We Have Reason to Suspect It's Contagious
The diagnosis is in. Our team of medical experts has analyzed the recent work of Tribune sportswriter Dave van Dyck and determined that he must be suffering a persistent and uncomfortable rash in his dark and humid regions that causes him to write stories with the personality of a toxic pestilence. Either that or he thinks you're supposed to cover a baseball team by being relentlessly and absurdly negative, even if you have to make stuff up.
Or, the doctors' third premise: maybe he just really lubbs his Cubbies.
Yesterday van Dyck came out with a story about a Baseball Prospectus computer projection that the White Sox would finish 72-90 this year.
van Dyck's story is notable as a specimen of foul journalism in part because it's really old. Once again, that august daily, the Chicago Tribune, self-styled as "the world's greatest newspaper," was scooped by more than two weeks by a bunch of Sox fans chatting on WhiteSoxInteractive.com. And once again, the post from WSI, dated Feb. 26, amounts to better journalism than the suspicious substance published in the Tribune under Dave van Dyck's grumpy byline.
Better because the WSI discussion immediately put the prediction in context by revealing that the same software predicted the White Sox would finish 71-91 in 2005. Does anyone recall what happened in 2005? van Dyck does include that salient fact in his story, but he buries it in the final paragraphs. Of course, if he had put it on top, readers would have naturally wondered, "So why, Dave, are you bothering to do this story?"
And then Dave would have had to confess, "I have this itchy rash you see..."
Despite the fact that the "news" in van Dyck's story was a) profoundly undermined by the 2005 counterexample, and b) effectively more than two weeks old, Tribune-owned Chicagosports.com, which is operated by confessed Cub fan George Knue, ran it as the lead sports story on Sunday. Meanwhile, Knue's top Cubs story was about Sammy Sosa, who, last we checked, plays for the Texas Rangers.
Hey, have you heard the Tribune's new motto? "If it happens in Chicago, it's news to us."
Much more accurate than "world's greatest newspaper," anyway.
Or, the doctors' third premise: maybe he just really lubbs his Cubbies.
Yesterday van Dyck came out with a story about a Baseball Prospectus computer projection that the White Sox would finish 72-90 this year.
van Dyck's story is notable as a specimen of foul journalism in part because it's really old. Once again, that august daily, the Chicago Tribune, self-styled as "the world's greatest newspaper," was scooped by more than two weeks by a bunch of Sox fans chatting on WhiteSoxInteractive.com. And once again, the post from WSI, dated Feb. 26, amounts to better journalism than the suspicious substance published in the Tribune under Dave van Dyck's grumpy byline.
Better because the WSI discussion immediately put the prediction in context by revealing that the same software predicted the White Sox would finish 71-91 in 2005. Does anyone recall what happened in 2005? van Dyck does include that salient fact in his story, but he buries it in the final paragraphs. Of course, if he had put it on top, readers would have naturally wondered, "So why, Dave, are you bothering to do this story?"
And then Dave would have had to confess, "I have this itchy rash you see..."
Despite the fact that the "news" in van Dyck's story was a) profoundly undermined by the 2005 counterexample, and b) effectively more than two weeks old, Tribune-owned Chicagosports.com, which is operated by confessed Cub fan George Knue, ran it as the lead sports story on Sunday. Meanwhile, Knue's top Cubs story was about Sammy Sosa, who, last we checked, plays for the Texas Rangers.
Hey, have you heard the Tribune's new motto? "If it happens in Chicago, it's news to us."
Much more accurate than "world's greatest newspaper," anyway.
Labels: Chicago Tribune
posted by Chicago Cubune Watch permalink
