Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
BringBackSwales said:
Neville G
Neville P
Owen
Keane
Scholes
Ferdinand
Hargreaves
Dublin
Giggs
Evra
Higginarse
Ince
Cole
Fletcher
Schmeichel

Souness
Spitty
Mcmanaman
Murphy
Lawrenson
Rednapp
Warnock
Crouch
Thompson
Owen
Ince
Houghton


Who did I miss?
Click to expand...
Benitez out of work, I’m sure they’ll find a vacancy
 
franksinatra said:
Hi Chris, Its a tough one to answer without examples.

I don't think organisations like Sky/BT/ BBC etc are colluding to give us poor coverage or similarly different newspaper organisations, with different owners, are colluding either. It would be less of a stretch to believe that one newspaper, as an example, has a political standpoint, and this is then reflected in its reporting of City. But as yet not seen evidence to support that.
Click to expand...
16115021546748729248941273935425.jpg
 
Chris in London said:
Colluding as between themselves or colluding with third parties?

Here’s an example. When was the last time you heard any commentator on any platform use the phrase ‘tactical foul’ in relation to any team other than City? Four years ago that phrase didn’t exist. Now it’s part of the vocabulary, but only ever used about City.

How did that state of affairs come into being? Did they all independently make the decision to use that phrase exclusively in relation to us at about the same time? Did one of them first use it about us and the others thought ‘hmm, that’s a nice phrase, I’ll use that too but I think I’ll only use it about City?’

Or do you think it’s more likely that behind the scenes those with close associations with certain teams in red have worked hard the perpetuate the myth throughout that we are the only team to use fouls to stop counter attacks?

And would you deny that ‘collusion’ is a fair description of that?
Click to expand...
Probably just a coincidence that 9 teams all wrote a letter at the same time now I think about it.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Like any unregulated “industry” there are vested interest at play, and in this case it’s the huge fan bases of the 2 **** clubs, it sells more subscriptions, more papers, gets more clicks, pleases more watchers. It’s a case of love scum hate City, love dippers hate City. There’s almost certainly elements of racism in there (pro USA, anti Arab). We weren’t hated when we were shit, it’s only when we upset the establishment, the sky 4 etc. It’s every week, it’s every commentatory, and to deny otherwise is gullible beyond belief. Yesterday we score and it’s “no flag” in a quiet and disgruntled voice, no mention of us scoring, Tyler whispers when we score, shouts when we concede. It’s how it is. If Scudamore could say publicly that it’s good for the premier league for the scum and dippers to win it, just Imagine what goes on behind closed doors
Click to expand...
Great post
 
Chris in London said:
Colluding as between themselves or colluding with third parties?

Here’s an example. When was the last time you heard any commentator on any platform use the phrase ‘tactical foul’ in relation to any team other than City? Four years ago that phrase didn’t exist. Now it’s part of the vocabulary, but only ever used about City.

How did that state of affairs come into being? Did they all independently make the decision to use that phrase exclusively in relation to us at about the same time? Did one of them first use it about us and the others thought ‘hmm, that’s a nice phrase, I’ll use that too but I think I’ll only use it about City?’

Or do you think it’s more likely that behind the scenes those with close associations with certain teams in red have worked hard the perpetuate the myth throughout that we are the only team to use fouls to stop counter attacks?

And would you deny that ‘collusion’ is a fair description of that?
Click to expand...

Good question Chris. Lets have an answer to my point and I will give you my take.
 
franksinatra said:
I wasn’t but accept the drip theory to the likes of Murphy. Who are his paymasters, Sky?

I think, to me, its a big stretch that using the word big, instead of depth is a method, in relation to Manchester Citys football squad is an example racism against our owners. But thanks for explaining.
Click to expand...
He works mainly on the BBC doesn't he? So indirectly WE pay his wages, but he toes the Salford based BBC sports department company line; snide little digs and spouted vitriol directed directly in our direction (NEVER a penalty, not enough contact for me - CITY; DEFINITE contact, every right to go down - "other" teams; He looked a cm offside to me, correct decision to disallow that - CITY; Right on the edge of offside, but you can't disallow a goal for that - "other" teams; etc.etc.etc) that we've heard constantly dripped out for over a decade (and more) spewed out of the mouth of Shearer et al. Oh how the reds laugh and the blues get angry at their childish little jibes.

As for the "bigger/deeper quality" discussion. As above, it's just yet another single example, of which there are many, that amalgamate to form the bigger :) picture (hence why I used the drip, drip, drip terminology); City cheat the financial rule, City have more money than everybody else, City can buy whoever they like, City have a BIGGER squad, etc.etc.etc. with which they get their biased opinion forming messages across and into the minds of the masses.

When you ask "The man on the Clapham omnibus" what his opinions of Manchester City are, guess what opinions they have?

As another poster wrote earlier, if it were simple slips of the tongue then why is it used again and again and again?

It's a conscious attempt to belittle, denigrate, undermine and form opinion; and it all started in 2008. Coincidence? I would say that coincidence doesn't strictly follow patterns so meticulously, but my understanding of the Law of Large Numbers isn't so hot, so maybe I'm wrong and it's all in my head.
 
franksinatra said:
Good question Chris. Lets have an answer to my point and I will give you my take.
Click to expand...

The question is an answer to your point. You say there is unlikely to be collusion between eg BT and Sky, I reply that the collusion is more likely to between broadcasters and others than between broadcasters directly.

So, your take?
 
franksinatra said:
Again that would not shock me so much.

