"Anti-City" media propaganda war

[TheMightyQuinn]

If you all tell your mums that the naughty newspaper man is writing stories that make you cry then maybe they'll do something?

As a veteran Blue Mooner (24k poster since 2004) have you noticed the huge number of "anti-City" articles from the media.
From "liddle ol' citeh" who the rags loved to have in the top division "because it was a gauranteed 6 points"... to..."noisy neighbours, moneybags City ruining football."
As City fans we have mostly learnt to have thick skins but it would be nice to think that one day we might look forward to a reasonably level playing field?

I don't read the newspapers these days so it tends to pass me by. I accept that most press articles on City are negative, untrue and generally snide but then I've never met a fan of any team who feels any different on this issue.

If we're to be as domineering as utd were in the 90's, or even half as successful, then the bitterness will continue to grow.

This is England and no one likes a winner.

As we grow we'll make friends who'll write gushingly brilliant articles on us that are untrue and enemies who'll write hatchet pieces that are equally as untrue.

Let's not forget that for every man who spent the 90's wanking over the rags and their domination; there were another 3 men slagging them off.

Football fans tend to be very selective regarding the press and whilst I understand the rules...

Press say good about City = Brilliant
Press say good about rags = Biased, untrue, possibly satanic.
Press say bad things about City = Biased, untrue, possibly satanic.
Press say bad about rags = Brilliant

I just choose to not play along.

It is a simple fact though that if we get better then we will only be more loathed. It's the rules of being English.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

"Anti-City" media propaganda war

If you all tell your mums that the naughty newspaper man is writing stories that make you cry then maybe they'll do something?

As a veteran Blue Mooner (24k poster since 2004) have you noticed the huge number of "anti-City" articles from the media.
From "liddle ol' citeh" who the rags loved to have in the top division "because it was a gauranteed 6 points"... to..."noisy neighbours, moneybags City ruining football."
As City fans we have mostly learnt to have thick skins but it would be nice to think that one day we might look forward to a reasonably level playing field?

I don't read the newspapers these days so it tends to pass me by. I accept that most press articles on City are negative, untrue and generally snide but then I've never met a fan of any team who feels any different on this issue.

If we're to be as domineering as utd were in the 90's, or even half as successful, then the bitterness will continue to grow.

This is England and no one likes a winner.

As we grow we'll make friends who'll write gushingly brilliant articles on us that are untrue and enemies who'll write hatchet pieces that are equally as untrue.

Let's not forget that for every man who spent the 90's wanking over the rags and their domination; there were another 3 men slagging them off.

Football fans tend to be very selective regarding the press and whilst I understand the rules...

Press say good about City = Brilliant
Press say good about rags = Biased, untrue, possibly satanic.
Press say bad things about City = Biased, untrue, possibly satanic.
Press say bad about rags = Brilliant

I just choose to not play along.

It is a simple fact though that if we get better then we will only be more loathed. It's the rules of being English.

Great post. The British people like nothing better than to being the successful down a peg or two .

The truth is that until April this year we were a rich club who were underachieving. And there is/was the press angle . In footballing terms we will find next season that we will be treated seriously.

 

[Anonymous]

"Anti-City" media propaganda war

Without wishing to dwell too much on the whole Jewish thing, someone mentioned "right wing" in context of the Israeli government. Now this may be a lack of education on my part, but given the unspeakable suffering at the hands of a right wing megalomaniac, I've never understood how any Jewish person could stand at the right wing of the political spectrum.

 

[Castiel]

Re:

Without wishing to dwell too much on the whole Jewish thing, someone mentioned "right wing" in context of the Israeli government. Now this may be a lack of education on my part, but given the unspeakable suffering at the hands of a right wing megalomaniac, I've never understood how any Jewish person could stand at the right wing of the political spectrum.

Its not far-fetched, rightwing politics is just in support of preserving traditional social structure and hierarchies. Jewish culture does have plenty of traditions and such they want to protect. What the Nazi's did was just taking the idea to its further most extremes, levelling on insanity, not political philosophy. At the other end you have Anarchists who believe everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of how it affects other people, which is equally insane.

 

[jamielowndes]

The populus of Britain just hates the rich. That transfers into football. Man Citys billionaire owners are "ruining the game" and all the other trash youve all heard before. The papers are just catering to that idiocy.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re:

Without wishing to dwell too much on the whole Jewish thing, someone mentioned "right wing" in context of the Israeli government. Now this may be a lack of education on my part, but given the unspeakable suffering at the hands of a right wing megalomaniac, I've never understood how any Jewish person could stand at the right wing of the political spectrum.

Its not far-fetched, rightwing politics is just in support of preserving traditional social structure and hierarchies. Jewish culture does have plenty of traditions and such they want to protect. What the Nazi's did was just taking the idea to its further most extremes, levelling on insanity, not political philosophy. At the other end you have Anarchists who believe everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of how it affects other people, which is equally insane.

I hear what you are saying, but still don't get it. Right wing politics is nothing to do with preserving traditional social structure. I can understand any culture wanting to protect its traditions and identity (Loyalism, Orange-ism, Irish Nationalism, Feinian-ism to name just a few on the doorstep!) but the politics of the right is something quite different.

 

[Skashion]

Re: Re:

At the other end you have Anarchists who believe everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of how it affects other people, which is equally insane.

You have misunderstood anarchism quite drastically if you believe that to be the case.

 

[Castiel]

Re: Re:

At the other end you have Anarchists who believe everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of how it affects other people, which is equally insane.

You have misunderstood anarchism quite drastically if you believe that to be the case.

I actually haven't, I was just illustrating how I feel its an idiotic idea. The belief that no form of state should exist would effectively make a country lawless, and having lived in Zimbabwe for 10 years, trust me when I say you do not want to live in a lawless country.

Edit: Just to add, I'm aware there are varying degrees of Anarchism - some more sensible than others. I'm referring to it in its purest form, not some obscure splinter philosophy that you could conceivably cite to discredit the above. I just brought it up to demonstrate the extremes that exist at both sides of the spectrum.

I hear what you are saying, but still don't get it. Right wing politics is nothing to do with preserving traditional social structure. I can understand any culture wanting to protect its traditions and identity (Loyalism, Orange-ism, Irish Nationalism, Feinian-ism to name just a few on the doorstep!) but the politics of the right is something quite different.

No thats exactly what it is. You're probably too used to associating it with extremes, just like a lot of people associate Islam with extremes in this day and age. I assure you right wing philosophies are just "conservatism", a very long stretch from Nationalism or even Nazism.

 

[Skashion]

Re: Re:

I actually haven't

Yes, you have. No branch of anarchism I know states an individual has the right to deprive another individual of their rights. You are describing chaos, not anarchist theory such as that from Bakunin or Proudhon. What point would there be in taking away the state's right to interfere with your liberty only to let another individual do so?

 

[Castiel]

Re: Re:

I actually haven't

Yes, you have. No branch of anarchism I know states an individual has the right to deprive another individual of their rights. You are describing chaos, not anarchist theory such as that from Bakunin or Proudhon. What point would there be in taking away the state's right to interfere with your liberty only to let another individual do so?

I feel you're confusing a theory with reality. If the state doesn't police the people, then who does? People stronger than other people. A natural order much like you see in the 3rd world would emerge. I have seen this first hand. I'm not concerned with how it sounds in theory, that is the reality and unless you can change human nature, it will remain the reality. The same reality that Communism fails on account of human greed.