PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone really believe there's a Tribune bias?


tony1972
01-30-2007, 11:23 PM
I have read a lot of posts on how the Tribune is biased against the White Sox..but I really don't see it. To me..the Sun Times (with Mariotti, Slezak and sometimes DeLuca) is much worse.

I think the Chicago Media in general slants a little towards the Cubs (except the Daily Southtown and Daily Herald). In 2005, the Trib had the best coverage of the Sox during the playoffs and the world series (in my opinion) than any other paper.

I know they own the Cubs and I do think they pump the Cubs up...but they are not any worse than any other papers. I actually think maybe they go out of their way to prove they are not biased.

I know this is an unpopular opinion..but the Sun Times and Tribune are pretty equal in their coverage.

MUsoxfan
01-30-2007, 11:31 PM
I see it. I'm not in the crowd that obsesses over it, but I see it

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2007, 11:31 PM
I think the Tribune has a systemic bias in favor of the Cubs that in comparison makes their Sox coverage (especially in news stories that don't relate directly to baseball but are about fans, neighborhood crime, perceptions, etc.) appear negative. The sports coverage of the Cubs certainly borders on cheerleading. All of this happens for a wide variety of reasons that other threads have explaned well in explicit detail and with ample evidence.

The Sun Times employs a number of hot-headed columnists whose job it is to make waves. Mariotti has a long-standing personal vendetta against the Sox. Because he's always published on the back page of the Sun-Times, his anti-Sox screeds make the Sun-Times sports coverage overall seems negative.

DumpJerry
01-30-2007, 11:37 PM
I guess there is a slight bias towards the Cubs. I tend to focus on the team's results and not what the media has to say. Sports media seems to exist to tell us what to think about the game last night.

tony1972
01-30-2007, 11:37 PM
I guess when I think about it you're both right. I was thinking more of the columnists (the Sun Times ones are worse)..but the papers in general, it does seem as though the Trib reports negative things (Sports section and non sports section) about the fans or the neighborhood.

I guess I had just finished reading DeLuca's column when I made this post...:redface: . Now I kind of wish I hadn't started this thread..

NSSoxFan
01-30-2007, 11:37 PM
As the company that owns the ScRubs, it would be stupid on their part not to be biased towards them, news reporting integrity be damned.

Vernam
01-30-2007, 11:41 PM
Obviously, some people are over-the-top paranoid about the coverage -- sometimes I'm obviously one of them -- but there's only one way to rationalize the view that the Trib isn't biased against the Sox. That's if you believe the Sox really are a third-rate team that deserves all the brutal criticism they get. When people including Trib reporters claim the paper is fair, I try to give them the benefit of doubt and assume what they mean is that the portrayal of our team and its fans as reprehensible is completely factual. I tend to differ . . . obviously.

I feel safe in stating that, if the Cubs ever win a World Series, their general manager won't be treated as a pariah less than 18 months later.

Vernam

jeffmcmahon
01-31-2007, 12:43 AM
The Sun-Times isn't exactly an exemplary model for comparison. We've got Tribune media coming at us from all directions, smothering all other voices. The Sun-Times lets the Tribune set the agenda. Sometimes it tries to out-Tribune the Tribune. Morrissey... Mariotti! Red Eye... Red Streak! Cubs... Cubs! What bothers me most about the Tribune is not just the bias, it is the Tribune's routine violation of the minimal ethical standards of the profession. Many Tribune journalists take themselves very seriously, and many treat the public with arrogance. There are exceptions, but they are few. Overall, there is little feeling that the newspaper serves this city or that it springs from the life of this city. Instead, it exploits this city and imposes its self-interest upon this city. It's nothing new: Nelson Algren wrote about it 50 years ago.

I'm trying to limit my comments because I don't want to impose too much on this forum. People want to talk about lots of other things here, but it's hard for me to resist a thread like this one. I think we prove this stuff daily at the Cubune Watch, but if you want proof of Tribune bias in one succinct nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, here it is (http://www.cubune.com/2006/11/those-storied-cubs.html).

WhiteSox5187
01-31-2007, 12:51 AM
I think the entire media have a slight bias towards the Cubs because they're the "cute" team. And I do think a lot of this has to do with the neighborhoods surrounding the parks. I think the media consider the '05 White Sox and that poll that revealed the Sox were the most popular team in Chicago as nothing more than a passing curosity. Like "Oh, look at this!" They're still kind of waiting for the Sox to implode and the Cubs to have that one glorious year where they win a division title and restore order in the media universe, because if the Cubs say win the division and the Sox don't make the playoffs we're right back where we were in '04. So, yea, I think there is a media bias towards the Cubs. NOt that htey totally ignore the Sox, but it's tilted towards the Cubs. For example I remember the 1998 WC Cubs getting way more attention than the 2000 AL Central White Sox...now, if the Sox were to put together a string of division titles and the Cubs were to wire away in mediocrity (ie not finishing better than .500 and never making the playoffs) I think that that would all change and the Sox would get a strong foothold in the Chicago media. Chicago has really one outlook on all its teams: Just win.

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 01:03 AM
I think you're right when you say its just a general media bias. It's just easier to call out the Tribune since they own the cubs, so there is more obvious bias than usual.

itsnotrequired
01-31-2007, 08:24 AM
I HATE THE MEDIA

:redneck

jenn2080
01-31-2007, 08:29 AM
I hope this answers your question (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68681&highlight=media+update)


Well at least this question came after Henry is banned. He probably would have taken down the WSI servers.:redneck

jenn2080
01-31-2007, 08:31 AM
I guess there is a slight bias towards the Cubs. I tend to focus on the team's results and not what the media has to say. Sports media seems to exist to tell us what to think about the game last night.




And that the Red Sox and Yankees are the only 2 baseball team in the world.

soxfan13
01-31-2007, 10:10 AM
There might be a slight bias but some people on this board think that there is a huge bias:rolleyes:

ondafarm
01-31-2007, 10:11 AM
I really think the biggest problem is that we have nothing to compare it to for using the words "biased" and "unbiased". I mean, where is an exemplar of "fair" coverage.

