Ricky Martinez Dies

Sadly, Ricky Martinez, a Marine who survived Iraq but was shot last Tuesday on his way home from a Cubs game, passed away. Since we'd written about that incident, we thought it appropriate to update our information and let you all know. Our sincere condolences to Mr. Martinez' family and friends.

Murder at the Friendly Confines, Part II

For the second year in a row, a spectator was shot on his way home from a Cubs game. Except, you won't read that angle in the Chicago media. It was the victim's family that pointed to the Cubs game: "He survived bombs, he survived bullets and all that over there in places like Fallujah, and he gets hit coming home from a baseball game," said Alex Cruz, the cousin of Iraq-war veteran Ricky Martinez, who was shot in the head April 25 near Addison and Cicero. Martinez remains in critical condition.

It's unclear from news reports whether Martinez was shot by someone who had been riding in his own car -- which means someone took a gun to a Cubs game -- or whether he was shot by someone on the street -- which means someone on Addison shot a Cubs fan -- but either scenario seems significantly more dangerous than anything experienced by Sox fans attending games at U.S. Cellular Field.

Last May, a 35-year-old man was shot to death at Clark and Addison, opposite the gates of the "friendly confines," two hours after attending a Cubs game.

But the Chicago media stick to their storylines, or rather story ruts, scaring families and tourists with portrayals of dangerously rowdy Sox fans and a neighborhood surrounded by curiously stereotypical pot-smoking poor black people, even though it isn't, while Wrigley remains a handsome, delightful, beautiful, perfect, roomy, joyful, sacred garden, even though it isn't, and you might get shot on your way home.

Soldier Field: So What? and now, Who Cares?

Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin was at it again yesterday, lamenting Soldier Field's loss of landmark status, singling out Mayor Daley for blame, and assuming everybody agrees with him:

From the first, the architects who designed the renovation of Soldier Field insisted that they were "saving one of Chicago's great landmarks." Those words, which appeared on the cover of the multimillion dollar stadium redesign plan they unveiled six years ago, were embraced by Mayor Richard M. Daley, the project's chief political backer. And they were swallowed whole by modernist ideologues whose blinders stopped them from seeing the architectural train wreck that was so apparent to everybody else.

In fact, a far better architecture critic than Kamin disagrees with him. But more important is the journalistic train wreck. Kamin still doesn't answer the question of "so what?" There seem to be no consequences whatsoever for the loss of landmark status. More importantly, Tribune-owned Chicagosports.com placed a poll next to Kamin's story yesterday asking readers whether they care. 56 percent said no, they don't care. That poll has since been replaced by a less embarrassing question for the Tribune, "Do you think Soldier Field deserved to lose landmark status?"

Nelson Algren observed a half century ago that the Tribune tries to impose its point of view on the city. When the newspaper crusades this stridently to impose a point of view, and its readers respond with "so what?" and "who cares?" it just proves how distant this city's newspaper is from this city's people.

Soldier Field Landmark Status: So What?

The Tribune media have hated the Soldier Field renovation since before it was built, a hate that seems wrapped up in their hate for Mayor Daley, and they're making hay now that the National Park Service has repealed the field's landmark status. But all the Tribune and WGN stories on this topic have failed to answer one key question: so what? What happens to a landmark that loses landmark status? As far as we can tell, nothing.

On WGN's story Saturday night, the Tribune-owned television station quoted Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin's negative review of the stadium, as if to say, "I told you so." They showed a few awkward shots of Mayor Daley, as if the sky is falling and it's Daley's fault, and interviewed two Cubs fans and a token Sox fan who, like most people picked off the street for an interview, had no background on the story and no insight to offer.

Why didn't WGN also quote an architecture critic who many believe has a sharper eye for architecture, Herb Muschamp of the New York Times? Unlike Kamin, Muschamp noticed that Soldier Field captures the dual condition of the modern city: dynamic energy springing from a classical foundation. Here's some of what Muschamp wrote about the new Soldier Field:

I suspect that it won't be long before the city embraces the new field. The design's urban and architectural merits are considerable. Its conceptual qualities are better still. If you set out to write something bad about the design, you ultimately end up with a critique of the society that produced it. But the design is much more than a symptom of our time. It is a creative response to it.

I suspect Muschamp is right, and Kamin is either a myopic critic or a Tribune lapdog. Kamin hates the Soldier Field renovation but adores the Wrigley Field renovation. Surprise, surprise.


