Are the Cubs interfearing with unbiased journalism?
Yes, says Chicago Tribune Public Editor Timothy J. McNulty in yesterday’s column.
McNulty makes an interesting argument for why he, and many of his colleagues at the Tribune, can’t wait for Sam Zell and the Tribune Co. to sell the Cubs. The topic, while interesting, gets lost amongst the discussion of sexier topics such as naming rights, possible changes to Wrigley Field, and seat licenses.
Part of the reason for McNulty’s consternation is White Sox fans. He says that no matter how much the Tribune covers the Sox, fans always see the paper as unfairly biased towards the Cubs, since the same company owns both the team and the paper. MuNulty notes:
No matter how fair and even the coverage, readers—especially readers who are White Sox fans—believe that Tribune stories are skewed either in favor of the Cubs or against the Sox. “It’s impossible to change that perception among Sox fans,” said Dan McGrath, the associate managing editor for sports, “even when they won the World Series and we put out a special section almost every day and did two books on the Sox.”
Because the team and Wrigley Field are such a huge part of Chicago, McNulty says that the apparent conflict of interest between the Cubs runs past the sports page.
Tribune Co.’s ownership of the Cubs has been a bane not only to those who write and edit sports pages, but to business and metro reporters as well. I hear about it constantly. The Cubs are more than a sports franchise in terms of news coverage. Decisions about zoning regulations and parking in the neighborhood, about renovations to the treasured stadium and the sale itself are issues that have the potential to raise ethical questions.
Maybe it would be best for the Cubs to move. Las Vegas sounds nice.