When Chicago had four major daily newspapers, I think the coverage had to be better, because you had more competition. If your White Sox reporter got a scoop about an impending trade, people might drive your circulation up that month. Nowdays with just two papers, where else can you go? The Sun-Times has Moronotti, who writes stories without ever setting foot in USCF, and the Tribune also owns the Flubs.

My opinion is that both major papers are very biased against the White Sox, the Buehrle no sign garbage illustrates this perfectly. ESPN does favor the East Coast teams and there is no really good even-handed treatment of baseball.

AuroraSoxFan
01-31-2007, 10:16 AM
To answer the ? yes I think the Trib is biased towards the team they own. No reason they shouldn't be from a business standpoint. but if you are asking if they are any better/worse than the ST, I say not really. Sox can win 17 of 20 and it wouldn't be HUGE news. In fact you'd likely have columnists from each saying they're gonna fall off, derail etc. But if N. siders had a 3 game sweep over STL that would be front and back headlines for each of them with a positive buzz on how it is a sign of "good things to come."

White Sox Randy
01-31-2007, 11:33 AM
Yes

russ99
01-31-2007, 11:45 AM
I have read a lot of posts on how the Tribune is biased against the White Sox..but I really don't see it. To me..the Sun Times (with Mariotti, Slezak and sometimes DeLuca) is much worse.

I think the Chicago Media in general slants a little towards the Cubs (except the Daily Southtown and Daily Herald). In 2005, the Trib had the best coverage of the Sox during the playoffs and the world series (in my opinion) than any other paper.

I know they own the Cubs and I do think they pump the Cubs up...but they are not any worse than any other papers. I actually think maybe they go out of their way to prove they are not biased.

I know this is an unpopular opinion..but the Sun Times and Tribune are pretty equal in their coverage.

The problem is both papers (Times & Trib) are both way too sensationalistic when it comes to baseball coverage. They both give the Cubs way too much credit (to sell more papers, obviously) and if the Sox do really well and become the hot story, or if (when) the Cubs totally tank their season, they switch over.

A bigger problem is that lot of the local reporters for both papers and some tv/radio outlets are all about creating a fuss and garnering attention to themselves. It's best to ignore it. Why waste the aggravation and high blood pressure over a bunch of ego-centric hype-monkeys?

I prefer the Southtown & Daily Herald in this manner. Neither have shown that they get caught up in the hype or are biased in one direction or the other.

Beer Can Chicken
01-31-2007, 12:05 PM
I have read a lot of posts on how the Tribune is biased against the White Sox..but I really don't see it. To me..the Sun Times (with Mariotti, Slezak and sometimes DeLuca) is much worse.

I think the Chicago Media in general slants a little towards the Cubs (except the Daily Southtown and Daily Herald). In 2005, the Trib had the best coverage of the Sox during the playoffs and the world series (in my opinion) than any other paper.

I know they own the Cubs and I do think they pump the Cubs up...but they are not any worse than any other papers. I actually think maybe they go out of their way to prove they are not biased.

I know this is an unpopular opinion..but the Sun Times and Tribune are pretty equal in their coverage.

I'm in the unpopular camp that believes coverage is pretty equal. I think the bigger issue is how media, in general, manufactures controversey.

maurice
01-31-2007, 12:28 PM
I have read a lot of posts on how the Tribune is biased against the White Sox..but I really don't see it. To me..the Sun Times (with Mariotti, Slezak and sometimes DeLuca) is much worse.

This doesn't make any sense. If one guy is 6'5 and another guy is 6'7, does that mean that the 1st guys isn't tall?

They're both biased against the Sox. The Trib just leaves themselves wide open by actually owning the Cubs. Numerous Trib employees have complained about this situation and want them to sell ASAP. Marriotti is biased against the Sox because he hates JR and criticizes anything associated with him. Slezak is biased against the Sox because she's a stereotypical trixie who knows nothing about sports. DeLuca is just really, really stupid (see the DeLuca thread), and stupid people root for the Cubs.

PatK
01-31-2007, 12:34 PM
There's a bias.

If the exact same thing happened at both parks, there would be two completely different takes on it.

A couple of events really showed me the bias.

When the Cubs were in the playoffs in 2003, you wouldn't have seen an article describing the neighborhood in the same manner the area around the Cell was described in 2005.

And compare the coverage of Bill Simonson getting beat up near the Cell (Comiskey back then) compared to the murder that occured accross the street from Wrigley.

Compare the coverage (as well as attitude and tone of it) and tell me there isn't a bias.

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 12:36 PM
This doesn't make any sense. If one guy is 6'5 and another guy is 6'7, does that mean that the 1st guys isn't tall?

They're both biased against the Sox. The Trib just leaves themselves wide open by actually owning the Cubs. Numerous Trib employees have complained about this situation and want them to sell ASAP. Marriotti is biased against the Sox because he hates JR and criticizes anything associated with him. Slezak is biased against the Sox because she's a stereotypical trixie who knows nothing about sports. DeLuca is just really, really stupid (see the DeLuca thread), and stupid people root for the Cubs.

I had never even heard of DeLuca until i read that "article" if you could even call it that. I never thought i'd say this about anyone, but he is actually worse than Marriotti! :o:

tebman
01-31-2007, 12:51 PM
There's a bias.

If the exact same thing happened at both parks, there would be two completely different takes on it.

A couple of events really showed me the bias.

When the Cubs were in the playoffs in 2003, you wouldn't have seen an article describing the neighborhood in the same manner the area around the Cell was described in 2005.

And compare the coverage of Bill Simonson getting beat up near the Cell (Comiskey back then) compared to the murder that occured accross the street from Wrigley.

Compare the coverage (as well as attitude and tone of it) and tell me there isn't a bias.
We went 'round and 'round with the Tribune's George Knue about this last summer. In general we said what you just posted, and he said that it wasn't true.