A Cubune-Watch Nod to Charles Sheehan

We had to rub our eyes and slap ourselves, twice, to make sure we were awake. Charles Sheehan's Sunday story about the Cubs "garage sale" included this ethical disclosure:

Wrigley Field and the Cubs are owned by Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune.

It's standard practice among reputable newspapers to print such disclosures, but we've never seen it in the Tribune before. We criticize them for leaving it out, and we'll praise them for putting it in: kudos to Charles Sheehan for taking the high road.

We do have a couple questions for Sheehan. People who shopped at the garage sale, paying $25 and up for old bricks and pieces of wood left over from the bleacher renovation, were told "a portion" of the proceeds goes to Cubs Care charities. How big of a portion? And where does the rest go?

Sox Rival Cubs in Revenue

The annual Forbes valuation of baseball teams is in, and although the Cubs come in fifth in total valuation at $448 million, the numbers show a greater than expected parity for Chicago's baseball market. The White Sox are ranked 18th, with a value of $315 million, but the revenue gap between the two teams is much smaller.

The Cubs bring in $179 million in revenue to the White Sox' $157 million, and the White Sox operate at a larger profit -- $14 million larger. So why the big difference in valuation? It has to be real estate. The Cubs own Wrigley Field (that is to say, the Tribune owns Wrigley Field), while the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority owns The Cell. Close to $200 million has been invested in The Cell, but the White Sox don't own that equity. Furthermore, the Cubs operate without stadium debt, while the White Sox operate with stadium debt.

In that light, the difference between the two teams looks quite small. Lump the Cell in with the Sox and they're worth as much or more than the Cubs. They still lag in revenue, but not very much when you consider how relentlessly Tribune publications have promoted the Cubs as a tourist destination and scared tourists away from the White Sox for the last 24 years.

It's so unfair: you invest 24 years of media bias in a team, and the other team goes and wins a World Series to screw it all up.

Freakish Friday

Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune:

Lee will be in a cast for up to six weeks after fracturing the distal radial bone and the distal ulna bone in his wrist during a freakish collision with Los Angeles shortstop Rafael Furcal in the seventh inning of Wednesday night's 5-4 victory at Dodger Stadium.

Carrie Muskat, ChicagoCubs.com:

The defending National League batting champ was injured late Wednesday in a freakish collision at first base with Dodgers shortstop Rafael Furcal.

What was so freakish about it? It looked pretty awful to me, but not freakish. Or are all collisions freakish? Can sports writers write "collision" without first writing "freakish"? Apparently they can...

Mike Kiley, Chicago Sun-Times:

Lee fractured his distal radial bone and distal ulna Wednesday night in a collision at first base with the Los Angeles Dodgers' Rafael Furcal.

I'll tell you what's freakish: how similar Paul Sullivan's first story, filed Thursday night, is to Carrie Muskat's opening paragraphs, which also appeared Thursday night. Notice, however, that Sullivan originally called the collision a "freak play." They actually edited Sullivan's piece to make it more freakish on Friday.

Freakish Notions from New York

A picture of Jim Thome appears on the third page of the New York Times' sports section today, above the headline "Heads Up: AL Has Become Filled With Contenders." Apparently the AL previously existed only as a doormat for the Yankees, and while winning the World Series makes you a champion in most cities, in New York it makes you a "contender."

The Cubs coulda been a contenda.

Tribune Skunked in Pulitzers

The Washington Post won four, the New York Times won three, even the Rocky Mountain News won two, but the Chicago Tribune took home no Pulitzer Prizes this year. Neither did any of the other newspapers owned by the Tribune, including the Los Angeles Times, which once upon a time was a perennial Pulitzer winner. Moments like this make you wonder about the cost of the Tribune strategy of optimizing market advantage at the expense of journalistic integrity.

Studs Terkel on the Cubs

Chicago's most venerable writer, Studs Terkel, nails the Cubs phenomena with this analysis, part of an interview in Sunday's Tribune:

The Cubs have been a legend for years. Nothing to do with baseball. You have to understand that. The Cubs' popularity had nothing whatsoever to do with baseball. It's a place to come to as, say, the Air Show is, the Auto Show, the Art Institute. It's a place to be at, and many have come from suburbs and nearby towns. It's not really baseball. It's a place to be at. We see that with the bimbos and the louts and the Bud Lights.

We agree. This not only explains why the Tribune invested in the Cubs, it also explains why none of the stories the Tribune published for the Cubs' home opener were about baseball.

For the Children or for the Tribune?

