More Anti-Sox Antics by Tribune

Do the Tribune's editors know what the guy's been up to who handles the sports photos at chicagotribune.com? In addition to draining the color from photos of the White Sox this spring, and little episodes like the one discussed below, he does stuff like this. Think he might be a Cubs fan? Think his editors might be too? Or is it just good for the bottom line in the Tower?

Propaganda Machine Rolls On

TOURIST ALERT: Fan on field at U.S. Cellular! Sure it's a laughing girl this time, but next time who knows — it might be one of those armed bank robbers! Why does the Tribune publish photos of fans on the field at U.S. Cellular, but never at Wrigley? Because it feeds a favorite story line — that U.S. Cellular is dangerous, unstable, anything can happen, so the tourists from Iowa probably shouldn't venture too far from "the friendly confines." That's also why the Tribune covers every development in the life of William Ligue but none in the life of Ronald Camacho. It's why the Tribune takes pains to dissociate Wrigley from the murders of fans leaving Cubs games but liberally attaches much less serious crimes to the Cell. It's why the Tribune greeted fans arriving for the playoffs in 2005 with a front-page story about poverty and pot smoking in Armour Square. Much less coverage was given to the body found in a Wrigley Field Honeyhut with a needle stuck in its arm. It's probably also why Tribune reporters and photographers averted their eyes this April, when Cubs fans were already throwing trash on the field at Wrigley. And hey, whatever happened to that lady who — in perhaps the most accurate pitch thrown by anyone in a Cubs cap last year — nearly took off Jacque Jones' head? The Cubune should have signed her up, but instead they covered it up.

We're not sure how the crack investigative team at the Tribune missed this fans-on-the-field scandal at Comiskey:

Fire Them All

Lots of Sox fans have been prodding us to write something about Mike Downey's latest lump of anti-Ken-Williams propaganda, but honestly, we can't do it any better than this.

Double Standards for the Company Team

You know what looks like bias? When a newspaper writer criticizes one team while making excuses for the other — on the very same topic. Phil Rogers and his ilk have been all over the White Sox for not re-signing Mark Buehrle, even while lubing up the Cubs to help them excrete Carlos Zambrano. Here's Rogers saying the Cubs won't be making a Maddux-sized mistake when they lose the only reliable pitcher they've had since Bartman:

Because Zambrano hasn't come up big in [big-game] situations, there isn't the parallel to the Greg Maddux situation in 1992 that some suggest. Yes, he's young. Yes, he has had success. But he's not heading into free agency as the Maddux of '92, coming off a Cy Young Award season and owning 95 career victories, including three years of 18-plus wins.

Zambrano and Maddux were both age 26 in their walk years. Carlos currently has an ERA .07 higher than Maddux, which could well fall below Maddux's first Cubbies' ERA by seasons' end. Modestly projecting him to 13 wins this season, Z will have averaged 13 wins to Maddux's 15.5 in full seasons. Zambrano's numbers aren't good right now, no doubt, thanks in part to the White Sox, and he can be a Sosa-sized jackass with all his skyward pointing and flying spittle, but he remains the hottest commodity on the Cubs' pitching staff. But Uncle Phil says not to worry, Cubs fans, he's not all that.

After all the Buehrle controversy the Tribune has incited, Phil must know he sounds like a hypocrite, so he addresses his double standard directly. Just not very well:

If the Cubs don't re-sign Zambrano, it won't be because they tried to get him on the cheap, as the White Sox have tried with Buehrle.

The Cubs offered Zambrano $11 million this year. Last summer, the White Sox offered Buehrle $33 million for three years. Does Phil own a calculator? If the Sox didn't bump up that offer, maybe it's because Buehrle promptly imploded. But Rogers doesn't even consider that reason, because he's too busy making excuses for the Cubs:

They (the Cubs) made legitimate five-year offers before the announced sale of Tribune Co. suspended negotiations, but Zambrano has enough leverage to want to be very near the top of the market, if not at the top. When the Cubs let Zambrano get within a year of free agency, you knew it was going to be a tough negotiation, no matter how sincere Zambrano is about wanting to stay put.