A very telling factoid was some crime data that itsnotrequired found from the Chicago Police Department, showing incidence of crime within a certain radius of an intersection. There was no contest -- the neighborhood surrounding Clark and Addison had a much higher crime rate than the neighborhood surrounding 35th and Shields. It was true in all categories: assaults, robberies, etc. When we asked rhetorically why "Wrigleyville" was still described in such affectionate terms while The South Side was depicted as a third-world nation, Knue said that we were asking the wrong question. He said that what The Tribune published is what should be debated, and he insisted that his research showed that they were doing a fine job.

Ultimately it's all about marketing and perception. The papers and the TV stations want to sell advertising, so they generalize to attract generalized audiences. What we end up with is North Side = pleasant, affluent, cute; South Side = edgy, dangerous, boorish. It's easier to pitch it to advertisers that way.

Life isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we can't try to point out where it isn't, in the hope that we can do something to alleviate it.

Thome25
01-31-2007, 02:44 PM
I have read a lot of posts on how the Tribune is biased against the White Sox..but I really don't see it. To me..the Sun Times (with Mariotti, Slezak and sometimes DeLuca) is much worse.

I think the Chicago Media in general slants a little towards the Cubs (except the Daily Southtown and Daily Herald). In 2005, the Trib had the best coverage of the Sox during the playoffs and the world series (in my opinion) than any other paper.

I know they own the Cubs and I do think they pump the Cubs up...but they are not any worse than any other papers. I actually think maybe they go out of their way to prove they are not biased.

I know this is an unpopular opinion..but the Sun Times and Tribune are pretty equal in their coverage.

This is like saying they're the fastest turtle in a turtle race. Point is they're all slow.

They have some of the worst coverage on the Sox that I've ever read. Have you seen Phil Pogers lately?

Just because DeLuca and Marriotti have been terrible doesn't mean they're not just as bad.

So because both the Sun-Times and trib have been brutal in their coverage of the KW and the Sox that makes it OK? They both slant towards the Cubs for different reasons.

The Trib owns the Cubs so they bash the Sox. The Sun-Times bashes everyone lately (Bears included.) and has a love-fest with the Cubs because Hendry went ape-**** with his wallet and started spending money like crazy. (he has spent the money unwisely mind you.)

rdivaldi
01-31-2007, 03:55 PM
We went 'round and 'round with the Tribune's George Knue about this last summer. In general we said what you just posted, and he said that it wasn't true.

A very telling factoid was some crime data that itsnotrequired found from the Chicago Police Department, showing incidence of crime within a certain radius of an intersection. There was no contest -- the neighborhood surrounding Clark and Addison had a much higher crime rate than the neighborhood surrounding 35th and Shields. It was true in all categories: assaults, robberies, etc. When we asked rhetorically why "Wrigleyville" was still described in such affectionate terms while The South Side was depicted as a third-world nation, Knue said that we were asking the wrong question. He said that what The Tribune published is what should be debated, and he insisted that his research showed that they were doing a fine job.

Ultimately it's all about marketing and perception. The papers and the TV stations want to sell advertising, so they generalize to attract generalized audiences. What we end up with is North Side = pleasant, affluent, cute; South Side = edgy, dangerous, boorish. It's easier to pitch it to advertisers that way.

I remember that garbage and was infuriated by such irresponsible, lazy journalism. I haven't seen the latest city neighborhood reports, but I remember that the 2005 annual report showed that there was almost 4x more crime in Lakeview as opposed to Bridgeport.

Is there bias? You should be asking, "How much bias is there?"

WhiteSox5187
01-31-2007, 04:27 PM
I remember that garbage and was infuriated by such irresponsible, lazy journalism. I haven't seen the latest city neighborhood reports, but I remember that the 2005 annual report showed that there was almost 4x more crime in Lakeview as opposed to Bridgeport.

Is there bias? You should be asking, "How much bias is there?"
Really, when you get right down to it, it comes down to race. There is that subconscious racist undertone when the Tribune mentions the "southside."

itsnotrequired
01-31-2007, 04:53 PM
Is there bias? You should be asking, "How much bias is there?"

At least they are keeping WSI informed of casting calls.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83781

:roflmao:

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 05:44 PM
I remember that garbage and was infuriated by such irresponsible, lazy journalism. I haven't seen the latest city neighborhood reports, but I remember that the 2005 annual report showed that there was almost 4x more crime in Lakeview as opposed to Bridgeport.

Is there bias? You should be asking, "How much bias is there?"
In my arguing with De Luca, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what kind of stats you throw out there to support your point, they will come back with the equivalent of "nuh-uhhhhhhhh". :angry:

jdm2662
01-31-2007, 05:47 PM
The Tribune's main motive is to make money. Is there a Cubs bias? Sure. They own the club. It has to be expected. They are going to sugar coat their team to market and sell tickets. However, WGN-TV picked up the Sox ALDS games and heavily promoted the Sox games down the stretch last season. They also did a very good job covering the playoffs in 2005. Why? Well, they want to make money. The Sun-Times isn't any better with the likes of the Moron at the helm. Personally, I think the local media is a joke for all sports teams. This is why I stopped reading both papers and turned to satellite radio. If I want a sports source, I go to Yahoo. I felt they did a great job covering the World Series in 2005, and their columnists, while I don't always agree with them, are usually pretty good.

Hitmen77
01-31-2007, 06:51 PM
Yes, I think there is a anti-Sox/pro-Cubs bias, but I don't believe there is a "conspiracy". This is an important distinction since many equate the poor Sox coverage to be part of a conspiracy on the part of Tribune powers-that-be to be anti-Sox. I believe people like George Knue, Phil Rogers, Rick Morrissey when they say there is no directive at the Tribune for their reporters to be pro-Cubs and anti-Sox. HOWEVER, I still think the bias exists. Yeah, I believe these guys were sincerely happy to see the Sox win the World Series, but I still think most of them just like the Cubs better and view the world through Cubbie-blue colored glasses. The bias is most obvious in the Trib, but it also is apparent at times in the Sun-Times and the local electronic media.

