Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
SebastianBlue said:
I think you are overestimating the reach of the likes of Delaney specifically, who I was referring to in my post. I think many blues do.

Obviously I cannot prove my theory that most of the engagement of his anti-City articles comes from rage-sharing by blues, and I could of course be wrong, but I think the way in which they are written, how he distributes links (often via Twitter diatribe threads), and the headlines used for them points specifically to trap-clickbait for City fans. Of course rival fans who hate us will read it, as it confirms their worldview, but I assert they are far less likely to share the articles across their networks than blues; they simply comment about how right Delaney is and how more people should speak this “truth”.

Rage-sharing is where the real money is, hence why so much of media now is about angering the right group to get something to go viral.

And the likes of Delaney have become a master of it with City fans.
Click to expand...

I like the theory, and find it interesting, but I don't just don't buy it, sorry. Either way, I tend not to share links to negative articles by default, as they neither amuse or excite me as the positive ones, so I guess I contribute to your movement. But I feel it has all been said now, so happy to get back to actual content rather than its sharing patterns, which is a whole discussion in itself as you rightly point out.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Completely fair stance.

And it’s important to note I don’t think anyone—certainly not me—has argued on here that negative stories shouldn’t be discussed at all.

I’ve only fervently argued we shouldn’t post direct links to the negative coverage and directly aid those entities in their efforts to malign and disparage our club. We shouldn’t be doing the bastards’ work for them.

Some people seem to be conflating those very different stances.
Click to expand...

There was a time no links were posted but I seem to remember it got legal & the mods told us links were needed if an article is posted.
 
The perfect fumble said:
As an ex moderator of a very feisty politics forum, believe me when I say, you don't know the difference between moderating a thread and policing it.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe you, especially as you are the one attacking me personally throughout your posts for some unknown reason (both in response to me but indirectly in response to other posters). I’ve moderated quite a few forums, including those focusing on politics and economics, and I have found attacking the poster, rather than the argument, is a very poor strategy, ironically much more akin to policing than moderating.

I have to be honest, I have quite surprised by your initial reaction to my post and your subsequent comments. I would have thought, from our previous interactions and your posting history, you were someone that understood how the media engine works and our place in it. And I would have never expects such aggressive behaviour, as if I had been attacking you directly, which I most definitely have not.

At any rate, as I have shared my thoughts, and it seems we are not going to agree on this (and you don’t seem to be open to a real debate on the subject), I will leave it here.

Just a reminder, though: we’re on the same side.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Ha ha ha .... that's a new one" "state-run". They have had state-owned, state-backed, state funded and now state-run. What does that even mean?

Maybe some of the less stupid journalists are realising that state-owned doesn't really fly if we are being charged with an individual "disguising equity funding" as sponsorship. Anyway, it's amusing seeing the mental gymnastics used in trying reconcile being owned by an individual with their beloved "sportswashing".
Click to expand...
Some are admitting we are not state owned but Sheik Mansour is just a front for the state who make the big decisions. Whatever they claim, it didn't stop lots of young Turkish kids from chanting 'City City City' everywhere the team went.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
"Tariq Panja, Nick Harris, Rob Harris, all the cunts at the Guardian, Mark Ogden, Ian Herbert, Ewan Mackenna, Miguel Delaney. Miguel fucking Delaney. Your boys took a hell of a beating on Saturday night".
Click to expand...

The brilliant thing now is there's virtually nothing left.

We have left both the journalism and rival fraternity broken. We've broken all records, played the best ever football and surpassed and have completed two different trebles.

All that's left is mistruths about the supporters, and clamouring for these charges to be proven.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
"Tariq Panja, Nick Harris, Rob Harris, all the cunts at the Guardian, Mark Ogden, Ian Herbert, Ewan Mackenna, Miguel Delaney. Miguel fucking Delaney. Your boys took a hell of a beating on Saturday night".
Click to expand...
Castles popped his head above the parapet straight after the final whistle, spewing his bile. Must be back in the WhatsApp fold.
 
cheekybids said:
There was a time no links were posted but I seem to remember it got legal & the mods told us links were needed if an article is posted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you copy-and-paste an excerpt (two paragraphs) then a link is necessary to avoid a claim of unlawful distribution of copyright material.

No such danger exists for a screenshot or copy-and-paste of a headline and summary paragraph.

But, even so, I have only ever been arguing against posting direct links to negative stories.

I see no problem at all with posting direct links to neutral or positive stories. In fact, I personally encourage it. Those are the sort of examples of coverage we should be sharing widely and amplifying via engagement metric manipulation of sorts.

In the end, as @tolmie's hairdoo and others in the industry have confirmed, that is all the media entities care about now. So we need to game the system they have built to try to manipulate us.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I don’t believe you, especially as you are the one attacking me personally throughout your posts for some unknown reason (both in response to me but indirectly in response to other posters). I’ve moderated quite a few forums, including those focusing on politics and economics, and I have found attacking the poster, rather than the argument, is a very poor strategy, ironically much more akin to policing than moderating.

I have to be honest, I have quite surprised by your initial reaction to my post and your subsequent comments. I would have thought, from our previous interactions and your posting history, you were someone that understood how the media engine works and our place in it. And I would have never expects such aggressive behaviour, as if I had been attacking you directly, which I most definitely have not.

At any rate, as I have shared my thoughts, and it seems we are not going to agree on this (and you don’t seem to be open to a real debate on the subject), I will leave it here.

Just a reminder, though: we’re on the same side.
Click to expand...

I've not attacked you personally.

Disagreeing with you and even questioning your judgement in this matter is not a personal attack, it does not speak to you as a person, or a blue.

But in this matter I believe you to be wrong.
 
The perfect fumble said:
I've not attacked you personally.

Disagreeing with you and even questioning your judgement in this matter is not a personal attack, it does not speak to you as a person, or a blue.

But in this matter I believe you to be wrong.
Click to expand...
I think a few of your comments were more than just questioning my judgment and indicating you thought I was wrong.

But I will take you at your word that they weren’t intended to be personal attacks, even if they came off that way to me.

Nor were my responses to you.

I think you are wrong on this particular subject. You think I am wrong.

But we both think the likes of Delaney, Harris, Schindler, Conn, etc. are wrong (and in some cases, wronguns, full stop), so we do have some common ground.

I am happy to focus on that moving forward.
 
They did a small piece on Radio 4's 'Today' programme this morning. I was delighted to hear Chris Bird being interviewed. The interviewer did the 'tainted' trophies thing and got put down immediately and he argued that the PL had acted in a inappropriate way with the timing of the charges etc. She did refer to our ownership as being ADUG and amazingly the term 'state-owned' was not mentioned. Chris Bird referred back to our relegation in 1998 and the move to the new stadium which I think he was in charge of and emphasised our great achievements. I particularly liked the way he scorned the opportunity to compare our treble with United and he pointed out that as City fans we are only really concerned with our own achievements and not those of United. He was asked if our funding by an AD billionaire (note again not the AD state) was difficult for rival clubs to compete with and he made the point that our owners had invested in the club's infrastructure and not been so concerned about taking profits out of the club - unlike a lot of other PL clubs. All in all he referred to the sort of points that we have made on here. So well done Chris for telling it as it is like a true City fan. I suppose the programme has a really small audience compared to the typical media outlets who besmirch our name. But I was left with the feeling that it would be great if this could happen more often. I expect the usual suspects to deliver more and more venom as we pull further away from our rivals which is inevitable if they continue trying to stop us through devious means rather than concentrating on their own issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top