Media Thread 2020/21

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Check out pg 418 of this thread, Pogbas transfer fee gets mentioned in the context of the Brexit deal, but that is seen as a positive for United?

Given the value for money he’s offered, his fee should be mentioned every fucking time his name is.

 

[franksinatra]

Given the value for money he’s offered, his fee should be mentioned every fucking time his name is.

But why is it positive press for United?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But why is it positive press for United?

I don’t think I suggested it was. The point is, that it hardly ever is.

 

[franksinatra]

I don’t think I suggested it was. The point is, that it hardly ever is.

I agree you never did. But its curious that when it is referenced in relation to United, its posted as positive press coverage?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I agree you never did. But its curious that when it is referenced in relation to United, its posted as positive press coverage?

I can’t speak for others. Well, not unless they pay me to.

 

[franksinatra]

I can’t speak for others. Well, not unless they pay me to.

Yes, quite right to. Only referenced yourself as you mentioned Pogba and his fee not being referenced.

 

[Bill]

No I was interested to see who people think are fair.

fair? if things were fair this thread wouldn't exist .
the fact it does is a disgrace.

 

[franksinatra]

fair? if things were fair this thread wouldn't exist .
the fact it does is a disgrace.

I think it would always exist as some football fans will always see bias in everything, be it the media, cup draws, changing dates of fixtures, Richard Scudamore etc. So there will always be reason to complain, and in some instances, like the fee quotations, they probably have a valid point.

 

[bluealf]

I think it would always exist as some football fans will always see bias in everything, so there will always be reason to complain, and in some instances, like the fee quotations, they probably have a valid point.

As opposed to yourself who just pretend not to see anything and are then happy to spend an afternoon disagreeing with fellow fans about it.

A box of kleenex and disposable gloves at hand.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Anyone else notice how we are starting to be reported more in the media? We are the most successful English club over the past 10 years and can no longer be ignored.

Also there is a growing trend to finally refer to us as Manchester City rather than just Man City.

I'd rather just City, then Man City.

Keeps us individual.

 

[franksinatra]

As opposed to yourself who just pretend not to see anything and are then happy to spend an afternoon disagreeing with fellow fans about it.

A box of kleenex and disposable gloves at hand.

Well already this afternoon I ‘saw/accepted’ the point with regards fees being a valid reason for complaint.

As for disagreeing, I dont think there is any issue with that, it is a forum after all so as long as it does not become personal I don't see an issue.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Who do you think in the media give honest, critical coverage of City?

There are quite a few individual journalists who are still capable of being impartial. At the BBC Mark Chapman and Phil McNulty for example are mostly fair and accurate. Unfortunately the twitter output from their colleagues Dan Roan and Simon Stone is a disgrace.
Most of the TV match commentators are atrocious though.They rarely analyse or describe the games. Their main modus operandi seems to just repeat false tropes which have been published in the tabloids. Even my wife, who knows nothing about football, often says things like: "Why are they being so negative about City?"

 

[LongsightM13]

There are quite a few individual journalists who are still capable of being impartial. At the BBC Mark Chapman and Phil McNulty for example are mostly fair and accurate. Unfortunately the twitter output from their colleagues Dan Roan and Simon Stone is a disgrace.
Most of the TV match commentators are atrocious though.They rarely analyse or describe the games. Their main modus operandi seems to just repeat false tropes which have been published in the tabloids. Even my wife, who knows nothing about football, often says things like: "Why are they being so negative about City?"

Pep put the idiot Stone well and truly in his place in the post-match press conference when he was asking stupid questions about Covid

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I get what you are saying.

The problem is, he hasn't featured much in the league, which is our bread and butter competition.

We've been bang average this season, most games have needed his drive and determination, but he's ended up playing the same amount of minutes as bloody Mendy.

Don't know about minutes but Mendy has played nine times and Foden has played 18 times this season. In addition to that there is not as much competition at left back. I think Pep is doing a brilliant job of managing the squad at present. This crazy season is just an endurance test.

