Media Discussion - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scottish Cityzen said:
It is a good report but it’s been changed.

Initially last night - rather than the ‘giant shadow in the rear view mirror’ - he used either ‘ominously’ or ‘menacing’ in relation to our presence in the title race.

Not just the bbc, I’ve lost count in the last few weeks of these sort of negative words being used with regards to us being in the title mix. It’s happening too often to be a coincidence.

Ominous - the feeling that something bad is going to happen….

I might be being a soft arse but it’s the flavour of the month at the moment with ‘journalists’
Click to expand...
If they had ANY credibility as journalists, how hard would it be, in the interests of engaging all readers, to merely write something along the lines of,

"Liverpool lead the pack, but today when THEY look in their rear view mirror the giant ominous shadow of Manchester City loom large"

You know, like a neutral reporter should, indicating to ALL readers who it's ominous for.

But the sad cunts at the BBC, who's fucking wages we pay, have chosen to go down the sinkhole of fanboy, "bantz" riddled tribalism for the popular red-three (plus lap dog spursy)
 
PPT said:
Its done on purpose. It has to be. The regularity of them making basic errors and mistakes when reporting on us is just far to obvious. I've said it before. Its one their little 'in jokes'. They will be giggling like pubescent teenagers about it.
Absolute weapons.
Click to expand...
100%

They're just a bunch of dick'ed man-children playing a "footballers-at-a-foreign-tournament-trying-to-shoe-horn-song-titles-into-their-interviews" inspired immature little game.
 
Delivering around Cumbria last Friday I put BBC Cumbria on for travel news and the main breakfast presenter Mike was joined by his side kick who informed the listener which Fa cup games would be available to view on terrestrial tv over the weekend. Side kick unashamedly announced that he is a rag living in the Kendal area then started to share his info on games, channels times ect, but clearly nobody told him that we were playing Spurs that very evening as he failed to mention anything about it the rag twat. Mike wound him up asking if he had seen the Pep documentary on BBC to which he sounded well pissed off and declined the offer of watching it on catch up. Amazes me how these fuckwits get away it.
 
Paladin said:
I thought about an experiment whereby I would post a series of negative City comments that have been allowed, using the exact same words but making the negativity about United or Liverpool. Then compare and record how many get deleted. The results would be interesting.
Click to expand...
I had a comment removed the other day. Some scouser said we “robbed” them of trophies through cheating and bribes.
I politely pointed out this was totally untrue - they were a fine team but one that often fell short.
They should celebrate their successes and the trophies they managed to win, stop playing the “victim card” and other fans would respect them more.
So it’s okay for some scouse cretin to throw complete untruths out there and accuse our club of theft, bribery and cheating - but for me to say such lies equate to “playing the victim card” is unacceptable. Fuck off BBC.
 
Chris in London said:
What’s the issue here?

Is it Sky saying “our” or is it “our” Mike giving this news a subtle thumbs up?
Click to expand...
Sorry mate but you're wrong here.

Read that last paragraph as a stand alone statement.
In NO WAY can "our", in the context of that single paragraph, be relating to anything other than united.

You can substitute "united's" in place of "our" and the statement still reads correctly.
The sentence doesn't read so well if you substitute "Sky's" in place of "our". Sky won 3-0????
Nah, doesn't work.
United won 3-0.

It's either been put through the rag-prism-algorithm to pander to the billions of worldwide fuckwits, or more likely the presenter is a rag and he's lost all sense of impartiality.
 
Is it just our fans getting pissed off with the BBC's bias , there are 18 other Premier league clubs who get very little coverage than the Rags & Dippers and not forgetting the rest of the football pyramid. No matter how many times you complain you get a standard BBC reply "nothing to see here" complaining to Ofcom is a joke it takes them 6 months to acknowledge a complaint. Hopefully the next governement will seriously take steps to defund the BBC , when they become a subscription service they will die a slow death.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
I had a comment removed the other day. Some scouser said we “robbed” them of trophies through cheating and bribes.
I politely pointed out this was totally untrue - they were a fine team but one that often fell short.
They should celebrate their successes and the trophies they managed to win, stop playing the “victim card” and other fans would respect them more.
So it’s okay for some scouse cretin to throw complete untruths out there and accuse our club of theft, bribery and cheating - but for me to say such lies equate to “playing the victim card” is unacceptable. Fuck off BBC.
Click to expand...
I have loads removed, when Klopp announced that he was giving up and fucking off, I posted this:

Be gone foul beast of the field!

Lasted about 30 seconds
 
murcian blue said:
I use the Guardian online every day good political articles and asked every day to make a donation but in the words of great Ian Dury they will get Jack Shit from me until they get rid of the anti City reporting.
Click to expand...

I see Ronay's back on his favourite subject. Won't link but here's a flavour...

"To many neutrals such success in the stratified modern game will carry a sense of economic inevitability, a symptom also of something broken in the way the sport arranges itself now"

"there is a perfect fit between the Guardiola style, which is about control first of all, mastering the ball, destroying the variables that might bring defeat and the billionaire-ball model of City’s nation-state owners, which also involves creating a structure of such impenetrable wealth that its aim is to remove the possibility of defeat."

"But is it actually interesting? Or interesting enough? It was notable in the broadcast of the Brentford game that Sky Sports seemed to be making a very conscious effort to develop a City narrative"

And an all-time classic..

"Not to mention, because nobody seems to want to, the issue of those 115 unresolved charges for breaking financial rules"

He's gone even more Delooney.
 
Newman Noggs said:
I see Ronay's back on his favourite subject. Won't link but here's a flavour...

"To many neutrals such success in the stratified modern game will carry a sense of economic inevitability, a symptom also of something broken in the way the sport arranges itself now"

"there is a perfect fit between the Guardiola style, which is about control first of all, mastering the ball, destroying the variables that might bring defeat and the billionaire-ball model of City’s nation-state owners, which also involves creating a structure of such impenetrable wealth that its aim is to remove the possibility of defeat."

"But is it actually interesting? Or interesting enough? It was notable in the broadcast of the Brentford game that Sky Sports seemed to be making a very conscious effort to develop a City narrative"

And an all-time classic..

"Not to mention, because nobody seems to want to, the issue of those 115 unresolved charges for breaking financial rules"

He's gone even more Delooney.
Click to expand...
I used to quite like him before he started down his blinkered anti City pathway. Now he just writes writes the same nonsense about us, it's just the flowery language that changes.
Football writers appear to live in a Boris Johnson 'sunlit uplands' country where all was right in the world until the nasty middle east oil money arrived.
I don't click on any of 'the guardian' football articles anymore. I do the rest of the paper but just like @murcian blue in the comment above yours they won't be getting any of my money.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
Is it just our fans getting pissed off with the BBC's bias , there are 18 other Premier league clubs who get very little coverage than the Rags & Dippers and not forgetting the rest of the football pyramid. No matter how many times you complain you get a standard BBC reply "nothing to see here" complaining to Ofcom is a joke it takes them 6 months to acknowledge a complaint. Hopefully the next governement will seriously take steps to defund the BBC , when they become a subscription service they will die a slow death.
Click to expand...
Not sure it is worth defunding a valuable public service because its limited football coverage is wank.

local radio
educational services
the world services.


I rarely read bbc sport pages bar the cricket nowadays (testmatch special is still good coverage), we know media city is full of rags and that bbc is stuck in some 80s scouse love in loop it seem unwilling to let go, but I see no value to the wider nation in removing a public service, it needs a balanced team setting up but tbf I wouldn't defund it personally.

we would only end up wth a talkshite commercial clickbait replacement imho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top