turns. In our previous episode: The Evil Hangar (a powerful shepherd and leader of men) was causing immense harm to our hero (the poor, meek, innocent mega-corporaton). The Evil Hangar continued to undermine the Trib Gospel:
- things we own = good, sweet, cuddly, and innocent
- our competition = evil, nasty, and "biased"
- war = peace
- black = white
Just then, Knight Knue strode onto the scene to repel the invader...with another bag full of bull****.

Maurice: First of all, you ought to listen to what Paul Sullivan said on the air first.

First of all, you should read the thread before replying with a baseless claim. I heard the interview LIVE and quickly posted a summary herein first. It's post #13 in this very thread.

MacPhail didn’t ‘summon’ Sullivan and Dan McGrath to a meeting. He asked to talk to them.

Apparently he doesn't own a telephone...you know, the device that the rest of the country (including JR) uses when they want to talk to someone.
:rolleyes:

Similarly, the participants didn’t know they were going in for a ‘dressing down’ until it started.

Really? What was the purpose of the meeting, then? Did McGrath and Sullivan expect to be complimented for Sullivan's criticism of Jacque Jones? What color is the sky in your world?

Re this: … this type of formal meeting arranged by executives is completely unprecedented.” You are absolutely 100 percent wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

It must have been extremely embarrassing for you to post this and then have Sullivan state on the air that I was absolutely right. Right. Right. Right. LMAO!
:D:

As to the whole paragraph that includes this: “His complaint was that they were not sufficiently biased.” That isn’t what Paul said.

Sure it was. Sullivan said that he was accused of allowing the Sun-Times to out-Trib the Trib. The only rational interpretation of this phrase is that MacPhail complained that the Sun-Times was doing a better job of being biased in favor of the Cubs.

Were you in the meeting?

No, and neither were you. You know who was in the meeting? Sullivan, and he says that your arguments are full of ****. LOL.

Why do the Cubs feel that the Trib is their "house organ"?
I have no idea. Probably because both companies are part of Tribune Company.
So you're conceding that you were flat wrong when you claimed that only a person with an anti-Trib bias would conclude that the Trib is the Cubs' house organ. After all, looking at the same set of facts, Cubs executives reached precisely the same conclusion as Hangar. That's rich.

Why do they share WSI's alleged irrational feeling that the Trib is "guilty until proven guilty"?

These are your words. I don’t know what their feelings are. You don’t either.
Sure I do, unless your saying that Sullivan is a liar. After all, Sullivan is the one who told us that the Cubs feel that way. Perhaps he's really Hangar! What a clever disguise!

Dan and Sully could have not gone. But why would they do that?

Why would they not go to the pricipals office for a dressing down? Is this a serious question? The only way they would go is if the analogy holds and that MacPhail = The Principal, even though he allegedly has no power over them. As noted in this thread, responsible media executives handle this over the telephone and say, as I've suggested, that the person attempting to influence them should go **** themselves. Kinda like the way WMVP handled JR. It's called "professional intergrity."

Is it journalistic integrity to refuse to speak to sources?

Wait, now you're claiming that Sullivan went to the office to get source information for a story and brought his boss along with him?!? I'm pretty sure that Sullivan has enough experience to conduct an interview on his own.

What reason does he have to allow this repeated occurrence to keep repeating, other than the obvious (fear of reprisal)?

What repeated occurrence?
The repeated occurrence that Sullivan identified in his interview(s). Sullivan specifically said, early in the interview, that there was more than one incident. Why don't you take your own advice and "listen to what Paul Sullivan said on the air first."
:rolleyes:
What's the basis for the continued, pronounced discrepancy in coverage, now that the Sox have won the World Series?If you want to play this game, let’s start with this: Look at the upper left-hand corner of this page. It says White Sox Interactive. Totally biased.
Here's a novel concept, why don't you "start" your answer to my question by answering my queston? When the Trib starts printing "Chicago Tribune: Totally Biased" in the upper left-hand corner of the sports section, we'll get off of your back. Until then, you (unlike us) are a bunch of phonies.

I have noted several instances where Hangar’s results didn’t match reality … and he acknowledged his errors … but the numbers didn’t change.

It cuts both ways. Just the other day, he undercounted the number of Cubs stories by at least one. I informed him of the undercount but, as you say, the numbers didn't change...to your benefit. It's called "sampling error," and it doesn't remotely amount to the massive deficit this year. What do your numbers show? Oh, I forgot...you don't need to bother with silly technicalities like "evidence," because you and the Trib are a paragon of virtue . . . a burning bush in human form that can only speak the truth.
:rolleyes:
Lastly, for the people who went ballistic over the Albert Belle headline...we wrote a headline that said he’s an ex-Sox player because that would the best way to communicate to the reader the reason the story is on the site – because he’s an ex-Sox player.

