PDA

View Full Version : **** SI Media Watch ****


ode to veeck
05-19-2006, 12:01 PM
**** SI Media Watch ****

In May 22nd SI, which arrived to my house in yesterday's mail, we find a total slam of the White Sox in the "who's hot, who's not" column. Listing "chicago" at the top of the "who's not" category: while starting with the obvious Flubs demise, SI proceeds to also include the Chisox "losing 3 of 4"!!!

what a bunch of ****ing crap!!, since at the time of the writing, the Sox had the ****ing best record in baseball. Meanwhile SI continues the national media's totaly ignoring/debasing of the 2006 White Sox by not really covering them at all, in spite of having the best record in baseball (close to a .700 clip) most of the early season so far. (I glance through SI every week and the Sox are hardly mentioned)

Good thing I only used otherwise unusable miles for the SI subscription--at least I can use it for backup toilet paper

I must have woke up as Hangar this morning -- boy that tin foil tastes great!

SoxFan78
05-19-2006, 12:22 PM
**** SI Media Watch ****

In May 22nd SI, which arrived to my house in yesterday's mail, we find a total slam of the White Sox in the "who's hot, who's not" column. Listing "chicago" at the top of the "who's not" category: while starting with the obvious Flubs demise, SI proceeds to also include the Chisox "losing 3 of 4"!!!

what a bunch of ****ing crap!!, since at the time of the writing, the Sox had the ****ing best record in baseball. Meanwhile SI continues the national media's totaly ignoring/debasing of the 2006 White Sox by not really covering them at all, in spite of having the best record in baseball (close to a .700 clip) most of the early season so far. (I glance through SI every week and the Sox are hardly mentioned)

Good thing I only used otherwise unusable miles for the SI subscription--at least I can use it for backup toilet paper

I must have woke up as Hangar this morning -- boy that tin foil tastes great!

I'm surprised you still even have your subscription. If I was a suscriber I would of cancelled my subscription immediatley after I saw this cover the week after the Sox won the world series...

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg

WizardsofOzzie
05-19-2006, 12:25 PM
I'm surprised you still even have your subscription. If I was a suscriber I would of cancelled my subscription immediatley after I saw this cover the week after the Sox won the world series...

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg

Didn't they have a special edition for just the sox?

ode to veeck
05-19-2006, 12:25 PM
I'm surprised you still even have your subscription. If I was a suscriber I would of cancelled my subscription immediatley after I saw this cover the week after the Sox won the world series...

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg

They did have a nice special issue of the Sox WS--mine got stolen in the mail by one of those many Sox fans that don't exist

SoxFan78
05-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Didn't they have a special edition for just the sox?
yes they did, but just the fact that they had a regular season MNF game trump a team that won the world series for the first time in 88 years made me sick.

WizardsofOzzie
05-19-2006, 12:30 PM
yes they did, but just the fact that they had a regular season MNF game trump a team that won the world series for the first time in 88 years made me sick.

Agreed. Its ok though, im getting used to it.

Dan Mega
05-19-2006, 12:45 PM
Their excuse was the timing of when the Sox won the world series. Funny though, the Red Sox got the cover of both the regular and commemorative issues, and they won the world series on a thursday as opposed to a Wednesday I believe.

TDog
05-19-2006, 01:13 PM
The lag time between the sports news that happens within publication deadlines makes Sports Illustrated irrelevant for people who are current. It was founded to offer sports features, in which I have little interest. Lists are cute, easy to read and fun for readers. The fact that any in-season baseball will be out-of date doesn't seem to matter to the editors.

I can't take any sports magazine seriously when its year centers around a swimsuit issue.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2006, 03:30 PM
Ode to Veeck:

You left out an important part. Here is the actual quote:

"The Chisox struggled BY CHISOX STANDARDS, (losing three of four...)"

They were using this an an example of the bad week the city had i.e. also mentioning the Cubs and Jerry Azumah.

In fact the Sox hadn't lost three of four games since the first week of the season so by their standards this was a 'bad' week. Personally I found it to be a compliment towards the team that losing three of four is now considered 'bad' for them.

Unlike some other circumstances there is no media conspiracy here.

Lip

oeo
05-19-2006, 03:35 PM
They did have a nice special issue of the Sox WS--mine got stolen in the mail by one of those many Sox fans that don't exist

Yeah, but they still didn't get this:
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2004/1108_large.jpg