PDA

View Full Version : Today's Tribune Editorial


johnr1note
09-29-2007, 01:38 PM
I don't know where to post this, and I didn't see any specific references to this anywhere else on the site, but I was incensed by the official editorial stance the Tribune took today.

I don't mind the Cubune editorial board drinking the blue kool aid and waxing poetic about the purported glory of this NL Central title. The title of the editorial is "Cubs Win! Cubs Win!" But its the closing sentences that did me in:

"It would have been nice to cash in that Magic Number a little earlier with a brilliant display of offensive firepower (by the Cubs, not the Marlins), but it can't hurt to save a little something for the postseason. Look what happened to the last Chicago team that slumped its way into the playoffs . . . "

WHAT?!? Are they talking about the 2005 Sox? The team that won 8 of 10 of their last regular season games? That went 19-12 in September? The team that won 99 games? That was a "slump?"

Even the editorial board of the Tribune is on some sort of Cubs crack. Absolutely delusional revisionist history.

Scottiehaswheels
09-29-2007, 01:40 PM
I just hope the entire WGN/Tribune staff gets gutted once the sale is complete... pretty much all you can hope for really...

DSpivack
09-29-2007, 01:46 PM
I just hope the entire WGN/Tribune staff gets gutted once the sale is complete... pretty much all you can hope for really...

You could hope for that...or just hope for more of the same: Kool-Aid and Cubs collapse. :tongue:

ilsox7
09-29-2007, 01:49 PM
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Anyone who falls for the same deceit twice must accept responsibility for his own gullibility; thus, one should be more watchful the next time around.

Both phrases apply to anything in any print media these days.

Fenway
09-29-2007, 01:53 PM
The Tribune is doing EXACTLY what John Harrington did in 2001 with Boston.

They offered insane contracts (example Harrington got Manny ) knowing full well they would never pay most of the value in the hope the team would make October and INCREASE the sale value of the club.

They got a 25% shot at winning their first pennant since 1945 and 12.5% shot at the whole thing.

But right now the Tribune has to be happy.....the team is worth more today than yesterday

thomas35forever
09-29-2007, 02:09 PM
"Everyone talks about this little slump we had. Wait a second, we won 99 games. How big of a slump can that be?" - Don Cooper

DrCrawdad
09-29-2007, 02:11 PM
I don't know where to post this, and I didn't see any specific references to this anywhere else on the site, but I was incensed by the official editorial stance the Tribune took today.

I don't mind the Cubune editorial board drinking the blue kool aid and waxing poetic about the purported glory of this NL Central title. The title of the editorial is "Cubs Win! Cubs Win!" But its the closing sentences that did me in:

"It would have been nice to cash in that Magic Number a little earlier with a brilliant display of offensive firepower (by the Cubs, not the Marlins), but it can't hurt to save a little something for the postseason. Look what happened to the last Chicago team that slumped its way into the playoffs . . . "

WHAT?!? Are they talking about the 2005 Sox? The team that won 8 of 10 of their last regular season games? That went 19-12 in September? The team that won 99 games? That was a "slump?"

Even the editorial board of the Tribune is on some sort of Cubs crack. Absolutely delusional revisionist history.

Could it be that they are they talking about the Bears or Bulls? As you note, how exactly did the '05 Sox "slump its way into the playoffs?"

The '07 Cubbies are not near the '05 Sox. The only comparison that should be made is that the '05 Sox won 99 games to the '07 Cubbies (84, 85, or best 86) wins.

Nice touch too of the turds in the Cubune tower that they didn't even have the guts to mention the Sox by name.

tebman
09-29-2007, 02:49 PM
Didn't read it, don't want to. But a question to those of you who have: Was there any mention in there that their company owns the team?

WLL1855
09-29-2007, 02:53 PM
I don't know where to post this, and I didn't see any specific references to this anywhere else on the site, but I was incensed by the official editorial stance the Tribune took today.