Great explanation. Now point us to all the Trib headlines about Rafael Palmiero and steroids that say that he is an ex-Cubs player.

And if you listen to what Paul said (a novel concept, I know), you'd hear him saying that his boss (Dan McGrath) backed Sullivan up completely.

How did you get your job when you're incapable of reading web page content? As noted, I summarized the interview right after it happened in post #13 of this very thread:
Sullivan feels...that McGrath supports him against McPhail.

Any other brilliant retorts? When should I expect you to retract your patently false claim about me?

Here’s what I find pathetic – people turning what I say into something I didn’t say. Happens a lot here.

In light of your previous quote, this is a fantastic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

- - -
Edited for formatting.

maurice
05-22-2006, 05:54 PM
Re Hangar’s numbers: I stand by what I say – I still don’t believe them. And until he comes up with a better methodology, I won’t.

Translation: Hangar has evidence that I am unwilling and incapable of rebutting. He's wrong because I say so and for no other reason. Instead of evidence and intelligent disagreement, I'm just going to keep being disagreeable.

I’ll continue to treat the Cubs like any other team.

You'll have to start doing something before you can continue to do it.

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN.

To quote a brilliant scholar: "First of all, you ought to listen to what Paul Sullivan said on the air first."

The rest of your garbage isn’t worth responding to.

Translation: Tebman has made an argument that I am incapable of rebutting. He's wrong because I say so and for no other reason. Instead of evidence and intelligent disagreement, I'm just going to call his eloquent post "garbage."

Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at.

I'm glad you concede this. By contrast, McGrath didn't laugh at MacPhail. He set up a meeting and took Sullivan with him. Your co-worker believes that the whole thing was "unprecedented."

I don’t remember what statement the public editor made and I’m doing this at home, so I can’t look it up. But I can speak for myself.

Yes, and the public editor can speak for the entire newspaper...and he did. You can find the article from home by searching this very website.

I’m not biased. I have no conflict of interest.

This is the most meaningless thing you've said. Here's a hypothetical: Say there's a Mr. Old who is the editor of the Chicago Sun-Times on-line edition. Suppose that Mr. Old claimed that he was "not biased" and has "no conflict of interest" in favor of Hollinger International's financial interests. Would you take his word for it? Suppose Mr. Old has made previous claims that were conclusively disporven by his fellow employees. Do you believe him now? Suppose Mr. Old repeatedly claims that everybody else in the world is out to get Hollinger and biased in their reporting except for him and his co-workers. Does this increase his credibility?

With respect to George, Sully and this entire issue I guess what bothers me the most is Sully's comment on the Mike North show (I listened to the MP3 cut) where he said and I'm paraphrasing here, 'that some folks in the Tribune Company expect the newspaper to be the house organ...' Sully did in fact say 'house organ...' that wasn't made up.

Thanks, Lip.

kkappelk
05-22-2006, 05:59 PM
Mr. Knue,

What are your thoughts about sports journalists publicly listing their personal favorite teams in each major sport? Similar to a disclaimer that WGNTV may note when airing a piece about the Tribune corp (ie - "WGNTV is owned by the tribune corporation") so the audience is aware that a potential conflict of interest may exist.

For example, do you think the public should be aware than an article written about the Yankees was produced by a journalist who has been a life long RedSox fan and at one point owned season tickets to Fenway?

The Wall
05-22-2006, 06:21 PM
Dear Knue,
Lets say I give you that Hangar's count might be wrong. Lets start over this time with a methodology that you suggest and agreed upon here. Lets do a recount starting october 2005. Lets see if that will rubbish Hangar's count.

If you cannot challenge his evidence over the years, you better revert to your den with your tail firmly tucked between your weak legs.

DrCrawdad
06-01-2006, 11:46 PM
Sullivan was berated by McPhail and Hendry to get on board and be more positive about the Cubbies.
3 reasons for hope (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060601cubs,1,1563824.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)
By Paul Sullivan

Updated:10:40 PM

'By Any Means Necessary" was scrawled in Magic Marker at the top of the bulletin board in the Cubs' clubhouse last Friday, along with batting practice and stretching times.

Message received.

1951Campbell
06-02-2006, 09:26 AM
Message received.