Yeah, negotiations are tough on the North Side, where the Cubs had financial diarrhea all winter, but negotiations aren't tough on the South Side, where the team actually has to maintain a feasible budget. It makes perfect sense... if you're living in your own private Wrigleyville.

Does a contract really have to extend 5 years to be reasonable? Are sportswriters acting as agents now? Are they taking the customary percentage too?

And if it's really true that the Tribune's sale shut down negotiations with Zambrano, doesn't it also mean the Cubs can't engage in any significant trades this year? What if Derrek Lee goes down again, or Alfonso tweaks his hammy, or what if that Phil-Rogers-All-Star, Mark DeRosa, takes a fastball in the chops? The Cubs are confined to Iowa and MLB's spare parts? (Tony Womack, Todd Walker, Mike Remlinger, Todd Hollandsworth, and Jeromy Burnitz are listening to offers.) Sounds like a big story to me, but I don't think I've read that one in the Tribune. Have you?

Brett Ballantini contributed much of this entry.

Is AJ's Act Getting Old? No, But the Tribune's Is.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Chicago could read a newspaper feeling confident that the stories it tells are fairly and accurately reported? Instead, we have a big daily that tries to build audience by fomenting controversy, sometimes — as we've seen before — regardless of the truth.

How many Chicagoans reading Paul Sullivan's story about A.J. Pierzynski today feel confident the story is true? We thought we would compare Paul Sullivan's packaging of the controversy to the actual evidence his story presents. In the quotes below, we reversed the order, putting the evidence (Mark Buehrle's quotes) above the spin (Paul Sullivan's setup of the quotes). First you'll read what Mark Buehrle said, then you'll see how Sullivan spun it for Tribune readers:

BUEHRLE: "I think it is disrespecting Toby," Buehrle said before Sunday's game. "It's kind of saying: 'You can't do your job.' I don't see where he has to be in there just because it's a big rivalry. That doesn't matter. He needs a day off. Whether it's against the Cubs or anyone else, he needs a day off."

SULLIVAN: While Guillen and Pierzynski eventually hugged it out, and Pierzynski added to his growing legend with a grand slam on Sunday, it appears some of Pierzynski's teammates are tired of his act.

Some of Pierzynski's teammates? Only one is quoted. Where are the many to justify the plural? Buehrle clearly seems to be criticizing AJ here, and deservedly so, but is the criticism as hot as Sullivan makes it out to be, or is Sullivan trying to make it bigger than it is? The false plural suggests the latter.

BUEHRLE: "It's just A.J.," Buehrle said. "Everything I keep hearing is 'Oh, A.J. is not in the lineup. He's a big part of this team and with the big rivalry, and with him being such a part of it because Cubs fans don't like him … ' We don't look at it that way. And I'm sure Cubs fans don't care if he plays."

SULLIVAN: Buehrle was not surprised that Pierzynski was putting himself ahead of his team with his public griping, putting Guillen in a tough spot.

When Buehrle refers to "Everything I keep hearing," he's clearly referring to everything he's hearing in the media, not everything he's hearing from AJ. He says "we don't look at it" the way you guys portray it. It makes you wonder how much of Buehrle's criticism is actually directed at the media coverage of AJ Pierzynski rather than at AJ himself. But Sullivan spins the quote into an accusation of AJ "putting himself ahead of his team." Notice Mark Buehrle does not utter those words. Sullivan does.

BUEHRLE: "I think some of the stuff he does during the course of the season he could not do, to kind of clear his name up a little," Buehrle said. "He likes to be that [villain]. He likes to see his name in the paper. He likes to, well, not to be in the middle of controversy—I don't think he purposely tries to cause some of it—but he just speaks his mind and pretty much causes controversy."

SULLIVAN: Buehrle believes Pierzynski enjoys playing the role of the villain at Wrigley Field because he craves the attention.

