Yet More Reasons A Newspaper Shouldn't...

... own a baseball team. In today's Tribune, business reporter Michael Oneal, who covers Tribune for the Tribune, reveals a new potential buyer of the Cubs:

The family that founded discount broker TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. has joined the list of potential bidders for the Chicago Cubs, the Tribune has learned.

Note: "the Tribune has learned" is reporter code language, feigning modesty while actually meaning, "hot diggity dog we gotta scoop!" Oneal goes on:

Sources close to the situation said the Ricketts family of Omaha and Chicago has signed a non-disclosure agreement with Cubs owner Tribune Co. and is readying the application Major League Baseball requires of all parties wishing to bid on one of its franchises.

You see the problem already, don't you. In the first paragraph, the Tribune discloses the new buyer. In the second paragraph, we learn the new buyer has a non-disclosure agreement with the Tribune.

When confronted with this sort of contradiction, Tribune reporters and editors gather in Les Nessman's office and insist there is no contradiction because, they sigh exasperatedly, Tribune and the Tribune are different. And if you believe that load of Indiana farm-fresh fertilizer, we've got a baseball team to sell you for a billion dollars.

A storied franchise, to be exact

Later in his story, Oneal refers to his precious (billion-dollar) Cubbies as one of baseball's "most storied franchises."

That they are. They are the most storied because the Tribune has written far more stories about them than any other baseball team. Even during the two seasons when the White Sox owned first place wire-to-wire, won a World Series and defended it, the Tribune published 1,400 more stories mentioning its storied Cubbies. Read all about it, if you haven't already, here.


Thanks to Lone Ranger for assisting with this post.