If Only George Knue What George Knew
A chicagosports.com writer recently admitted that more Cubs fans click on the links on that Tribune-owned website. That helps explain why the Tribune has been so unabashed about its Cubs bias in the past: Tribune readers tend to be Cubs fans. But the Tribune has erred in assuming that a Cubs majority among its readers translates to a Cubs majority in Chicago.
The Tribune has not only made that assumption, it has promoted that assumption as fact. But there is plenty of contrary evidence, including the 1.75 million Sox fans who attended the ticker-tape parade last October, and a recent poll conducted by ESPN Radio 1000.
Two days ago, ESPN asked Sox fans and Cubs fans whether they felt more optimistic or more pessimistic about the season. Each type of fan had two options, but the results were lumped together, and more Sox fans than Cubs fans answered the question. When the results came in, 52 percent of respondents were White Sox fans. 48 percent were Cubs fans. Would we assume, therefore, that 52 percent of Chicagoans are Sox fans? No, only the Tribune makes assumptions like that.
Now, the Tribune might argue that more Sox fans listen to ESPN 1000 because that station used to broadcast Sox games, but the very same argument applies to the Tribune: More Cubs fans read the Tribune because for 24 years it has broadcast a pro-Cubs bias.
What does this have to do with George Knue? George Knue is a long-time Tribune sports editor, and a Cubs fan, whom the Tribune has exiled to chicagosports.com. As the editor of that site, Knue likes to argue with Sox fans who protest the Tribune's Cubs bias. Knue adopts the spurious position that Sox fans can't prove his writers intend to favor the Cubs. The argument is spurious because, of course, it's impossible to prove an intention that exists inside a writer's head. But there was a day when George Knue made a sensible argument:
According to ePrairie, in 2003 Knue argued that news delivered by team websites serve the team with whom they are affiliated:
As far as proving bias goes, the posts below show that's easy enough.
The Tribune has not only made that assumption, it has promoted that assumption as fact. But there is plenty of contrary evidence, including the 1.75 million Sox fans who attended the ticker-tape parade last October, and a recent poll conducted by ESPN Radio 1000.
Two days ago, ESPN asked Sox fans and Cubs fans whether they felt more optimistic or more pessimistic about the season. Each type of fan had two options, but the results were lumped together, and more Sox fans than Cubs fans answered the question. When the results came in, 52 percent of respondents were White Sox fans. 48 percent were Cubs fans. Would we assume, therefore, that 52 percent of Chicagoans are Sox fans? No, only the Tribune makes assumptions like that.
Now, the Tribune might argue that more Sox fans listen to ESPN 1000 because that station used to broadcast Sox games, but the very same argument applies to the Tribune: More Cubs fans read the Tribune because for 24 years it has broadcast a pro-Cubs bias.
What does this have to do with George Knue? George Knue is a long-time Tribune sports editor, and a Cubs fan, whom the Tribune has exiled to chicagosports.com. As the editor of that site, Knue likes to argue with Sox fans who protest the Tribune's Cubs bias. Knue adopts the spurious position that Sox fans can't prove his writers intend to favor the Cubs. The argument is spurious because, of course, it's impossible to prove an intention that exists inside a writer's head. But there was a day when George Knue made a sensible argument:
According to ePrairie, in 2003 Knue argued that news delivered by team websites serve the team with whom they are affiliated:
"A lot of team sites consider themselves to be an independent news source and operate at arm’s length from the team itself,” Knue said. “My instinct is that they are the voice of the Bears, Cubs and White Sox whether they want to be or not.”George and his Tribune colleagues have never understood that the same is true of the Tribune. They may consider themselves independent, and they may operate at arm's length from the team itself, but as long as they own the Cubs, they are the voice of the Cubs, whether they like it or not.
As far as proving bias goes, the posts below show that's easy enough.
posted by Chicago Cubune Watch permalink