The Tribune has treated us yesterday and today to a series about the sorry state and high cost of textbooks in Illinois. The series seems to lean toward increased state spending and new sources for textbooks. Readers might be interested to know who, besides the children of Illinois, stands to benefit from increased state investment in new sources for textbooks: the Tribune.

The Tribune's textbook-related investments have included The Wright Group, the leading publisher of language educational materials for use in elementary schools, as well as Contemporary Books, GED Materials, Compton's Learning Company, SoftKey, Lightspan partnership, and varsitybooks.com.

I did not see any disclosure in the Tribune stories of the Tribune's involvement in textbook sales. So we see, again, that this is all much bigger than baseball.

Don't Quote Me on That

For years I've been noticing different versions of the same quotes in our city's newspapers. Sometimes two stories in the same newspaper will have different versions of the same quote. The quotes are close enough that the reporters obviously got them at the same time, but different enough that you have to wonder how much the reporters ever get right. I don't think we can chalk this up to Ozzie-English, either. In this age of digital voice recorders and iPods with microphones, why are reporters still using pens and notebooks, and jotting down notes that are mostly wrong?

Today's example:

Dave van Dyck, Tribune:

"How we use McCarthy, that's my concern," Guillen said. "Every time we use him for like three innings, it's not fair [to use him] the next day.

"The savior right now is McCarthy."

Toni Ginetti, Sun-Times:

"Right now, it's tough because we have one kid who's been our savior," Guillen said. "We have to know how to use him. I have to be careful how I use him. Using him two or three innings all the time isn't fair for him. If we use him a few innings, I need to stay away from him the next day."

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:

"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.

The Tribune Store: Where Journalists Sell Out

You know, it would be fine if the newspaper called itself the "Wrigleyville Tribune" or if the radio station claimed to be "the Voice of Wrigleyville," but that's not how it is. The newspaper claims the whole city, and WGN claims to be its voice.

Yet anyone who visits the editorial offices of those purported newsgathering organizations is met by the spectacle of the Tribune store, its windows stuffed with Cubs gear, and only Cubs gear. To a Sox fan, it's the equivalent of a neon sign saying, "You don't belong here." There is a problem with a sign like that on a newsroom.

Unlike other businesses, newsgathering organizations play a crucial role in our constitutional republic. That's why Thomas Jefferson said, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press." You'll notice Jefferson did not say, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the prosperity of the Cubs."

The founding fathers didn't just cherish a free press, as in free from government influence, but also an independent press, as in independent from the influence of business interests.

The founding fathers certainly didn't envision our free and independent press as a ticket outlet for a baseball club, but that's the low it has reached in Chicago. Welcome to Michigan Avenue, home of the Tribune Tower, the world's most pompous ticket window.


WGN Website Update

Since we wrote about the Cubs bias on the home page of WGN radio, the number of references on that page to the Cubs has changed. Here are the latest totals:

WGN Radio
References to Cubs: 9
References to World Series Champion White Sox: 0

"The Voice of Chicago" rationalizes its neglect of half the city because it broadcasts the Cubs. So let's examine the home pages of cable Superstation WGN and the local broadcast station WGN-TV 9, both of which carry the games of both teams:

Superstation WGN
References to Cubs: 8
References to World Series Champion White Sox: 2

WGN-TV Channel 9
References to Cubs: 7
References to World Series Champion White Sox: 2

Superstation WGN reaches 67 million U.S. households, where it insinuates a pro-Cubs bias that serves the Tribune's financial self-interest. Worse, Tribune writers then write about Cubs dominance as if it's an independent fact of material reality, without disclosing their conflict of interest.

Ethical Disclosure 101

It's pretty telling, isn't it, that none of the stories in today's Tribune for the Cubs' home opener are about baseball. Baseball just provides an arbitrary occasion for a circular marketing ploy that siphons money from rubes. Tribune promotes Cubs, Cubs sell tickets and stuff, Tribune collects cash. That's what Cubune is all about. That's why it doesn't matter if the Cubs lose or win. The only baseball stories in today's Tribune are about the White Sox and the Cardinals. When it comes to the Cubs, we have a page-one story about fan angst, a religious story promoting a book about the Cubs' curse, an update on Derek Lee's contract talks, and an architectural review of Wrigley Field.

Since it is official Tribune policy to include an ethical disclosure in all but routine sports coverage of the Cubs, we checked these stories.... Nope, no ethical disclosure in any of them.