We've heard several Trib employees go to great pains to say their paper is impartial. Yet, over the years there have been some very puzzling examples of slant or spin on stories about the Cubs or Sox that really leaves us Sox fans scratching our heads. Examples:

- Morrissey proclaiming that half the people at the Sox victory parade were Cub fans. Huh? Anyone who was at the parade knows that's just ridiculous.
- Running a front page story on crime/drug use around the Cell and the Sox being "bad neighbors" on the day of Game 1 of the '05 ALDS. Where was the story about Lakeview crime in '03? What makes the Cubs so much better neighbors than the Sox?
- Many instances of turning lemons into lemonade for the Cubs and Wrigley. Example: the Mets totally humiliated the Cubs last July by hitting 2 grand slams in the same inning - and then Cub fans embarassingly delayed the game by throwing trash onto the field. The Trib's next day coverage was to fawn over how this 2 grand slam feat was yet another historical event at Wrigley that further adds to its "mystique" and why it's a must see for all.
- Running an anti-Sox fans editorial after the World Series win with highly dubious claims of Sox fan poor behavior.
....that's just off the top of my head.

robertks61
01-31-2007, 07:12 PM
Yes, since I have been reading the sports page as a kid. I'm 45 now.....

ondafarm
01-31-2007, 10:15 PM
I have no problem with the Tribune owning the Flubs. I don't think they are very good owners, but I don't have a problem with it. Also ALERT THE MEDIA HERE, I don't think there is a conspiracy. To me, Helman's Law applies: "Never attrbute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I just don't think either the Tribune or the Sun-Times employs particularly good sportwriters (or other writers for that matter.) There was a time when newspaper reporting was a highly respected profession. I don't think it is anymore.

IndianWhiteSox
02-01-2007, 07:42 AM
I really don't see the big deal whether the tribune company is biased towards the Cubs or not because, if they really are, then they're only doing what most people would do and that's maniputlate the truth with a postive spin on the product they own. In this case they happen ot own the sCrUBS. If the White Sox were in the same position as the cubs deing owned by a major network(ie- comcast), then all we would hear is good news coming out of Sox management and mocking the sCrUBS. If that really happened, then no one here would have a problem with that bias. So to answer the question posted here, a true Sox fans only cares what happens on the field and not whether they have a bad spin or not, and I can attest that some of the older sox fans or (mods) would feel the same way.

bryPt
02-01-2007, 07:52 AM
I see a problem with one company completely controlling the media in a town by owning TV, Radio and Paper. Thowing in the Flub into the mix is just wrong. People got pissed off at Microsoft for supposedly having a monopoly, which was crazy because you could actually make a choice with an OS, and yet nobody sees a problem with one Company owning a radio station, a TV station and a paper in the same town? These 3 entities are supposed to report the news happening around the world, not manufacturing it for their own good. Just look at the Cubunes articles and TV news reports about CareerBuilder.com. One part of their monopoly isn't performing, so their "news sources" make up a story with false information to promote their failing company. That is wrong, and the Cubune is doing that right now with Careerbuilder.com

I wish I owned a paper, a radio station and a TV station, I could advertise my company straight to the top. My 401k and salary would be HUGE and I could retire incredibly early.

rdivaldi
02-01-2007, 08:21 AM
I really don't see the big deal whether the tribune company is biased towards the Cubs or not because, if they really are, then they're only doing what most people would do and that's maniputlate the truth with a postive spin on the product they own. In this case they happen ot own the sCrUBS. If the White Sox were in the same position as the cubs deing owned by a major network(ie- comcast), then all we would hear is good news coming out of Sox management and mocking the sCrUBS. If that really happened, then no one here would have a problem with that bias. So to answer the question posted here, a true Sox fans only cares what happens on the field and not whether they have a bad spin or not, and I can attest that some of the older sox fans or (mods) would feel the same way.

I think you just insulted a large portion of "true Sox fans". I'd think in the future you'd be wise to think twice before claiming to know the formula for what makes a true fan and what doesn't...

GoSox2K3
02-01-2007, 09:30 AM
Hell yes there is a Tribune bias. That doesn't mean that they never say anything good about the Sox or that they never say anything bad about the Cubs - but overall they definitely are more pro-Cubs than not and more anti-Sox than not.

It's not just the Trib and it's not just because they own the Cubs (though that is a big reason). I remember Bill Veeck way back in the 70s complaining about the media's bias towards the Cubs, so this pre-dates the Trib owning the Cubs.

One main reason is that the media know there are more Cub fans out there and they are only interested in making money, so they're going to pander to the bigger fanbase. I think they've been wrong in that they've underestimated the size, passion, and power of the Sox fan base. Before '05, in the minds of many in the media, the Sox were irrelevant. I think 2005 helped shatter the myth that "no one cares about the Sox" or that only poor, uneducated people with criminal records follow the Sox.

Another reason for the bias, as someone else mentioned, is that many in the media are just Cub lovers. Many of them are transplants and not native Chicagoans. Like many other transplants, they move to Chicago and immediately start drinking the Cubbie Kool-aid and believe all that crap about the Sox being irrelevant and that anything south of Madison St. is a vast wasteland.

southside rocks
02-02-2007, 08:35 AM
Hell yes there is a Tribune bias. That doesn't mean that they never say anything good about the Sox or that they never say anything bad about the Cubs - but overall they definitely are more pro-Cubs than not and more anti-Sox than not.

It's not just the Trib and it's not just because they own the Cubs (though that is a big reason). I remember Bill Veeck way back in the 70s complaining about the media's bias towards the Cubs, so this pre-dates the Trib owning the Cubs.