First, notice this little piece of artifice: [villain]. Sullivan changed an important word in Buehrle's quote, and now it matches the word he uses setting up the quote. What did Mark actually say? Did he say, "He likes to be that guy?" If so, doesn't it change the tenor of the quote? Did he say, "He likes to be that &%$#@&?" Because that would change the tenor, too.

Next, notice that Buehrle does not actually say AJ craves attention. After saying AJ likes seeing his name in the paper, Buehrle moderates his statement by saying AJ does not like being in the center of controversy — he just speaks his mind. In this case, the thrust of Buehrle's quote points away from AJ craving attention, but Sullivan spins the quote in the most ungenerous light.

Reporters will defend themselves from this kind of analysis by pointing out that the quote is right there for the reader to look at. But the sentences that frame a quote, particularly before it appears, certainly influence how readers absorb it. Otherwise, you could just give us the quotes and leave the reporter out altogether. Hey, there's an idea.

Brett Ballantini and Lone Ranger contributed to this entry.

11 p.m. UPDATE: Just got home from the game to find that Buehrle confirmed our take on Sullivan's work with these comments, published tonight on MLB.com:

On Monday afternoon, Buehrle said he had talked to Pierzynski, and there was no animosity between the two, adding that his comments were not taken in the spirit he intended.

"It has kind of been blown out of proportion, and it's kind of a story being made up out of nothing," Buehrle said. "Everything is good. We're good.

"I'm not trying to defend anyone or stick up for anyone," added Buehrle, when asked about the point he was trying to make with his Sunday statement. "I don't think it came across the right way. Like I said, it's just a story that someone was trying to take and run with it. Obviously, they did a good job at it."

So, to repeat: Wouldn't it be lovely if Chicago could read a newspaper feeling confident that the stories it tells are fairly and accurately reported?

Columnist or Hematophagic Opportunist?

Saturday was a low point for White Sox fans — almost as low as Sunday was for Cubs fans — which made it a particularly hard day for White Sox players and executives. So of course Tribune columnist Phil Rogers seized upon that moment to declare the White Sox "just another team." Phil's the kind of guy who waits until you're down before he runs out from where he's hiding to throw a kick. He's a real brave soldier once the enemy is badly wounded.

Once upon a time, this was a great town for columnists.

If Rogers really thinks the White Sox are mediocre, why did he wait for Saturday's particularly painful loss before he said so? This is the same columnist who almost admitted he was wrong earlier this season when the Sox off-season trades proved successful. Now, one ugly loss to the Cubs later, he's citing those same trades — which remain favorable to the White Sox — to criticize the team.

Rogers is always sniffing the wind for his moment, like the mosquito that's lurking on your bedroom ceiling, patiently anticipating lights out. He only starts to buzz when he catches a whiff of fresh blood. He's a half-hearted, part-time Mariotti.

Once upon a time, this was a great town for columnists.

And it's not enough to call the White Sox "just another team." Rogers lays a load of fictitious blame on the Tribune's favorite scapegoat, Ken Williams, the first executive in nine decades to bring this city a World Series championship.

Why does the Tribune hate Ken Williams so much? Maybe it's because Kenny's young, smart, successful, and he repeatedly foils the imaginary world Tribune is always portraying for its gullible readers, a world where everyone shuts up and drinks their Old Style, watches the CW, and sends their money upstream to the Tower, where the empty-hearted use it to stuff their shirts. It's a world that's safe for Tribune because in this happy happy world, everybody loves a loser.

Or maybe it's because Kenny represents the South Side, a culture the Tribune would just as soon forget, outside of the occasional murder story to reinforce the usual stereotypes (and keep the tourist dollar safely to the north).

Or maybe it's because in the last 25 years the Tribune has produced nothing but mediocre baseball — and ethically compromised journalism — while Ken Williams produced a champion. That might have something to do with it.

If Phil Rogers is looking for mediocrity, he doesn't have to leave the Tower. Which is too bad. Because once upon a time, this was a great town for columnists. Just ask Nelson Algren.