I don't mind the Cubune editorial board drinking the blue kool aid and waxing poetic about the purported glory of this NL Central title. The title of the editorial is "Cubs Win! Cubs Win!" But its the closing sentences that did me in:

"It would have been nice to cash in that Magic Number a little earlier with a brilliant display of offensive firepower (by the Cubs, not the Marlins), but it can't hurt to save a little something for the postseason. Look what happened to the last Chicago team that slumped its way into the playoffs . . . "

WHAT?!? Are they talking about the 2005 Sox? The team that won 8 of 10 of their last regular season games? That went 19-12 in September? The team that won 99 games? That was a "slump?"

Even the editorial board of the Tribune is on some sort of Cubs crack. Absolutely delusional revisionist history.

Exactly! This fool didn't do his homework. Everybody forgets that the Indians played out of their minds after the all-star break in 2005. The Sox had the best record of any Chicago team in decades. In contrast, the Cubs are likely not going to win more than 85 games this year and played losing baseball the last two months of the year to earn a division crown. Not even a remotely close comparison.

Fenway
09-29-2007, 02:55 PM
Didn't read it, don't want to. But a question to those of you who have: Was there any mention in there that their company owns the team?

No

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0929_edit1_newsep29,0,224379.story

tebman
09-29-2007, 03:03 PM
Didn't read it, don't want to. But a question to those of you who have: Was there any mention in there that their company owns the team?

No

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0929_edit1_newsep29,0,224379.story

Thanks, Fenway. I thought not.

I'll quote this in teal -- it's the only appropriate way to do it:

Credibility is an indispensable asset of the Chicago Tribune Company ("Tribune"), as it is of any serious newspaper. To insure that our credibility is not damaged, editorial staff members have a special responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest or any activity that would compromise their journalistic integrity. Full and timely disclosure by employees of their outside activities is a key to making this policy work. Employee compliance will guarantee the professional behavior to which the Tribune is entitled and will maintain the organization's reputation for fairness and honesty.

'Nuff said.

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2007, 03:14 PM
Even the editorial board of the Tribune is on some sort of Cubs crack. Absolutely delusional revisionist history.

As an historian, I want to make sure we all know what "revisionist history" is. "Revisionist history" is re-writing history when new information is revealed or uncovered. Revisionism is perfectly legitimate and proper when new information contradicts orthodoxy. Please don't sully my profession by calling what the Tribune does by the same name.

What the Tribune editorial writer(s) wrote is absolute horse ****, euphemistically known as propaganda.

DrCrawdad
09-29-2007, 03:34 PM
As an historian, I want to make sure we all know what "revisionist history" is. "Revisionist history" is re-writing history when new information is revealed or uncovered. Revisionism is perfectly legitimate and proper when new information contradicts orthodoxy. Please don't sully my profession by calling what the Tribune does by the same name.

What the Tribune editorial writer(s) wrote is absolute horse ****, euphemistically known as propaganda.

Thanks for the correction.

Cubune, sloppy or propaganda, which is it?

MarySwiss
09-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Thanks for the correction.

Cubune, sloppy or propaganda, which is it?

I vote for "sloppy propaganda." AKA bull****. :smile:

veeter
09-29-2007, 03:42 PM
I really don't think they're talking about the Sox here. Maybe the Bears. I mean, the Sox won the series. That is indisputable.

johnr1note
09-29-2007, 03:59 PM
As an historian, I want to make sure we all know what "revisionist history" is. "Revisionist history" is re-writing history when new information is revealed or uncovered. Revisionism is perfectly legitimate and proper when new information contradicts orthodoxy. Please don't sully my profession by calling what the Tribune does by the same name.

What the Tribune editorial writer(s) wrote is absolute horse ****, euphemistically known as propaganda.

Well, I'm sorry if I'm not familiar with the technical definition. I always thought "revisionist history" was simply the "propaganda" produced by the side that wins the war, i.e. when neo-nazi skinheads tell lies to glorify Hitler, its propaganda, but when the State Department tells lies about the development of the Manhattan Project, its revisionist history. Either way, its still B.S. Which is what the Tribune is all about, and full to the brim with.

