WGN No More?

[MrSheps]

How about this, find one time, other than this post, I've ever said to doubt the Tribune about WGN because they're part of the same corporate family.  If you find that post, I'll concede this entire argument to you.  If you don't, you concede it to me.  Deal?

 

Now, for this particular post, I would say that there's a distinction between the Trib saying WGN was losing money and ESPN saying WLS paid a substantial price.  The former would seem to benefit WGN as they try to negotiate a new deal with the Cubs.  WGN would want to spread that story.  The latter would have no effect once a deal has already been signed and, if anything, WLS wouldn't want it to seem like they're giving away money.

So one time you stepped in it by using a corporate family structure to both legitimize and delegitimize "sources" in the same argument?  Other than this time?? 

 

Look, for the record, I am not questioning the ESPN source at all.  I'm in no way saying we shouldn't believe it's 750, I don't think that's a hard to believe, particularly if it includes resell which is sounds like it does. I was reacting to your picking and choosing when to ignore and accept (or even mock) "sources", even outside of Tribune columns, when they don't or do support your POV.  To me it's hard to believe WGN wasn't losing money towards the end based on the ratings, and it's hard to believe Tribune columnists were in cahoots to help them, the same way I wouldn't think ESPN columnist are in cahoots to help ABC7 now.  Now, could "sources" lie to columnists?  Sure, and as I said from the beginning, I'm sure WGN was inflating losses or cherry picking certain games or stretches.

 

So again, I'm not questioning the 750 number, I don't think it's hard to believe or at all, but if you want to know why ABC7 would want the number high, if they're even the source:

 

-ABC7 needs to set a market for advertisers, what they think the time is worth and thus what they paid for it.

-ABC7 needs to set a market for broadcasters outside of Chicago, what they think the product is worth and thus they paid for it, for when they try and sell games outside of Chicago to other broadcasters. 

 

If the source is from the Cubs:

 

-In the same way WGN would want to lower the market by reporting losses, the Cubs would want to up the market value by floating high numbers, if they haven't yet completed the deal for the rest of the games. 

 

Again, I don't believe the above, the 750 number for 25 choice games seems reasonable (keep in mind I thought this whole thing was going to result in much more) I'm just playing devil’s advocate to show arguments of not trusting sources based on corporate ownership could go both ways.  My big point is simply when I showed articles, even from non-tribune writers, citing sources talking about the toll ratings have taken on the Cubs negotiations (and those assertions are all still there all in the announcements about this deal too by the way) you basically said sources be damned, but here they're good again. That's all.