Affirmative Action for the Company Team

Phil Rogers' column on his All-City Team contains what looks like a not-even-veiled threat issued to the White Sox:

If Buehrle leaves there won't be any misunderstanding about the story line. It will be because White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf was unwilling to pay him the going rate for a pitcher with his track record. It will be because the Sox didn't believe in Buehrle after he went through the roughest stretch of an otherwise smooth career.

Notice Phil Rogers isn't claiming to describe reality. He's not saying there won't be any misunderstanding about the "reason" Buehrle would leave. He's describing the "story line." He's telling the White Sox how the Tribune intends to cover an event, should that event come to pass, and those intentions are threatening. Sox fans really want Buehrle back, too, but I'm not sure that gives reporters license to issue threats of bad publicity.

Reality doesn't even come into play, such as the reality that the Sox already offered Buehrle a contract, just as reality did not come into play in January, when the Tribune reported, in a story that remains uncorrected, that Mark Buehrle was already gone. Now they're all just praying Buehrle leaves the White Sox so they can a) claim their January story was prescient rather than wrong, and b) launch their planned "story line."

Why not cover baseball instead?

When Rogers finally gets to his topic, the All-City Team, he finds himself in a quandary: How do you get some Cubs on the team? A couple of Cubs arguably deserve a spot, such as Derek Lee at first, particularly with Paul Konerko in a slump, and Alfonso Soriano in left, particularly since the Sox don't have a regular left-fielder right now. (Even so, Rogers bases his selection on Soriano's "Yankee days"). But then what? An honest assessment of ability looks much more black than blue so Rogers puts some affirmative action to work for the company team.

First he selects someone named Mark DeRosa (ever heard of him?) at second base. Rogers admits DeRosa is about to lose his job on the Cubs, but he still claims he's better than this man:

Iguchi stays pretty low-key, mostly because of a language barrier. I guess that's as good a reason as any to dismiss his ability and slip an anonymous Cub in at second.

Then Rogers selects Aramis Ramirez at third over Joe Crede. Ramirez, busy hustling doubles into singles and letting pop flies bounce off his head, probably needs to be on the All-City Team to justify that $75 million Tribune contract. "Thanks, Phil," says Aramis, "You're really earning your 75k."

Finally, we smell some last-minute revision in Phil's selection of a closer. Did Phil originally select Ryan Dempster as the All-City Closer, then revise his column after Dempster handed a win to the Mets on Thursday? Rogers' blurb on Jenks is really about what a great selection Dempster would have been before Thursday's game. Of Bobby, Phil finally says, "Jenks doesn't have Dempster's experience but has a far superior arm and continues to show remarkable resiliency." Dempster's Experience? At what, blowing games? Jenks has seven strikeouts and two saves in the World Series. Most of Chicago prefers that kind of experience.

Brett Ballantini contributed substantially to this entry.

Tribune Promotes 'Los Cubs' Nationwide

If you happen to be a Spanish speaker living in South Florida, you might find yourself wondering why you're reading a regular feature in your local newspaper, El Sentinel, called "Know Your Cubs."

The Tribune's new weekly feature Conoce a Tus Cubs is not only appearing as editorial content in Hoy, the Tribune-owned Spanish daily in Chicago, and simultaneously as promotional content at the Cubs' Spanish website, it's also appearing in Tribune-owned newspapers and websites from sea to shining sea. Click the images to the right to see Conoces a Tus Cubs in El Sentinel of South Florida and at the homepage shared by the Hoy newspapers in Los Angeles and New York. (Tribune sold Hoy Nueva York yesterday, so expect that newspaper to excuse itself from this sleazy affair when it changes hands).

This should erase any doubts anyone has ever had about the Tribune's willingness to exploit its editorial resources to promote its financial interests. The Cubs are for sale. A higher profile among Latino fans nationwide certainly won't hurt the price.

Hoy Chicago Editor Alejandro Escalona has not returned a message we left him, but reporter Jose Luis Sanchez told us that Hoy is working to have a similar feature for the White Sox. Sanchez did not respond when we asked him when work on the Sox series would actually begun. If it ever does, will the Tribune promote the White Sox in New York, Los Angeles, and South Florida? We're looking forward to seeing that.