For you Chicagoans who've never seen it, here's what ethical disclosure looks like when it's done by a reputable newspaper:

"After distributing rings to players and on-field staff in a pregame ceremony at Fenway Park on Monday, the Red Sox held a charity dinner at the Sheraton Boston hotel, where they gave rings to the minority partners, including representatives of The New York Times Company, which owns a 17 percent share of the team." (New York Times, April 15, 2005)

It's pretty simple, a good writer can fit it smoothly into her story, and it makes writer, editor, and reader feel clean and fully informed. Without ethical disclosure, readers become rubes.

The absence of ethical disclosure seems particular prickly in the case of Blair Kamin's architectural review of the Wrigley Field renovations. He is, after all, reviewing a piece of investment property owned by his employer. And if you ponder profit sharing for a moment, he's invested in the property himself.

For those of you who boycott the Tribune, here's a condensed version of Kamin's review of Wrigley, using his own words: grand dame of American ballparks, matchless character, sacred garden, grand illusion, handsome, a delight to behold, beautifully continuing, perfect, pleasantly roomy, a place of joy. You get the picture.

Tribune writers usually say they don't do ethical disclosure because, and this is an actual quote, the Cubs-Tribune connection is "universally known." There are a couple problems with that stance. For example, what if someone doesn't know? It only takes one uninformed reader to put the writer in the ethical soup. Let me rephrase that: if even one reader doesn't know about the financial affiliation between the parties in the story, the writer has committed an ethical violation. Furthermore, ethical disclosure does more than inform. It reminds the writer, as she's writing, and reminds the reader, as she's reading, of the conflict of interest. Put it out in front where we can all see it, and it can do less harm.

Even Chicago Magazine editor Richard Babcock uses the "everyone knows" excuse. But does everyone in Chicago really know that Chicago Magazine is owned by the Tribune? What if tourists pick up these publications, do they know?

And what does the Society of Professional Journalists say about all this? "Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility, (and) disclose unavoidable conflicts."

The Shrinking Circle of Cubune Incest

These interesting comments appeared in a March 29 column by Rahula Strohl, a writer for the Tribune-owned chicagosports.com:

"Our numbers show that more people click on the Cubs headlines than on the White Sox headlines or Bulls headlines. I also know that among the Sox fans who do visit our site, they tend to have a little more faith in their club than Cubs fans do. After all, I believe it is the White Sox who won the World Series last year."

Strohl goes on to say that the Cubs will suck again this year and Cubs fans are wasting their time being Cubs fans. It's not difficult to imagine that the newspaper as a whole recently reached the same conclusion, that it's wasting its time with the Cubs.

Why do more Tribune readers click on Cubs' headlines? Because many Sox fans boycott the Cubune Empire and all its tributaries, viewing the whole conglomerate as a massive Cubs newsletter. When some piece of jaundiced Cubune journalism does cross our radar, it's often obvious that it was written by a Cubs fan for Cubs fans. Of the seven chicagosports.com writers who maintain blogs, six declare their preference for the Cubs, including Strohl and alleged editor George Knue. The seventh says he prefers neither team. That's like having an all-white staff and one Eskimo in a city that's half black.

If the writers for chicagosports.com are a representative sample, nearly everyone writing for Tribune Sports prefers the Cubs. We already know the wags at WGN are Cubs fans, because they babble chipperly about the Cubs on the radio all the time.

So what is a media empire with a shrinking stock price to do when it realizes it has wasted its time investing in the Cubs? There's only one thing to do. Jump on the Sox bandwagon.

Tribune Joins Sox Bandwagon... For Now

The Chicago Tribune has to be the fattest (and tardiest) bandwagon rider in Chicago, judging from its coverage of this season's opening day. The Tribune devoted about four times more room to the Sox than the Cubs in its Sunday special section, "Baseball," and confined most of its snarkiness to the back page. And today, on opening day for the Cubs, we find a four-page Sox special section wrapped around the regular Sports section. The Cubs get the top of the regular Sports page and the equivalent of about a page inside.

This seems uncharacteristically Soxish for a newspaper that has promoted the view that even a World Series champion can't rival its lovable losers.

Thank you, Tribune. Sox fans, we should acknowledge this belated attention from the daily windsock, but we should also view it with a skeptical eye. Let us not forget how the Tribune treated us in 2005, during the run to that World Series. How deep is the Tribune's newfound devotion to the Sox? How long will it last? And what's behind it?

In a town with two baseball teams, each team commands a portion of the same market for fan devotion and fan dollars. The Tribune has heavily invested itself in Cubs market share, obviously, and many Sox fans feel that we've been kissed off. But Cubs market share could now be considered to be in some peril. And who reads the Tribune? A silly Tribune poll in today's Tempo section offers an answer. It reports that a plurality of Tribune readers consider the Cubs' Lou Brock trade to be the biggest blunder in Chicago history.

