Trib Editorial on Cubs Coverage

Didn't see this posted: Dan McGrath on the longtime perception of biased Cubs coverage while the Tribune owned the team.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-23-mcgrath-cubs-chicago-aug23,0,7565681.story

Will be interested to see if the coverage changes at all.

 

I am not surprised Sox fans would feel the Trib slanted their coverage.

I am surprised that Sox fans can read.

 

I had someone read it to me.

 

Pallister screamed and doesn't know why....

 

Anybody who lives in Chicago knows that the Cubs own that city and the Sox are second fiddle. Always have been and always will. Hell, even when the Sox won the series a few years back they were still the second team in town. Kind of like the Clippers and Lakers in LA.

 

Correction: the Bears own the city. The Cubs just lease it.

 

Uh, no. In addition to the loop going Sox-mad, and both papers serving up daily fellations of Ozzie, I swear most casual Cubs fans jumped on the Sox bandwagon in October. I remember making the mistake of going to the M.A.C. counter at Marshall Field's during one of the World Series games and couldn't get any service because the sales girls were huddled around the radio, listening to the Sox.

 

Another miraculous byproduct of media work: Every news outlet treats your team like shit; every other team gets treated like golden boys.

And, somehow, the media manages to do that to EVERY team.

We bend space and time in ways that would blow Einstein's mind.

 

Normally, I would agree. But all you have to do is glance at the Tribune to see that the Sox are second fiddle to the Cubs.

And I don't care about either team.

 

The Sox also have fewer fans than the Cubs.

 

That's because of the inadequate coverage in local papers. If they had better coverage, they'd have more fans. Plus, all their kids would get scholarships.