One main reason is that the media know there are more Cub fans out there and they are only interested in making money, so they're going to pander to the bigger fanbase. I think they've been wrong in that they've underestimated the size, passion, and power of the Sox fan base. Before '05, in the minds of many in the media, the Sox were irrelevant. I think 2005 helped shatter the myth that "no one cares about the Sox" or that only poor, uneducated people with criminal records follow the Sox.

Another reason for the bias, as someone else mentioned, is that many in the media are just Cub lovers. Many of them are transplants and not native Chicagoans. Like many other transplants, they move to Chicago and immediately start drinking the Cubbie Kool-aid and believe all that crap about the Sox being irrelevant and that anything south of Madison St. is a vast wasteland.

Good points, IMO.

I'm a Sox fan of 40 years. Sure, there's a bias in the local papers; that's why I subscribe to the Daily Southtown and don't bother to read the Tribune at all, for sports.

Another poster mentioned racial and ethnic makeup of the city and how it differs from the north to the south side; that is part of the Tribune's slant, too. To me, the Trib is a north-side newspaper and always has been. They love all things Wrigleyville. :rolleyes:

IndianWhiteSox
02-02-2007, 11:13 AM
So to answer the question posted here, a true Sox fans only cares what happens on the field and not whether they have a bad spin or not, and I can attest that some of the older sox fans or (mods) would feel the same way.

Now how the hell have I really insulted Sox fans with this statement. This is the same thing that most Sox fans who are older then 40+ tell me all the time whenever I'm at the game. I didn't come with this theory on my own terms. My personal belief on the meaning of being a true Sox Fan is being someone who roots for the SOX at all costs, but I was stating what many people have already said at one point of time or another. I'm sorry that you were offended, but *****.

I think you just insulted a large portion of "true Sox fans". I'd think in the future you'd be wise to think twice before claiming to know the formula for what makes a true fan and what doesn't...

vegyrex
02-02-2007, 07:56 PM
The first time I ever heard about media bias against the Sox it came from Bill Veeck.
Back in the 70's he said he took a look at the amount of stories the Chicago papers gave the Sox and Cubs and he found the Cubs got more ink.

To be honest I always thought the Sox and Cubs got about equal coverage, at least back in the 70's and early 80's. Then in '84 the Cubs went to the post season for the first time since 1945 and thats when I could see a noticable shift take place. All media outlets in the Chicago area took on more cub love and the Sox seemed to be outsiders looking in. That perception didn't start to fade, a little, until '05 after the Sox won the world series.

I think if the Sox make the post season again in '07, or better yet, win another world series, any talk of media bias against the Sox will be long gone.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2007, 08:57 PM
George Knue said there is no bias and that's good enough for me.





:wink:

SoxandtheCityTee
02-02-2007, 09:16 PM
Let's take an example that does not involve the Sox.

A shooting that took place at the intersection of Clark & Addison, a couple of hours after a Cub game, where the shooter and the victim had both attended that game, was never described as a Wrigley murder -- indeed, it was not even a Wrigleyville murder.

A shooting that took place on Wabash Avenue, more than two blocks from the nearest entrance to the Taste of Chicago, a couple of hours after the Taste had closed, where the victim but not the shooter had been at the Taste that evening, was headlined "Taste Murder."

I know that the reporters who write the stories don't write the headlines. Doesn't matter. The headline was written by a Tribune employee.

It's not anti-Sox at all times; it can be anti-City of Chicago, anti-rooftop owners, anti-whatever, but it ALWAYS protects the franchise. As a Cubs exec told a Tribune writer and his editor, it's "the house organ." Who are we to say he's wrong?

MarySwiss
02-02-2007, 09:33 PM
So to answer the question posted here, a true Sox fans only cares what happens on the field and not whether they have a bad spin or not, and I can attest that some of the older sox fans or (mods) would feel the same way.

I think you just insulted a large portion of "true Sox fans". I'd think in the future you'd be wise to think twice before claiming to know the formula for what makes a true fan and what doesn't...

Older Sox fan checking in. IMHO, you are wrong, and rdivaldi is right. Sox fans--older, younger--do not fall into a category, and this "older Sox fan" absolutely does care about what spin the Sox get in the media.

Let's take an example that does not involve the Sox.

A shooting that took place at the intersection of Clark & Addison, a couple of hours after a Cub game, where the shooter and the victim had both attended that game, was never described as a Wrigley murder -- indeed, it was not even a Wrigleyville murder.

A shooting that took place on Wabash Avenue, more than two blocks from the nearest entrance to the Taste of Chicago, a couple of hours after the Taste had closed, where the victim but not the shooter had been at the Taste that evening, was headlined "Taste Murder."

I know that the reporters who write the stoires don't write the headlines. Doesn't matter. The headline was written by a Tribune employee.

It's not anti-Sox at all times; it can be anti-City of Chicago, anti-rooftop owners, anti-whatever, but it ALWAYS protects the franchise. As a Cubs exec told a Tribune writer and his editor, it's "the house organ." Who are we to say he's wrong?

And again, yes, Tee. Excellent example. I'm sorry, IndianWhiteSox, but anyone who thinks there is no media bias toward the Cubs in Chicago probably also believes in the tooth fairy.

rdivaldi
02-02-2007, 11:16 PM
Now how the hell have I really insulted Sox fans with this statement. This is the same thing that most Sox fans who are older then 40+ tell me all the time whenever I'm at the game. I didn't come with this theory on my own terms. My personal belief on the meaning of being a true Sox Fan is being someone who roots for the SOX at all costs, but I was stating what many people have already said at one point of time or another. I'm sorry that you were offended, but *****.

"a true Sox fans only cares what happens on the field and not whether they have a bad spin or not"

Could it be any clearer? I'm not particularly offended, but to paint people as "not true Sox fans" is not something I would encourage.

FedEx227
02-03-2007, 12:07 AM
There is, there has to be. Anybody with any education in the journalism field knows immediately that writing about a team that you basically own is bias.

However, they do take it too far sometimes, there is quite the negative overtone towards the White Sox.