Who would consider trading Lou Block a bigger disaster than the Chicago fire? Only Cubs fans. So who reads the Tribune? Lots of Cubs fans. And what happens to the Tribune if the Sox eclipse the Cubs, if Sox fandom continues to grow and Cubs fandom continues to shrink? Better jump on the Sox bandwagon, Tribune. Better jump on it quick.

(Sorry Tribune, but it does look like you can't win even when you're good to the Sox. That's because you shouldn't own the Cubs in the first place. We can promise you one thing: you'll get our unmediated praise when you sell the Cubs and, to compensate for the last 24 years of unethical behavior, donate the proceeds to White Sox Charities. We promise to love you on that day.)

The Eighth Blunder of Chicago

The Tribune recently completed a charming series on Chicago's greatest blunders. They began it with that famous Tribune headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman" and ended with that famous Cubs' trade: Lou Brock to the St. Louis Cardinals for Ernie Broglia. Was that a clever gesture toward self-critique by the Cubune? A concession to the pressure applied to the Cubune by you Cubune critics out there? Or was it a calculated effort to fend off criticism, since some of Chicago's greatest blunders have been perpetuated by the Tribune, by the Cubs, or by the union between the two. You see, the Tribune omitted the greatest blunder of all: Tribune Buys Cubs.

It has to be the stupidest thing a newspaper has ever done. Not only did a newspaper that's supposed to cover the whole city take sides in a rivalry that divides the city, but it picked the losing side. Meanwhile, what had been merely a baseball rivalry has become something of a cultural war, in which Southsiders understandably feel that all the Tribune-owned media have turned against them. Sure the Tribune has made some money selling caps and scalping tickets, but what's the value of the credibility it lost? As blunders go, "Dewey Defeats Truman" lasted one morning. The Tribune and Cubs have been blundering arm-in-arm for 24 years.

Morrissey Gets it Half Right

Today Tribune columnist Rick Morrissey called for the Tribune to sell the Cubs. While I applaud the gesture, I want to express two reservations: 1. He couldn't do it without taking a few cheap shots at people who rightfully object to the Tribune's conflict of interest, and 2. Funny how it took a World Series trophy to wake the guy up. Would Morrissey ever have written today's column if the Sox didn't win that trophy? Maybe, but I gotta wonder. Last October it became clear the Tribune invested in the wrong Chicago baseball team. A lot of cracks have been showing in the Tower's foundation since then. It's never a surprise to see rats jumping off a sinking ship. It would have looked a lot classier, Rick, if you took the leap last year.

Also, Morrissey has a few misperceptions that we need to straighten out. This Sox fan doesn't think Cubune reporters take direction from Tribune CEO Dennis Fitzsimmons. I believe that, for the most part, reporters try to be fair, especially in the Sports Department. But I have seen evidence that the groupthink in the Tower colors the way many of its reporters perceive the world, the way they write about it, and the way they portray it to the rest of us. And I do think the arrogance in the Tower prevents them from acknowledging when they're wrong. Furthermore, I know they have a real conflict of interest, not just a perceived one.

For example, when Morrissey wrote on Jan. 31 that this is still a Cubs town and those 1.75 million fans at the Sox ticker-tape parade were really Cubs fans incognito (apparently wearing Sox gear for the day), he helped to reinforce a perception of Cubs dominance that his employer helped to create, a perception that it is in his employer's financial interest to maintain. That may not have been his intention, but he did it just the same.

The Cubs are worth an estimated $500 million to the Tribune. Not only does Morrissey have a general financial interest in his employer's financial health, he also has a specific financial interest in his employer's profit sharing plan. He has a real financial interest in the Chicago Cubs, yet he covers baseball. That's just wrong.

Trying to hide in the ethical shadows between real and perceived, Rick, that's just weak. But let's say you did only have a perceived conflict: you're still in the wrong. Take a look at any standard journalism ethics policy, including the Tribune's own (see the sidebar to the right). Real or perceived, it doesn't matter. You shouldn't be swimming in this vile soup in the first place.

You don't lose the argument with your readers because we're tenacious conspiracy theorists, you lose the argument with your readers because you're always already in the wrong. As long as the Tribune owns the Cubs.

You've called for a change in that state of affairs. Bravo. But you still haven't grasped the moral and ethical imperative behind it. Until you make that leap, Sox fans won't take you seriously