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2007, 04:00 PM
Thanks for the correction.

Cubune, sloppy or propaganda, which is it?

:D:

Here's a one question multiple-choice quiz. I expect we all know the answer.

1. The Cubune's organizational values are:

A. Sloppy reporting
B. Bad writing and editing
C. Incestuous corporate propaganda organ
D. All of the above

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2007, 04:06 PM
Well, I'm sorry if I'm not familiar with the technical definition. I always thought "revisionist history" was simply the "propaganda" produced by the side that wins the war, i.e. when neo-nazi skinheads tell lies to glorify Hitler, its propaganda, but when the State Department tells lies about the development of the Manhattan Project, its revisionist history. Either way, its still B.S. Which is what the Tribune is all about, and full to the brim with.

No sweat, my friend. :D:

Using your examples, revisionist history occurs when historians uncover (or get access) to records that reveal the full extent of the Manhattan Project. Revisionism often occurs when historians are able to get these new records that empirically prove the lies contained within propaganda.

Of course, there are "bad" historians, too, those that only select certain records and try to re-write history to suit their own interests. This is what skinhead neo-Nazis and the Tribune are doing. They are re-writing history by only selecting to portray certain facts and denying the existence of others, simply to further their own B.S. arguments.

Ex-Chicagoan
09-29-2007, 04:25 PM
I take it they left off the paragraph detailing the Cubs record this year vs. potential playoff opponents?

San Diego 3-5
Philadelphia 3-4
NY Mets 2-5
Arizona 2-4

TheOldRoman
09-29-2007, 04:37 PM
Of course, there are "bad" historians, too, those that only select certain records and try to re-write history to suit their own interests. This is what skinhead neo-Nazis and the Tribune are doing. :rolling::rolling::rolling:
I know it isn't what you are implying, but I find I find the last sentence absolutely hilarious.

I was thinking a few days ago, I knew the media (probably the trib) would talk about how "horrible" the Sox were in September, and how that surely means the Cubs will win the World Series.

Fenway
09-29-2007, 04:37 PM
I take it they left off the paragraph detailing the Cubs record this year vs. potential playoff opponents?

San Diego 3-5
Philadelphia 3-4
NY Mets 2-5
Arizona 2-4

Author of editorial

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/01/26/chicago-inside.jpg

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2007, 08:26 PM
:rolling::rolling::rolling:
I know it isn't what you are implying, but I find I find the last sentence absolutely hilarious.

How do you know what I was or was not implying? :tongue:

kba
09-29-2007, 08:46 PM
Lovers of the Press, Liberty Must Root for Cubs (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/lovers_of_press_liberty_must_r.php)

If you can get past the snark and smarminess of this story, it makes an interesting point: that Tribune Co. employees now have a direct financial interest in the success of the Cubs.

Since the Tribune Co. after the buyout will be 60% employee owned, and the sale of the Cubs is intended to reduce the debt incurred from the buyout, a higher selling price for the team will mean less debt for the company. That means more profit for the employee-owners.

ilsox7
09-29-2007, 08:49 PM
Lovers of the Press, Liberty Must Root for Cubs (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/lovers_of_press_liberty_must_r.php)

If you can get past the snark and smarminess of this story, it makes an interesting point: that Tribune Co. employees now have a direct financial interest in the success of the Cubs.



They've always had a direct interest in the success of the Cubs.

alohafri
09-29-2007, 10:55 PM
There was a quote, but I don't believe it was in the editorial, where some woman said, "I wish my grandmother was here to see this." See what? A divisional championship? Oh, how exciting!

pierzynski07
09-30-2007, 12:21 AM
I take it they left off the paragraph detailing the Cubs record this year vs. potential playoff opponents?

San Diego 3-5
Philadelphia 3-4
NY Mets 2-5
Arizona 2-4

2005 White Sox:
New York 3-3
Boston 3-4
Los Angelos 4-6

And the point is?