 

[franksinatra]

There are quite a few individual journalists who are still capable of being impartial. At the BBC Mark Chapman and Phil McNulty for example are mostly fair and accurate. Unfortunately the twitter output from their colleagues Dan Roan and Simon Stone is a disgrace.
Most of the TV match commentators are atrocious though.They rarely analyse or describe the games. Their main modus operandi seems to just repeat false tropes which have been published in the tabloids. Even my wife, who knows nothing about football, often says things like: "Why are they being so negative about City?"

So it begs the question is that bias are, in many instances, just poorly researched journalism. I often think as fans we expect commentators/journalists to know the intimate details of the club we support, like us fans do, but in reality its unlikely and of course that results in false information/narratives being put forward which regularly gets regurgitated in the press.

Case in point, moving away from City, look at the stick Solksjaer has got this season, but arguably they have done pretty well this year, not that you would think it based on the coverage the manager has received.

 

[waspish]

So it begs the question is that bias are, in many instances, just poorly researched journalism. I often think as fans we expect commentators/journalists to know the intimate details of the club we support, like us fans do, but in reality its unlikely and of course that results in false information/narratives being put forward which regularly gets regurgitated in the press.

If your a commentator getting paid to watch games And how many games do they comment on a week? What else do they have to do? What about do proper research also try to appease supports of the clubs they are commentating on?! It not hard is it? Unless they are getting paid or favours or just a slap on the back for being bias or setting a narrative!

The Fenway group are corrupt fuckers and I don’t put it past them on any skulduggery! Plus the scum with there ex players setting narratives on our team.

 

[TheCentralScrutinizer]

Pep put the idiot Stone well and truly in his place in the post-match press conference when he was asking stupid questions about Covid

Stone is such a smarmy ****,he's quoted Pep on Twitter trying to be a smart arse saying 'Covid is still here' knowing full well his arse licking followers will Join in & lap it up with dead original posts like "no shit Sherlock" etc
Total wanker stealing a living.....

 

[LongsightM13]

Stone is such a smarmy ****,he's quoted Pep on Twitter trying to be a smart arse saying 'Covid is still here' knowing full well his arse licking followers will Join in & lap it up with dead original posts like "no shit Sherlock" etc
Total wanker stealing a living.....

Pep was making the point that football and the football media’s entitled, self obsessed little bubble is pretty low on the scale of importance when real people im the real world are losing their lives and their livelihoods. Pep lost his own mother to C19 ffs and yet Stone was trying to goad him into saying the season might have to be cancelled

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

So it begs the question is that bias are, in many instances, just poorly researched journalism. I often think as fans we expect commentators/journalists to know the intimate details of the club we support, like us fans do, but in reality its unlikely and of course that results in false information/narratives being put forward which regularly gets regurgitated in the press.

Case in point, moving away from City, look at the stick Solksjaer has got this season, but arguably they have done pretty well this year, not that you would think it based on the coverage the manager has received.

Some of it is overt bias from people like Mark Ogden and Duncan Castles and the political racist cabal at the Guardian who don't like our owner's heritage. There is commercial bias driven by outlets like SKY to their chosen cash cow clubs
There is also a lot of ignorant and inaccurate journalism which is not just confined to coverage of City. Football fans in the UK are mostly very poorly served by the football media. The tabloid reporters operate as a pack and often agree angles on stories in advance as a sort of "cover my back" philosophy. There is very little genuine scrutiny and investigation.
For example the daily press conferences are absurd. We can watch them live which allows us to see how manager's comments are often twisted and distorted out of context.

 

[Bill]

I think it would always exist as some football fans will always see bias in everything, be it the media, cup draws, changing dates of fixtures, Richard Scudamore etc. So there will always be reason to complain, and in some instances, like the fee quotations, they probably have a valid point.

the point would be valid if it was used in all games.