Even since 2005 though I've just learned to let it slide, every once and a while I'll get upset when I see something pretty blatant, but I've realized it's not going away anytime soon.

And like others said, there's a city bias towards the Cubs, and there always will be. The Tribune just seems to get the brunt of our abuse, because it's the most blatant.

IndianWhiteSox
02-03-2007, 12:38 AM
Older Sox fan checking in. IMHO, you are wrong, and rdivaldi is right. Sox fans--older, younger--do not fall into a category, and this "older Sox fan" absolutely does care about what spin the Sox get in the media.

Ok I was arong about that what I said.

And again, yes, Tee. Excellent example. I'm sorry, IndianWhiteSox, but anyone who thinks there is no media bias toward the Cubs in Chicago probably also believes in the tooth fairy.

I said there was a bias but, at the same time, why act like its the worst thing in the world when can all be smart enough to take it with a grain of salt and not take what the trib says so seriously. Instead, just remember that this is the smartest fanbase in baseball and the WSI has the smartest fans in baseball.

I think you just insulted a large portion of "true Sox fans". I'd think in the future you'd be wise to think twice before claiming to know the formula for what makes a true fan and what doesn't...

Ok, then I'm sorry about that.

ZombieRob
02-03-2007, 02:21 AM
I believe as much as fan support through media has evened out via T.V radio ratings there will always be more Cub fans locally and probably nationally then Sox fans .Perhaps thats why print media tends to be a tad biased.My worry is that if the Cubs ever do win a World Championship it'll be almost unbearable to live in this town being a Sox fan.

SoxandtheCityTee
02-03-2007, 11:04 AM
Anybody with any education in the journalism field knows immediately that writing about a team that you basically own is bias.

That reminds me -- one of the laughable things about Knue and other Cubune apologists is the condescending way they tell us about how a newspaper works, as if no one here could ever possibly have taken a class in journalism, worked on a paper, etc. As a friend of mine used to say, "There are schools all over, you know."

tebman
02-03-2007, 11:35 AM
I believe as much as fan support through media has evened out via T.V radio ratings there will always be more Cub fans locally and probably nationally then Sox fans .Perhaps thats why print media tends to be a tad biased.My worry is that if the Cubs ever do win a World Championship it'll be almost unbearable to live in this town being a Sox fan.
Sure, that's basic marketing stuff. The Cubs enjoy a favored place in local conversation because of a combination of savvy marketing by the Tribune and dumb moves by the White Sox over the last 20 years. And it becomes a self-perpetuating thing as the local population turns over, and especially as the media staffs (TV, radio, papers) gradually get populated with transplants who buy into the Good-Cubs / Bad-Sox mythology.

What annoys me (and I suspect most folks here who post on this topic) is that by implication this Bad-Sox narrative extends to me and my friends who are Sox fans. We are somehow less desirable, less attractive, less cultured, and generally lesser people because we're fans of the White Sox. That's what galls me.

There's probably a much deeper sociology thesis project in there somewhere, but that's not my expertise. All I know is that it's irksome and that I don't take it quietly.

Frater Perdurabo
02-03-2007, 11:37 AM
That reminds me -- one of the laughable things about Knue and other Cubune apologists is the condescending way they tell us about how a newspaper works, as if no one here could ever possibly have taken a class in journalism, worked on a paper, etc. As a friend of mine used to say, "There are schools all over, you know."

:knue

You could not possibly know what it is like to work for the World's Greatest Newspaper.

TommyJohn
02-03-2007, 12:28 PM
Sure, that's basic marketing stuff. The Cubs enjoy a favored place in local conversation because of a combination of savvy marketing by the Tribune and dumb moves by the White Sox over the last 20 years. And it becomes a self-perpetuating thing as the local population turns over, and especially as the media staffs (TV, radio, papers) gradually get populated with transplants who buy into the Good-Cubs / Bad-Sox mythology.

What annoys me (and I suspect most folks here who post on this topic) is that by implication this Bad-Sox narrative extends to me and my friends who are Sox fans. We are somehow less desirable, less attractive, less cultured, and generally lesser people because we're fans of the White Sox. That's what galls me.

There's probably a much deeper sociology thesis project in there somewhere, but that's not my expertise. All I know is that it's irksome and that I don't take it quietly.

Excellent post. This is always a bone of contention with me as well. It has
always galled me the way White Sox fans are stereotyped. Every group
has its bad apples. Examples would be the idiot who ran on the field at
Wrigley in 1995, the Dodger bullpen brawlers, the trash throwers, the
fans at Yankee Stadium that trashed the field during Game 6 of the 2004
ALCS, the ones who chanted "Sayonara" to Ichiro Suzuki, the Detroit
Palace brawlers, the fans who have made life hell for Steve Bartman,
Don Denkinger, Bill Buckner, etc, etc. All of these incidents have faded
into the background, but White Sox fans are branded for life because
of Ligue and Dybas.

The most galling example was in the summer of 2006, after the AJ-Barrett
fight. Two columnists who weren't even for the Tribune expressed shock:
One that AJ would "incite" the unwashed south siders in light of what the
fans are capable of (as if it it happens regularly). The other was shocked
that nothing happened, saying perhaps the Cell was becoming "Wrigleyfied."
Of course, neither one of the idiots had anything to say when AJ hit that
9th inning home run in Wrigley, and the fans responded by throwing garbage
for the umpteenth time.

In my view, the whole idea of saying that fans of a certain team are all
this or that (Cub fans-Yuppie Jerks, Sox fans-White Trash) is not good,
clean fun. It is racial and class bigotry in disguise. Maybe friends cracking
on each other like that is OK, but when strangers or people you hardly
know do it, it is not OK.

jeffmcmahon
02-03-2007, 06:45 PM
It has always galled me the way White Sox fans are stereotyped. Every group has its bad apples. Examples would be the idiot who ran on the field at
Wrigley in 1995, the Dodger bullpen brawlers, the trash throwers, the
fans at Yankee Stadium that trashed the field during Game 6 of the 2004
ALCS, the ones who chanted "Sayonara" to Ichiro Suzuki, the Detroit
Palace brawlers, the fans who have made life hell for Steve Bartman,
Don Denkinger, Bill Buckner, etc, etc. All of these incidents have faded
into the background, but White Sox fans are branded for life because
of Ligue and Dybas.