Some of you may be wondering, why shouldn't the Tribune be able to use editorial space to promote a baseball team it owns? Here's why:

"Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility, disclose unavoidable conflicts, deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.." -- the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Tribune Uses Hoy To Promote Cubs Only

Even though Tribune officials routinely deny a pro-Cubs bias, their true colors show wherever they think we're not looking — in the Tribune's Spanish-language media, for example.

Hoy, a Tribune-owned Spanish-language daily, recently launched an ongoing full-page feature called "Conoce a tus Cubs" — Know Your Cubs. Hoy has no such feature for the White Sox.

"Conoce a tus Cubs" is an obvious effort to counter the White Sox's advantage among Latino fans — an advantage built in part upon a history of great Latin players like Luis Aparicio, Minnie Minoso, Jorge Orta, and Ozzie Guillen.

In its campaign to overtake Latino Chicago, Tribune lets no journalistic principle stand in its way. It blurs the lines between journalism and advertising and between reporter and subject:.

Above the headline of Thursday's story in the paper edition of Hoy — an interview with Cub Ronny Cedeño — appears the Cubs logo, the URL of the Cubs' Spanish-language webpage, and an ad for Chevy, framed in ivy. Yet the feature is no advertisement: Hoy promotes it with a front-page puff box, a practice reserved for editorial content.

If we do happen to pay a visit to LosCubs.com, we also find "Conoce a tus Cubs" featured there as an integral part of the Cubs website. Try to imagine the Tribune running parts of the White Sox website in their editorial space, packaging it as news. Hard to imagine? That's exactly what Tribune-owned Hoy is doing for the Tribune-owned Cubs, and to the exclusion of the White Sox. Balance? Fairness? No, greed rules the Tower.

Conoce a tu Tribune, amigos. Es sucio.

Chicago Magazine Wins Cash-Cow Award

At today's Tribune Company annual meeting, Tribune gave its Tribune Values Award (heh heh) to three Chicago Magazine suits: Editor Dick Babcock, Publisher Randy Hano, and Rich Gamble, director of finance and operations. We have to agree. Ever since Tribune bought Chicago Magazine five years ago, the magazine has dutifully promoted Tribune Values... and Tribune assets (Coincidentally, Editor Babcock is a Cubs fan). And it's a real testament to Chicago Magazine's soulsale adoption of Tribune advertorial synergies that the editorial department is sharing the honor with the guys who keep the books.

Separate and Unequal

Two Chicago ballclubs, two extra-inning games, two blown saves, two losses, but the White Sox "blew a lead" while the Cubs "battled." The Sox suffered a "bullpen meltdown" while the Cubs merely "frittered away opportunities." Nah, there's no bias.

Two Chicago ballclubs, two extra-inning games, two blown saves, two losses, two headlines:

Sox Headline: "Relief proves extra painful; Sox's bullpen fails to hold lead; homer by Morneau wins it"

Cubs Headline: "Cubs' Theriot earning Piniella's confidence with clutch hitting"

Meanwhile, The New York Times — that powerhouse of sports reporting — scooped the Tribune on a story about the Tribune's all-time favorite employee, Sammy Sosa. Sosa, who plays for the Texas Rangers, is so important in the Tribune Tower that Tribune columnist Fred Mitchell attended Sosa's birthday party last year in the Dominican Republic. (No, we're not kidding. We wish we were.) Sosa is so important in the Tribune Tower that last fall the Tribune published 35 stories mentioning Sosa, but only one mentioning Derek Lee, an actual Cubs player. So, Sosa's pretty important in the Tribune Tower, but not when the story involves steroids. According to the New York Times, MLB steroids investigator Sen. George Mitchell requested Sosa's medical records to determine whether his Cubs career was artificially enhanced. Tribune missed that story, and has posted the Times' story on its website in lieu of doing any actual reporting on this terribly uncomfortable topic. So the Tribune is surprisingly thorough about covering Sammy Sosa, yet surprising lax when covering Sammy Sosa's possible steroid use.