:rolling:

How does Sullivan type the articles with those pom-poms in his hands?

SOXPHILE
06-02-2006, 10:41 AM
Message DEFINATLY received. In the spirit of our "Pied Piper", I also found it..umm...interesting, that following another off day for the Mighty Coo, and a nightgame by the Sox, the paper again runs 4 Cub articles and 3 Sox articles. But I'm sure it will even out next Tuesday, following a Cubs game and a Sox off day.

DrCrawdad
06-02-2006, 11:28 AM
"A corporate mentality needn't be imposed by direct fiat; it's a virus
that metastasizes in the bureaucratic bloodstream." - New York Times,
July 10, 2005

Of course, calling a writer into a meeting with his editor works too.

MadetoOrta
06-02-2006, 12:09 PM
Why exactly was Hangar banned?

voodoochile
06-02-2006, 12:11 PM
Why exactly was Hangar banned?

Two threads have already been closed discussing this issue. Please don't make it three.

We don't discuss disciplinary actions taken against posters in public.

DrCrawdad
06-02-2006, 12:14 PM
Why exactly was Hangar banned?

Hey, you're ...

http://www.powerlabs.org/images/fire_small1.jpg

:)

tebman
06-02-2006, 12:43 PM
:rolling:

How does Sullivan type the articles with those pom-poms in his hands?
Maybe he uses a Mad-Libs kind of process, where it's the same story used again and again but with different words plugged into different places.

Example:
"Mark Prior [adverb] [verb] in a simulated game yesterday, raising [superlative] hope among the Cubs' [adjective] fans."

Sure makes the editor's job a lot easier. :tongue:

AZChiSoxFan
06-02-2006, 01:01 PM
Re Hangar’s numbers: I stand by what I say – I still don’t believe them. And until he comes up with a better methodology, I won’t. You can believe what you want. And you will.

Here’s what I find pathetic – people turning what I say into something I didn’t say. Happens a lot here.

PHG -- Of course George Knue can't fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubs might feel their sister division is supposed to be a house organ. Nor can Knue fathom why Cubune employees working for the Cubune newspaper might be made to feel a bit ill at ease to be dressed down by their fellow Cubune employees at the baseball division.

I never said either of those things.

In George Knue's world, it's only theoretical that ALL of these Cubune employees think about or tacitly understand that the man who ultimately sends them their paychecks and provides ALL these Cubune employees the food and shelter for their families is Dennis FitzSimmons, the man who propagates the "inherently conflicted situation" another Cubune staffer wrote about last August. And of course George Knue is one of these Cubune employees, too, not that we should ever expect George to ever be this candid about his own inherently conflicted situation. He's too busy pretending to play the victim. That last post of his is truly over the top.

Victim? You’ve got a great imagination. And I’m not at all conflicted – a concept that I know you simply will never get. The Tribune Company owns the Cubs – and I’ll continue to treat the Cubs like any other team. Am I happy Tribune Company owns the Cubs. No. Can I do anything about the Tribune Company owning the Cubs? No. Can I do my job anyway? Yes. Has anyone ever told me I can’t? No.

The guy who wrote about the inherently conflicted situation? He left. But George is still here -- and still spinning it. Pathetic, George.... really really pathetic.

Spinning it? I’ve got nothing on you when it comes to spinning it. Except I spin with facts and you do it with imagination.

I didn’t hear Sullivan on WGN. I will not trust the characterization of anyone here on what he says – completely biased, remember? However, I would like to know, PHG, how Paul’s opinion is “demonstrated proof.” And what it’s demonstrated proof of. That the
Cubs don’t think the Tribune’s coverage of their team is as biased as all of you do? That they think they can call Paul and Dan into an office and intimidate them? Did you just join me in descending another rung into hell thanks to an overactive imagination?

Tebman – I don’t get where I’ve done anything unethical or Paul Sullivan has done anything unethical or Dan McGrath has done anything unethical. Andy MacPhail wants to talk – so you talk and you listen. And you keep doing your job – which is what Paul Sullivan has been doing. The rest of your garbage isn’t worth responding to.

To 1951campbell: No I wasn’t in the meeting. I didn’t attempt to characterize what McPhail’s feelings were beyond the fact that he was unhappy with the Cubs coverage in the Tribune. Your statement that the agenda was to "treat the Cubs with kid gloves" are your words – and you are attempting to characterize what McPhail’s intent was when you don’t know. And you don’t know that the Cubs think they can dictate coverage to the Tribune – all you know or any of us know is that they think they can try. And where do you get the idea that they wouldn’t try if they didn’t think it would work; every day negotiators try things without knowing if they can work. But they still try. Reinsdorf tried it with Mariotti and was laughed at. The Cubs tried it with the Tribune – and failed as well. What’s the difference? Reinsdorf did it on the phone and the Cubs did it in person. End result is the same.

