Media coverage 2018/19

Status
Not open for further replies.
MillionMilesAway said:
Badly, given the number of 'oh my gosh's' that she throws in, giving her best wide-eyed look, when she's allowed off cue.
Click to expand...

Some one on here once described her as a 'soccer mom' and that is just how I see her, no real knowledge of the game and can only read what is in front of her. Last Friday she said Mane scored the winner then after a brief break apologised saying 'I think I said Mane when it should have been Sane scoring, Sane, Mane, they are so similar, anyway Mane scored, no Sane; she then rambled on giggling like a schoolgirl.
 
The BBC and Sky use people who work for the Met Office or Meteogroup or whoever it is, to report the weather. These people will have degrees, masters or PhDs in weather/geography/science.

The BBC and Sky use random non-anchor, likely because they are deemed not good enough to anchor, who have been trained in autocue reading, newsreaders to report on the sport. These people aren’t sports journalists, they aren’t trained in sports qualifications and probably have no interest in what they’re reading out to the nation.

It’s the people who put the words in the autocue that people should be finding out who they are and what their agenda is. What links they have to United and Liverpool, if they don’t have links, who higher up does. Not moaning about Sally bloody Nugent.
 
Thought with all the fuss about weakened teams and disrespecting the competition we'd be getting plaudits for taking it seriously . Or are we not giving the kids a chance?
 
The weekend's coverage of the FA cup provided a walkover for Spurs (fair dos that Pochettino did at least let the fans at Tranmere see a bit of Harry Kane), a grim second eleven at OT struggle to a win over Reading, an Arsenal team of non-entities play in front of 8000 spectators in a half empty stadium in Blackpool and then Woking v Watford. This was all supposedly what the viewers wanted to see and was the result of viewer pressure. Whether it was nouse, nose or what at least the BBC treated us to a match where a traditional cup shock was a possibility and did result. Leicester asked for it and got it and I bet no one in the Newport ground felt they hadn't had what they paid for. This can't be said for those in Blackpool or at OT. So when fans at the Etihad pay reduced prices to see players of such undeniable quality play in a game they obviously take completely seriously I think City do deserve a genuine pat on the back.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
The weekend's coverage of the FA cup provided a walkover for Spurs (fair dos that Pochettino did at least let the fans at Tranmere see a bit of Harry Kane), a grim second eleven at OT struggle to a win over Reading, an Arsenal team of non-entities play in front of 8000 spectators in a half empty stadium in Blackpool and then Woking v Watford. This was all supposedly what the viewers wanted to see and was the result of viewer pressure. Whether it was nouse, nose or what at least the BBC treated us to a match where a traditional cup shock was a possibility and did result. Leicester asked for it and got it and I bet no one in the Newport ground felt they hadn't had what they paid for. This can't be said for those in Blackpool or at OT. So when fans at the Etihad pay reduced prices to see players of such undeniable quality play in a game they obviously take completely seriously I think City do deserve a genuine pat on the back.
Click to expand...

FA rules have a minimum price of £10 for adults from 3rd round onwards - it will have been common around the country (Fulham did for one). City did what they have done for many cup games (I recall a Notts County friend saying that the replay a few years ago of £15 a ticket was "cheers, we'll be having thousands of them"). It's not really a unique event in this case - pat on the back sounds about right.

The TV choices were pretty thin on the ground, but only the Reading game was a bad choice. Lower league team, give them the TV cash! Just as Sky should really have picked the Oxford match in the league cup.

Spurs were on their game, and might have been away at non-league oppos (due to replay). As it was they handed out a pasting without really approaching top gear.
Arsenal might have been at non-leaguers (due to replay), and the worst thing here is that it puts thousands into the Oystons. I would have happily applauded a statement saying it was being ignored for that reason, but it might have upset lawyers.
Those two, and Newport-Leicester saw PL teams away at teams from well below them - standard TV choices, all of them, and the same for Woking-Watford.

BT are like ITV - they chase advertising if nothing obvious is a choice. When they chose, it was pre-Nordic Messiah, but Reading were awful in the league at the time. There should have been something better around, but it wouldn't tick beancounting needs.
 
Opened the football supplement of The Times this morning with my sausage & egg McMuffin to read the match report on our game (even though I did attend) and there it was:
A full comparison and analysis of the cost / transfer value of each of the players in the respective squads.
I went through the rest of the supplement page by page to see if they had done this for another games such as the Tranmere v Spurs, Rags v whoever etc and guess what... Nope!
Nothing like on any other game over the whole weekend. This can't be a coincidence or a one off. It is simply sustained, blatant and biased reporting against us to keep up the media narrative of Manchester 'money bags' City in view and in the minds of the newspapers readership.
 
Bert Trautmanns Helemet said:
Opened the football supplement of The Times this morning with my sausage & egg McMuffin to read the match report on our game (even though I did attend) and there it was:
A full comparison and analysis of the cost / transfer value of each of the players in the respective squads.
I went through the rest of the supplement page by page to see if they had done this for another games such as the Tranmere v Spurs, Rags v whoever etc and guess what... Nope!
Nothing like on any other game over the whole weekend. This can't be a coincidence or a one off. It is simply sustained, blatant and biased reporting against us to keep up the media narrative of Manchester 'money bags' City in view and in the minds of the newspapers readership.
Click to expand...
I heard official Liverpool Team greeter, Tyler, get our "cash" in early in his commentary.
 
Bert Trautmanns Helemet said:
Opened the football supplement of The Times this morning with my sausage & egg McMuffin to read the match report on our game (even though I did attend) and there it was:
A full comparison and analysis of the cost / transfer value of each of the players in the respective squads.
I went through the rest of the supplement page by page to see if they had done this for another games such as the Tranmere v Spurs, Rags v whoever etc and guess what... Nope!
Nothing like on any other game over the whole weekend. This can't be a coincidence or a one off. It is simply sustained, blatant and biased reporting against us to keep up the media narrative of Manchester 'money bags' City in view and in the minds of the newspapers readership.
Click to expand...
Single or Double?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top