When Senator Mitchell is done investigating Sosa, perhaps we could ask him to investigate the rest of the Tribune Company.

Bartender? Make It a Double

Just in case you missed the April 28 Tribune story by John Schmeltzer about an Absolut Vodka ad campaign in which the Cubs win a World Series in an alternate universe, you can read a May 3 story by Paul Sullivan about a vodka ad campaign in which the Cubs win a World Series in an alternate universe.

Why two stories when one was too many? In marketing, it's called The Rule of Repetition.

The Tribune archive contains 919 references to the Billy Goat, 721 references to Cubs curse, and 291 references to "lovable losers." That's how you fill a stadium while fielding a last-place team. They're supposed to lose, see. That's what's so lovable about them!

We can probably expect more stories, or perhaps a centerfold, in July when the Absolut billboards, featuring a Billy Goat, actually go up.

Or maybe the second story is just an oversight. Maybe Sullivan and his editors didn't realize Schmeltzer's story had already run. Maybe they don't read the paper. You know the Tribune's in trouble when they don't even read it in the Tower.

There is an interesting difference between the two stories: Schmeltzer's story mentions the brand name, Absolut, eleven times, not including headline (12) and caption (13). That's repetition for you. Sullivan doesn't mention Absolut at all, referring instead to "a popular brand of vodka." We'd like to see as much brand-name chastity in his Cubs coverage:

PITTSBURGH -- A popular Chicago baseball team will delay a decision on Angel Guzman's status until Friday, manager Lou Piniella said Wednesday. Guzman was scheduled to start Sunday at a popular Chicago baseball stadium.

Even better if he can work a little ethical disclosure in there:

PITTSBURGH -- A popular Chicago baseball team owned by the company that owns this newspaper will delay a decision on Angel Guzman's status until Friday, said manager Lou Piniella, an employee of the company that owns this newspaper. Guzman was scheduled to start Sunday at a popular Chicago baseball stadium owned by the company that also owns this newspaper.

Nice. Now it's almost all on the table. (There should probably be something in there about the stock-sharing plan that transforms Tribune reporters into Cubs investors). But Sullivan only seems to get modest around the booze. He has his standards. As long as he's the Cubs' house organ, his dance card is apparently full.

All You Need to Know

Paul Konerko, as quoted today by Mark Gonzales of the Tribune:

"I don't even want to comment on it because I don't want anything getting written wrong."

Of course, we're assuming Paulie wasn't misquoted.

Were Redeye Your Doctor, You'd Be Dead

Writing sports blurbs for a dumbed-down yuppie tabloid can be so taxing when you have to keep track of two — count 'em, two — whole baseball teams. Redeye's review of April baseball today may be a case of that particular brand of bias known as sheer ignorance. Like, the writer was suddenly informed on deadline that there's another team in town and had to quickly write something about some outfit called the White Sox without actually knowing anything about them.

"What Went Wrong in April," according to the think tank over at Redeye:

The Brian Anderson experiment failed. The Sox were hoping Anderson could be an everyday center-fielder, but he lost the job to aging veteran Darin Erstad after batting .118 so far this season (2-for-17).

Wrong. Anderson never had the job this season and he failed to get the job back despite a promising spring. That's why he has only 17 at bats. Erstad had the center field job on Opening Day and, you'll recall, homered in his first at-bat. Right now Erstad has the highest batting average on the active roster. Some might consider center field improved, although we'd all like to see it get even better. More diagnostic insight from Redeye:

The bullpen. The Sox relievers have converted only 8-of-14 save opportunities, and have blown three.

Here's a profile of the Sox bullpen according to an April 30 story by Scott Merkin of MLB.com: "The White Sox bullpen finished the month tied for the AL lead in wins (six), ranked third in ERA (3.42) and fourth in strikeouts (68). In fact, Aardsma leads the Majors with 23 strikeouts in relief. This group has limited first batters faced to a .237 average and has allowed 27.8 percent of inherited runners to score. It's already a move upwards from a bullpen that finished 18-20 with a 4.53 ERA in 2006, compared to 24-19 with a 3.23 ERA in 2005."