DumpJerry
09-30-2007, 12:53 AM
According to some of the Cub fans I know, the Sox were 0-30 for September '05.

Whatever it was I was drinking in 9/05, I want it again!

By the way, mention to your Cub fan friends that there is a reason why there are no trophies for Division winners.

viagracat
09-30-2007, 11:38 AM
Of course, what the Trib--and a lot of their readers--remember from late '05 was the Sox's drop from 15 games up down to about 1 1/2. Hell, I remember all the dark clouds that were here at WSI during the standings slide and even I was saying "what the hell" during that scary time. The possibility of the Sox outdoing the '69 Cubs in blowing a big lead was on everyone's minds and will not be forgotten by anyone who cared.

What is forgotten by the Trib and the Sox haters out there is how the Sox righted the ship at the end. But that was good news. Good news is never as dramatic as bad news.

DumpJerry
09-30-2007, 11:49 AM
What is forgotten by the Trib and the Sox haters out there is how the Sox righted the ship at the end. But that was good news. Good news is never as dramatic as bad news.
What is also forgotten is the fact that the White Sox were the only MLB team to hold off the nearly impossible close to .800 ball the Tribe played for 6 weeks.

If the Tribe had played ball during those 6 weeks like they did the rest of the year, the Sox would have not appeared to have "choked."

viagracat
09-30-2007, 11:57 AM
What is also forgotten is the fact that the White Sox were the only MLB team to hold off the nearly impossible close to .800 ball the Tribe played for 6 weeks.

If the Tribe had played ball during those 6 weeks like they did the rest of the year, the Sox would have not appeared to have "choked."

Very true. The '07 Cubs are very fortunate to be in the NL Central. Anywhere else...they gone!

Frater Perdurabo
09-30-2007, 12:03 PM
What is also forgotten is the fact that the White Sox were the only MLB team to hold off the nearly impossible close to .800 ball the Tribe played for 6 weeks.

If the Tribe had played ball during those 6 weeks like they did the rest of the year, the Sox would have not appeared to have "choked."

Exactly. In fact, there was at least one long stretch (Sept. 5 - 24) where the Indians won 17 of 19 games, for an .894 winning percentage. They also had another run where they went 16-4.

And leave it to the Tribune not to give the Sox credit for building up a 15-game lead earlier in the year that allowed them to withstand that incredible run the Indians made.

tebman
09-30-2007, 03:15 PM
Lovers of the Press, Liberty Must Root for Cubs (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/lovers_of_press_liberty_must_r.php)

If you can get past the snark and smarminess of this story, it makes an interesting point: that Tribune Co. employees now have a direct financial interest in the success of the Cubs.

Since the Tribune Co. after the buyout will be 60% employee owned, and the sale of the Cubs is intended to reduce the debt incurred from the buyout, a higher selling price for the team will mean less debt for the company. That means more profit for the employee-owners.
This is the whole story -- the only reason the Tribune bought the Cubs and have kept them all these years is that it's a money-making enterprise that enhances its other properties: WGN radio, WGN-TV, the newspapers and the cable programs. Any other bleatings about journalistic integrity is simply a cue-card reading of the Tribune's talking points.

Phil Rogers, Rick Morrissey and even George Knue aren't getting rich off this, but their company is, and that keeps them employed. The Tribune is fallen into a tub of butter here with the lucky timing of the Cubs' surge while the team is on the auction block. The Tribune is still dodging a billion (yes, billion) dollars in tax obligations from the purchase of the LA Times, and Zell's purchase has generated 12 billion (yes, billion again) in debt according to the article. High market value on the Cubs couldn't come at a better time.

That moat of protection between the Tribune's business office and its editorial office is getting shallower all the time.

Frater Perdurabo
09-30-2007, 03:17 PM
That moat of protection between the Tribune's business office and its editorial office is getting shallower all the time.

Moat? :rolling:

It's gone from kiddie pool to puddle.