Media Thread 2017/18

[bertisbigbanana]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

Good post.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it. BBC Sport appointed Nick Coppack as their Social Media Manager a couple of years ago, direct from the Swamp, where he was MUFC Social Media Manager. Since he took over, the digs at City from Coppack's cronies have been absolutely incessant. Media City in Salford is crawling with them

 

[Bentheblue]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

Good post which I think accurately describes how many City fans feel.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

I rarely do the long post`s not because i am lazy but because there are always parts you can agree on , or not in this post which is excellent i would change only one word [ enthusiasm ] for TRUST,

 

[Chris in London]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of trust.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

Fixed ;)

 

[kippax4ever]

Daily Star..........
Champions League odds: Where do Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool rank among the favourites?

 

[cptnemo]

Daily Star..........
Champions League odds: Where do Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool rank among the favourites?

Does that mean we are favourites lol

 

[kippax4ever]

Does that mean we are favourites lol

Same as Barca-6/1..but you could get 8/1 yesterday,
Can imagine if we won the Boo Cup,the morning headline would read scum/dipper/spuds etc their chances off wining it next year.
& fk all about us being champs..

 

[Palace glad all over]

I'm sure you mean no offence, so I'll take none, but unless you take a particularly keen interest in the way City are reported on especially by the BBC i really wonder if you are able to put this particular incident in context.

The BBC - particularly but not exclusively through social media - have in recent years taken a large number of potshots at City. Mostly they take the form of little digs and sly innuendos but sometimes it is less subtle. There is a whole thread relating to a complaint to the BBC made in relation to one such dig (if you are interested, put 'Complaint to BBC re Pete the Badge' in the search box and read into it further.) There are many other examples - some serious, others trivial beyond belief - in the 460 pages of this thread, which incidentally began in the close-season. There is a BBC journalist called Simon Stone whose pieces about City almost always contain such digs and innuendos, and even though City were utterly brilliant last night he was at it again last night during the BBC's live feed. Again, put 'Simon Stone' into the search box and you will find many examples of the same sort of thing. There are a number of similar examples, which many City fans are quite frankly pissed off royally by (especially given that the BBC as a state-funded broadcaster has a legal obligation to be impartial in all matters). And of course the contrast with the way United are portrayed by the BBC is particularly keenly felt.

Opinions vary as to why this is so. Some take the view that for click bait reasons stories favourable to Manchester United and/or critical of Manchester City will always attract more website traffic, and the BBC is in that respect no better and no worse than any other traffic-chasing website; maybe the large number of fawning documentaries shown by the BBC about United related matters supports this view. Some take the view that there is a large number of United supporting employees at BBC Sport and that rather than anything more sinister this is just the product of simple tribalism from United fans in positions where their tribalism has an outlet. It's fairly well documented that Simon Stone, having used him as an instance, is a United fan, which may explain some of his output, but that may also have something to do him being treated like a complete idiot by pep Guardiola at press conferences. There are those who think there is no bias whatsoever, but frankly there aren't that many who think the BBC's reporting of City is broadly fair and even handed. Whatever its cause, most City fans regard the BBC's reporting of City with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

As to the matters City fans complain of, many do not seem, in themselves, to be particularly major issues. Yet as with any systematic pattern of behaviour, when you look at individual examples in isolation the individual complaints can appear trivial or petty but that is to ignore the wider context, without which it is impossible to view the thing properly. A drop of water looked at in isolation is a drop of water, but it is something else completely when viewed in the context of chinese water torture treatment.

So when an article about the U17 World cup refers to Jadon Sancho, and refers to the club he plays for, and refers to Kirby's winning penalty and mentions that he is a Palace player, but refers to the goalkeeper's outstanding performance without mentioning that he is a Manchester City player, you do wonder why that particular editorial decision was taken. Was it a deliberate snub? We'll never know, but against a sustained background of sly little digs, biased comments and the like, you might not find it surprising that City fans (who are probably a lot more attuned to notice this than you are) assume the worst.

Ok you have laid it out for me with sources to look for . The argument now makes a bit more sense. we are all brainwashed to a degree, and the media does that

The BBC are subtle with a centrist left angle(which is just centrist capitalism that promotes the 'peacefull way' of getting divearse and cheap labour- i mainly read politics fromall sources, fabien left, extreme left, left, centre, right, hard right from britain and different regions and natios within, france, german, russia, usa, china, spain and not just through google news as it can bring up filtered content), however they don't over verbalise, they don't report on anything until its fact checked. they dont go overboard on phrases which can end up meaning different things to different people. they don't utilize hyperbole, they don't produce fake news, they may right two sides to a story in opinion pieces. but they don't portray it as news as the daily mail might that write conflicting hyperbole that click baits both or all sides that are susceptible. The bbc are not standard left like the guardian or further left like the new statesman ir even further like sputnik(russian propaganda), or right like the mail or further right like brietbart or further right which is harder to find as much has been taken down but vpns and or tor will get you content.
I check out fox - christ that is supposedly a kind of normal thing in america - yes some laugh at it. but its every day life yet its so racist its beyond belief.

The bbc are not without fault however in many things (despite its political agenda) its as balanced with current affairs as can be - if something happens it just states details in the news with no bias or agenda, just facts only - no opinions. . Yes they may have opinion pieces like all media sources do- but people need to understand what that means. opinion pieces are clearly marked.

I would have assumed the BBC would have plenty of sports writers - some pro certain clubs and others not pro certain clubs, and the editors mis the omissions without caring as its not really that relevant.

TAKE NOTICE OF WHAT NEATRALS SAY ABOUT YOUR CLUBS play not the papers.. ok.


a link to a man city article full of praise and real journalistic integrity from Saj Chowdhury- a art of the article is added below the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41534300

"Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola suggested, inadvertently or otherwise, that title rivals Tottenham were a one-man teambecause of Harry Kane's goals this season. He has scored 13 of their 22 goals in all competitions this season."

no other media source would do that - they would just say pep called tottenham the harry kane team - or something similar - with no explanation of doubt as to how it was phrased \9english is not his first language)

However tparts of the BBC have been part of evil doings in the past and probably to this day as its a huge power structure and i do not forgive them for it - but the truth is you will find different angles on sports from different journos. and its the most strictly non partisan news source which is highly moderated before making public.

Yes that one journo you speak of may have a beef with City, and the editors publish his stuff. But its really not a big deal. There are much more worrying stuff going on in corruption in football and major corruption in the world to get wrapped up in that.

 

[Palace glad all over]

They do mate yes but I'm not bothered about anybody else if I'm honest.

I like honesty mate . if you can realise the truth but admit it and not give a sh1te still I can respect that . My brain however does not operate in that way.

too many fans are deluded and think its just them that get picked on.