If there was a betting market for bookings and a ref was complicit in ensuring that happened in a certain timeframe I would not be surprised by that level of ‘soft’ corruption and a Fernandinho, Kante etc were victims of this.
Hope you and your family are ok Steve.
Click to expand...
We are fine mate, thanks for asking.
Both missing being out and about. We had planned to spend January in the Alps so really missing that. Although took our first grandchild sledging today at the back of the house, he had a great time, but it made us both miss skiing.
Had a second grandson in October but can’t see him too much due to Covid.

Hope you‘re fine?
 
BringBackSwales said:
Neville G
Neville P
Owen
Keane
Scholes
Ferdinand
Hargreaves
Dublin
Giggs
Evra
Higginarse
Ince
Cole
Fletcher
Schmeichel
McLaren

Souness
Spitty
Mcmanaman
Murphy
Lawrenson
Rednapp
Warnock
Crouch
Thompson
Owen
Ince
Houghton


Who did I miss?
Click to expand...
Not to mention the likes of Gill and Parry who get themselves in positions to carry on their shady agendas, oh sorry they have no agenda against us
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
He works mainly on the BBC doesn't he? So indirectly WE pay his wages, but he toes the Salford based BBC sports department company line; snide little digs and spouted vitriol directed directly in our direction (NEVER a penalty, not enough contact for me - CITY; DEFINITE contact, every right to go down - "other" teams; He looked a cm offside to me, correct decision to disallow that - CITY; Right on the edge of offside, but you can't disallow a goal for that - "other" teams; etc.etc.etc) that we've heard constantly dripped out for over a decade (and more) spewed out of the mouth of Shearer et al. Oh how the reds laugh and the blues get angry at their childish little jibes.

As for the "bigger/deeper quality" discussion. As above, it's just yet another single example, of which there are many, that amalgamate to form the bigger :) picture (hence why I used the drip, drip, drip terminology); City cheat the financial rule, City have more money than everybody else, City can buy whoever they like, City have a BIGGER squad, etc.etc.etc. with which they get their biased opinion forming messages across and into the minds of the masses.

When you ask "The man on the Clapham omnibus" what his opinions of Manchester City are, guess what opinions they have?

As another poster wrote earlier, if it were simple slips of the tongue then why is it used again and again and again?

It's a conscious attempt to belittle, denigrate, undermine and form opinion; and it all started in 2008. Coincidence? I would say that coincidence doesn't strictly follow patterns so meticulously, but my understanding of the Law of Large Numbers isn't so hot, so maybe I'm wrong and it's all in my head.
Click to expand...
Nail on head there mate.
 
andyhinch said:
Probably just a coincidence that 9 teams all wrote a letter at the same time now I think about it.
Click to expand...
Yep, also the WhatsApp group with Delaney, Harris and the dog fiddler and several other ‘journalists’ who Sam Lee wanted to consult with, some of those in that group representing huge media organisations such as Associated Press, just a neutral group of truth seekers.

Not forgetting the various times certain groups of chairmen have met, made up coincidentally of mainly teams in red with American owners have been pictured meeting at various locations around the world to discuss what they see as threats to their clubs, or they could of just met by total accident!

Also, the letter on Arsenal headed notepaper stating something had to be done to stop City, that letter was issued eight years ago, all just coincidental, no collusion to see here, just pretty straight forward journalism...
 
Chris in London said:
Colluding as between themselves or colluding with third parties?

Here’s an example. When was the last time you heard any commentator on any platform use the phrase ‘tactical foul’ in relation to any team other than City? Four years ago that phrase didn’t exist. Now it’s part of the vocabulary, but only ever used about City.

How did that state of affairs come into being? Did they all independently make the decision to use that phrase exclusively in relation to us at about the same time? Did one of them first use it about us and the others thought ‘hmm, that’s a nice phrase, I’ll use that too but I think I’ll only use it about City?’

Or do you think it’s more likely that behind the scenes those with close associations with certain teams in red have worked hard the perpetuate the myth throughout that we are the only team to use fouls to stop counter attacks?

And would you deny that ‘collusion’ is a fair description of that?
Click to expand...
I'll take that a little further. A City employee told me about the time, post a managerial press conference (might have been Mancini but it doesn't really matter) when they came across 4 journalists from the so-called 'red top' papers, all from different titles, discussing the line they were going to take in spinning something the manager had said.

And a senior club employee told me directly not that long ago that they know there is an organised agenda against us in the media and who's behind it.
 
Chris in London said:
The question is an answer to your point. You say there is unlikely to be collusion between eg BT and Sky, I reply that the collusion is more likely to between broadcasters and others than between broadcasters directly.

So, your take?
Click to expand...

I see, so to be sure you dont think large scale organisations such as BT/SKY/BBC are organising bias but it maybe at a lower level between pundits or journalists etc?

Again it would not shock me if that was the case.

However, I often think, fans, think sports journalists have more, or should have more knowledge than they actually have.

Case in point being the Garth Crooks team of the week. Fans get annoyed player X is not in the team after he has had a blinder as if Garth Crooks has watched all 9 matches to make his assessment rather than just picked up a few papers, seen who has scored, assisted and cobbled a column together based on that.

Which takes me to my point. Instead of ‘collusion’ it could often be journalists reading articles by peers and following that thought process as it gains traction as a viewpoint.

Sam Lee was probably guilty of that with following his peers with regards the CAS ruling. I doubt he was ‘colluding’ in the sense that you mean, even though he reached the same opinion, but bowed to the knowledge of his peers and constructed his viewpoint based on that.

As humans we do it all the time. For example over the last week Liverpools failings upfront are being, linked, to the poor form of the fullbacks, and now its gaining traction.

The tactical fouling was probably something similar rather than a number of individuals sitting in a room inventing a narrative. Of course not helped by Arteta’s comment on the Amazon Doc or Rodris reported comments about tactical fouling,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top