Okay, then the geniuses at Redeye propose, "What Could Go Better in May":

It’s Luis Terrero to the rescue. The versatile outfielder was called up from Triple-A Charlotte on Tuesday to replace Anderson, who was sent to Charlotte after Sunday’s loss to the L.A. Angels. “I don’t know if it will help more than Brian,” White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said about inserting Terrero in the lineup against Seattle. “But it gives us more flexibility in the outfield.”

Rest easy, Sox fans. It's Luis Terrero to the rescue! Forget about Jim Thome, Toby Hall, and Scott Podsednik returning to the roster. Don't even ponder more consistent hitting by Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye, AJ Pierzynski, and Joe Crede. It's Luis Terrero we've been waiting for to rescue us from our championship drought of — how long has it been now? — one year.

Good thing we have Redeye to keep us in the loop.

One Day At a Time

After we criticized Tribune sports columnist Fred Mitchell last week for some horrid examples of Cubune bias, he became quite friendly to the White Sox. First he wrote a whole entire column about Paul Konerko and Jim Thome's work on behalf of Children's Home + Aid, and then he nicely noticed out loud that some of the players in the NFL Draft wore Sox caps. Check it out:

Don't know why, but two of the first 11 players selected on Saturday—Redskins safety LaRon Landry from LSU and 49ers linebacker Patrick Willis from Mississippi—wore White Sox caps when they received their calls.

You spotted the leakage right away, didn't you? It's that phrase "Don't know why," which certainly would not appear if the same sentence were written about someone wearing a Cubs cap. (Everybody knows why people wear Cubs caps: Because "everybody loves the Cubs!" Especially on WGN.)

Don't know why those football guys were wearing Sox caps. Maybe it just happened to be raining Sox caps. Or maybe Ken Williams trained a monkey to put Sox caps on people's heads right before they go on teevee. It couldn't be that those guys are Sox fans, of course, because Fred can see those guys with his own eyeballs, and everyone inside the Tower knows that Sox fans are invisible. Or, when something resembling a Sox fan does appear, the spectre oft appears in black and white, while the team itself sometimes appears faded, almost translucent. Like ghosts.

Fred and many of his Tribune colleagues don't know why anyone would wear a Sox cap, because they seem incapable or unwilling to appreciate the fact that the White Sox have fans. The Tribune even downplayed the significance of the 1.75 million Sox fans who appeared on the streets of Chicago, where it was awfully hard to ignore them, in October 2005. Maybe they can't see Sox fans because Sox fans don't behave precisely like Cubs fans (Thank God), or maybe it's a culture clash, like the way they can't see places like Englewood and Back of the Yards, or maybe it's just because they can't see beyond the 25-year Tribune/WGN/Cubs collaboration — the 25-year Cubune campaign — to put Cubs caps on everyone in the nation.

(That has been a largely successful 25-year campaign, we might add, involving lots of trained monkeys. Colonel McCormick was right: you can wrap snake oil in newspaper).

Psst: During the 20th Century, hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans migrated to other parts of the United States. A lot of them were from the South Side. A lot of them were Sox fans. So, now there are Sox fans all over the U.S. We know this, because some of us have been some of them. Some of us are also related to some of them. Maybe WGN hasn't always featured expatriate Sox fans on TV as prominently as it does expatriate Cubs fans. But we're out there. That's why "Sox World Series products have emerged as the 'third-greatest hot market' following the 2000 Yankees-Mets subway series and the 2004 Boston Red Sox," according to the Sun-Times (the Tribune missed that story). So yes, there are Sox fans in Chicago and there are Sox fans in America, but the Tribune doesn't know it, because the Tribune doesn't cover Chicago and the Tribune doesn't cover America. The Tribune covers its own private Wrigleyville. Nationwide.

Anyway, this was just a little slip by Fred. He really does seem to be trying. Easy does it, Fred.