I couldn't agree more, and why is it that no one in the media seemed to notice the remarkable counterexample: the ticker-tape parade? There were 1.75 million people on the streets of Chicago, celebrating -- you know every Sox fan who could be there was there -- and how many arrests? One. One guy gets busted for trying to steal a Sox banner off a light pole. One. That's it. That's not just a baseball story, that's a major accomplishment for a city. Sox fans are OVERWHELMINGLY peaceful. Obviously.

WhiteSox5187
02-03-2007, 09:10 PM
Excellent post. This is always a bone of contention with me as well. It has
always galled me the way White Sox fans are stereotyped. Every group
has its bad apples. Examples would be the idiot who ran on the field at
Wrigley in 1995, the Dodger bullpen brawlers, the trash throwers, the
fans at Yankee Stadium that trashed the field during Game 6 of the 2004
ALCS, the ones who chanted "Sayonara" to Ichiro Suzuki, the Detroit
Palace brawlers, the fans who have made life hell for Steve Bartman,
Don Denkinger, Bill Buckner, etc, etc. All of these incidents have faded
into the background, but White Sox fans are branded for life because
of Ligue and Dybas.


I was an usher for the Cubs (and the Sox) in 2004, and the Sox were so much better with security. There was maybe one fight at the Cell in 2004 and security was there right away. One family was being verbally harrassed by some guy in the stands at the Cell and I called over security, security was there within seconds, removed the fan. WHen the fan threatened to "see you out in the parking lot" security turned around and said "Unless they come visit you in prison, no, you won't see them." They also offered to have a cop escort the harrassed family to their car and gave them free tickets.

At Wrigley, a fight broke out between a Cubs fan and Cardinals fan, and security took twenty minutes to get there and promptly through out the Cardinals fan who got hit in the face. During the Cubs-Sox series there were seven fights in the bleachers in one game, each fight lasted at least five minutes before security could arrive. Eight people ran out onto the field that year, my favorite happened during a rain delay when a guy ran out onto the field, removed his clothes, ran to the pitchers mound, slid to second and got up and ran to the CF wall before he was brought down by security. At the Cell we were instructed to watch for drunks and anyone who was "over-served" was thrown out of the ballpark fairly quick (some guys went without beign thrown out, but there were at least two off duty cops keeping a close eye on them). At Wrigley, we never threw out drunks. I clearly remember this, I was working in the upper deck and this guy was drunk and I told a security guy "This gentleman appears to be overserved and is getting hostile with other fans." THe security guy shrugged and said "Let me know if anything happens." Well, the guy became violent and grabbed a guy in a Pirate hat by the throat, I yelled for security, none came, so I tried to break it up (which was rather stupid) and wound up getting hit twice before security finally came.

The Cell is MUCH safer than Wrigley. And here's an interesting thing about the Ligues, there was a Cubs game earlier in the day that tehy went to and got loaded up at THAT game first. Then they went to the Sox game. No one at security for the Cubs bothered to notice "Say, these guys look pretty loaded..." they sent them on their way and the rest is history.

ondafarm
02-03-2007, 10:25 PM
I was an usher for the Cubs (and the Sox) in 2004, and the Sox were so much better with security. There was maybe one fight at the Cell in 2004 and security was there right away. One family was being verbally harrassed by some guy in the stands at the Cell and I called over security, security was there within seconds, removed the fan. WHen the fan threatened to "see you out in the parking lot" security turned around and said "Unless they come visit you in prison, no, you won't see them." They also offered to have a cop escort the harrassed family to their car and gave them free tickets.

At Wrigley, a fight broke out between a Cubs fan and Cardinals fan, and security took twenty minutes to get there and promptly through out the Cardinals fan who got hit in the face. During the Cubs-Sox series there were seven fights in the bleachers in one game, each fight lasted at least five minutes before security could arrive. Eight people ran out onto the field that year, my favorite happened during a rain delay when a guy ran out onto the field, removed his clothes, ran to the pitchers mound, slid to second and got up and ran to the CF wall before he was brought down by security. At the Cell we were instructed to watch for drunks and anyone who was "over-served" was thrown out of the ballpark fairly quick (some guys went without beign thrown out, but there were at least two off duty cops keeping a close eye on them). At Wrigley, we never threw out drunks. I clearly remember this, I was working in the upper deck and this guy was drunk and I told a security guy "This gentleman appears to be overserved and is getting hostile with other fans." THe security guy shrugged and said "Let me know if anything happens." Well, the guy became violent and grabbed a guy in a Pirate hat by the throat, I yelled for security, none came, so I tried to break it up (which was rather stupid) and wound up getting hit twice before security finally came.

The Cell is MUCH safer than Wrigley. And here's an interesting thing about the Ligues, there was a Cubs game earlier in the day that tehy went to and got loaded up at THAT game first. Then they went to the Sox game. No one at security for the Cubs bothered to notice "Say, these guys look pretty loaded..." they sent them on their way and the rest is history.

Great post.

IndianWhiteSox
02-04-2007, 10:56 AM
I couldn't agree more, and why is it that no one in the media seemed to notice the remarkable counterexample: the ticker-tape parade? There were 1.75 million people on the streets of Chicago, celebrating -- you know every Sox fan who could be there was there -- and how many arrests? One. One guy gets busted for trying to steal a Sox banner off a light pole. One. That's it. That's not just a baseball story, that's a major accomplishment for a city. Sox fans are OVERWHELMINGLY peaceful. Obviously.