I don’t remember what statement the public editor made and I’m doing this at home, so I can’t look it up. But I can speak for myself. I’m not biased. I have no conflict of interest – I serve the readers, not the Cubs. And by doing that, I serve my company’s best interests – many, many times more than I would if I were attempting to serve the interests of the Cubs. And, sorry – you may think you know the way I think because you worked in media but I find your intimation that I operate that way offensive. In addition to being wrong. Oh, and the Cubs must be getting a lot of good press – that’s why they wanted to talk.

PHG – “Wycliff admits it. Morrissey admits it. Sullivan admits it. Knue denies it. And White Sox Interactive is the one Knue accuses of being totally biased?” Admits what? That the Tribune Company owns the Cubs? That Tribune Company owns the Chicago Tribune. That those two things create an uncomfortable situation for people on the newspaper side? And your site admits its bias – it’s not an accusation, it’s a statement on each and every page.You’re looking for something that isn’t there. No matter how much you want it to be.

DrCrawdad: Finally an interesting point. Should the public be informed in a situation like this? In this case, Paul thought it was a private meeting – so it would have been at least a little bit of a breach to write about it. Should he be telling the public whenever Jim Hendry or Dusty Baker or a player takes issue with him – something that probably happens more often than situations like this? Does the public care? I don’t know the answers to those questions – and to a certain extent the point is moot because people know now.

To Lip Man 1: With respect to George, Sully and this entire issue I guess what bothers me the most is Sully's comment on the Mike North show (I listened to the MP3 cut) where he said and I'm paraphrasing here, 'that some folks in the Tribune Company expect the newspaper to be the house organ...' Sully did in fact say 'house organ...' that wasn't made up. I don't know where he got that impression but just the fact that a single reporter felt this was happening is dangerous to a free, impartial media.

Fair point – though Sully said it was “some of the people in the Cubs hierarchy” and not Tribune Company. But the last words of that clip are telling. Dan McGrath backed him, basically saying that isn’t the way it is.

Vernam: Why should I resign my job immediately? For disagreeing with White Sox fans? For not letting you and the other members of your flock continue to perpetrate a myth based on an unreasoning hatred. For demonstrating – again – that their fantasies about the Tribune Company, the Chicago Tribune, and the Cubs are nothing more than that?

The boss of a major sports franchise in Chicago talks with the head of the Tribune Sports Department and asks to meet to discuss coverage of his team. This meeting takes place. From what we hear, the Tribune reporter was jumped on pretty good. It probably wasn’t pleasant. Three-four weeks later, the reporter is still on the job.

Did the team get the meeting? Yes. Did anything change? Doesn’t look like it.

There is an insatiable need here to find evil in the Tribune Company and in the Chicago Tribune based on the company’s ownership of the Cubs. This situation doesn’t prove anything more than this – the Cubs don’t tell the Chicago Tribune what to do.

I know that’s a tough pill for you to swallow, but maybe you’d better try.


George Knue

ChicagoSports.com

George, I probably missed it, but what was your explanation for the great story on what a dump Bridgeport is, that just happened to run on the eve of the playoffs last year?

TheVulture
06-02-2006, 01:43 PM
This must be a shining moment in the life of Hangar18.

tebman
06-02-2006, 01:58 PM
George, I probably missed it, but what was your explanation for the great story on what a dump Bridgeport is, that just happened to run on the eve of the playoffs last year?
He did respond to that. Here's what he said about the smelly-Bridgeport article. It was part of this thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63068&page=2&highlight=hatchet) about the undercover attack by the Gil Thorp comic strip:

I didn't think it was a hatchet job then and I don't now. I still think that article reflected far more positively on the Sox than negatively. But people can disagree.

miker
06-02-2006, 03:36 PM
This must be a shining moment in the life of Hangar18.
Is it just me or has "What's the Score?" been very quiet since Hangar's exile?

EastCoastSoxFan
06-02-2006, 04:40 PM
Is it just me or has "What's the Score?" been very quiet since Hangar's exile?
Well, the stirring debate on the social lives of certain second-full-year Sox players has been relegated to WTS along with the continuing barrage of a certain Tribune employee who sometimes posts here at his own peril...