If only more people in the media thought like you.

jeffmcmahon
02-04-2007, 11:32 AM
If only more people in the media thought like you.

Thanks, Indian. I think a lot of people in the media outside of Chicago do. The media gets criticized everywhere, but you've got to know that outside of Chicago, in the rest of America, it's not nearly this bad. It's really startling to come to Chicago and see what the Tribune gets away with. Chicago is a special case, and it really goes back to Col. McCormick, who used the Tribune from the very start to promote his business interests and his political agenda. Ethical compromise has been its glorious tradition. What I find most disheartening is that the journalists who work for the Tribune turn a blind eye to it. Maybe it's pride; maybe they come to believe they're superior beings because they work for the World's Greediest Newspaper, but quite a few of them don't respond to public concerns at all, which is really bizarre, since responding to public concerns is a journalist's reason to exist. Those who do respond will usually throw up their hands and say, "We can't help it that the Tribune owns the Cubs. What do you want us to do?" A lot, actually. Stand up for journalism like the reporters at the LA Times have done recently. Demand the Tribune sell the Cubs. Do a byline strike. Do a real strike. They may not want to jeopardize those paychecks, but what's it really worth, integrity? Anyway, unless Tribune gets torn to pieces in this current shareholder battle, we're stuck with this situation in Chicago. But we don't have to take it lying down. American journalists speak truth to power. In Chicago, that's what we have to do to our journalists.

maurice
02-05-2007, 04:52 PM
Not only the Sox rally but also the immediate aftermath of the clinching WS game. It's not unusual for clinching games to be immediately followed by drunken violence, looting, fires, car-flipping, and other damage to property. On the South Side, the streets were filled with revelers . . . and it was amazingly peaceful.

Ask J. Jones or L. Hawkins if they think that Cubs fans are cute and cuddly.

mrfourni
02-05-2007, 05:26 PM
I was an usher for the Cubs (and the Sox) in 2004, and the Sox were so much better with security. There was maybe one fight at the Cell in 2004 and security was there right away. One family was being verbally harrassed by some guy in the stands at the Cell and I called over security, security was there within seconds, removed the fan. WHen the fan threatened to "see you out in the parking lot" security turned around and said "Unless they come visit you in prison, no, you won't see them." They also offered to have a cop escort the harrassed family to their car and gave them free tickets.

At Wrigley, a fight broke out between a Cubs fan and Cardinals fan, and security took twenty minutes to get there and promptly through out the Cardinals fan who got hit in the face. During the Cubs-Sox series there were seven fights in the bleachers in one game, each fight lasted at least five minutes before security could arrive. Eight people ran out onto the field that year, my favorite happened during a rain delay when a guy ran out onto the field, removed his clothes, ran to the pitchers mound, slid to second and got up and ran to the CF wall before he was brought down by security. At the Cell we were instructed to watch for drunks and anyone who was "over-served" was thrown out of the ballpark fairly quick (some guys went without beign thrown out, but there were at least two off duty cops keeping a close eye on them). At Wrigley, we never threw out drunks. I clearly remember this, I was working in the upper deck and this guy was drunk and I told a security guy "This gentleman appears to be overserved and is getting hostile with other fans." THe security guy shrugged and said "Let me know if anything happens." Well, the guy became violent and grabbed a guy in a Pirate hat by the throat, I yelled for security, none came, so I tried to break it up (which was rather stupid) and wound up getting hit twice before security finally came.

The Cell is MUCH safer than Wrigley. And here's an interesting thing about the Ligues, there was a Cubs game earlier in the day that tehy went to and got loaded up at THAT game first. Then they went to the Sox game. No one at security for the Cubs bothered to notice "Say, these guys look pretty loaded..." they sent them on their way and the rest is history.


Good post, but it was Dybas (not the scumbag ligue) who claimed to be a life long Cub fan and was at wrigley before coming to Comiskey.

maurice
02-05-2007, 05:33 PM
IIRC, Ligue was just some random idiot and not a fan of any baseball team.

He was just there, because a family member invited his kid to a b-day party.

WhiteSox5187
02-05-2007, 06:23 PM
Good post, but it was Dybas (not the scumbag ligue) who claimed to be a life long Cub fan and was at wrigley before coming to Comiskey.
Ah, it was one of the two idiots. But either way, Cubs security dropped the ball there.

IndianWhiteSox
02-06-2007, 06:41 PM
Thanks, Indian. I think a lot of people in the media outside of Chicago do. The media gets criticized everywhere, but you've got to know that outside of Chicago, in the rest of America, it's not nearly this bad. It's really startling to come to Chicago and see what the Tribune gets away with. Chicago is a special case, and it really goes back to Col. McCormick, who used the Tribune from the very start to promote his business interests and his political agenda. Ethical compromise has been its glorious tradition. What I find most disheartening is that the journalists who work for the Tribune turn a blind eye to it. Maybe it's pride; maybe they come to believe they're superior beings because they work for the World's Greediest Newspaper, but quite a few of them don't respond to public concerns at all, which is really bizarre, since responding to public concerns is a journalist's reason to exist. Those who do respond will usually throw up their hands and say, "We can't help it that the Tribune owns the Cubs. What do you want us to do?" A lot, actually. Stand up for journalism like the reporters at the LA Times have done recently. Demand the Tribune sell the Cubs. Do a byline strike. Do a real strike. They may not want to jeopardize those paychecks, but what's it really worth, integrity? Anyway, unless Tribune gets torn to pieces in this current shareholder battle, we're stuck with this situation in Chicago. But we don't have to take it lying down. American journalists speak truth to power. In Chicago, that's what we have to do to our journalists.

The thing is that the people who work for the tribune are too cowardly to do things like that and the massses don't seem to realize that.

ondafarm
02-07-2007, 09:45 AM
. . . My worry is that if the Cubs ever do win a World Championship it'll be almost unbearable to live in this town being a Sox fan.

Luckily, there is very little chance of this subjunctive becoming true anytime in say, the next fifty years.