Media discussion - 2025/26

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Because this whole thing is utter madness. Listen, in the last two pages we've had several people say "I don't read Sam but he's a **** for what he writes" and even more insane, "Sam is a **** because he didn't write something".

That doesn’t present the whole picture though, does it? Some people, myself included, take issue with his association with and lack of subsequent distancing from a cohort of journalists all unquestionably with agendas to bring down City, and who have all used their professional influence and standing to achieve that end over a sustained period.

That bears no direct relationship to his journalistic output, but rather his judgement, character and ability to read the room, or to even apply his mind to that task.

Any journalist that reports on a particular club, whether they support that club or not, surely has a particular duty to be alive to certain things that trigger their supporter base. Anyone reporting on Liverpool or United would be conscious of Hillsborough and Munich respectively, for example. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Anyone reporting on Manchester City, applying their mind to their job in that way would be all too aware of the attacks on the club from those journalists in particular, and how City fans feel about those attacks and those particular journalists. Anyone in that role who isn’t aware of that shouldn’t be doing it because they lack the critical thinking skills to appreciate that, or alternatively they are aware but don’t care, presumably because they value their professional relationships with that cohort more than the deep rooted feelings of the supporters of the club which they report on.

To me, that is simply not acceptable and the reason I think he’s a wankstain and shouldn’t be reporting on City. Fuck all to do with what he writes or doesn’t write in articles.

 

[Rammy Blue]

That doesn’t present the whole picture though, does it? Some people, myself included, take issue with his association with and lack of subsequent distancing from a cohort of journalists all unquestionably with agendas to bring down City, and who have all used their professional influence and standing to achieve that end over a sustained period.

That bears no direct relationship to his journalistic output, but rather his judgement, character and ability to read the room, or to even apply his mind to that task.

Any journalist that reports on a particular club, whether they support that club or not, surely has a particular duty to be alive to certain things that trigger their supporter base. Anyone reporting on Liverpool or United would be conscious of Hillsborough and Munich respectively, for example. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Anyone reporting on Manchester City, applying their mind to their job in that way would be all too aware of the attacks on the club from those journalists in particular, and how City fans feel about those attacks and those particular journalists. Anyone in that role who isn’t aware of that shouldn’t be doing it because they lack the critical thinking skills to appreciate that, or alternatively they are aware but don’t care, presumably because they value their professional relationships with that cohort more than the deep rooted feelings of the supporters of the club which they report on.

To me, that is simply not acceptable and the reason I think he’s a wankstain and shouldn’t be reporting on City. Fuck all to do with what he writes or doesn’t write in articles.

I think SLIAFC would have sufficed.

 

[Damocles]

That doesn’t present the whole picture though, does it? Some people, myself included, take issue with his association with and lack of subsequent distancing from a cohort of journalists all unquestionably with agendas to bring down City, and who have all used their professional influence and standing to achieve that end over a sustained period.

That bears no direct relationship to his journalistic output, but rather his judgement, character and ability to read the room, or to even apply his mind to that task.

Any journalist that reports on a particular club, whether they support that club or not, surely has a particular duty to be alive to certain things that trigger their supporter base. Anyone reporting on Liverpool or United would be conscious of Hillsborough and Munich respectively, for example. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Anyone reporting on Manchester City, applying their mind to their job in that way would be all too aware of the attack is on the club from those journalists in particular, and how City fans feel about those attacks and those particular journalists. Anyone in that role who isn’t aware of that shouldn’t be doing it because they lack the critical thinking skills to appreciate that, or alternatively they are aware but don’t care, presumably because they value their professional relationships with that cohort more than the deep rooted feelings of the supporters of the club which they report on.

To me, that is simply not acceptable and the reason I think he’s a wankstain and shouldn’t be reporting on City. Fuck all to do with what he writes or doesn’t write in articles.

I understand your argument, I just don't accept it foundationally.

The root logic of this is that a Man City journalist should cater to Man City fans, and specifically to a certain sub-section of City fans who know who these people are and are offended by their presence. This is something I disagree with vehemently.

You can't want journalists to fight your corner in the open social media, I don't want an "activist" as one of City's main go to sources in the press. It makes us look small time and incredibly Arsenal, soft as goose shit basically. More importantly to the overall, we're a club who is accused of being state owned by an autocratic Government who attempts to propagandise its press to the point where our owner had the entire British establishment block him from owning a partial share of a newspaper. Activist journalists feed into that narrative which means the story would never get through

I go back to one of my original comments to you about this, slightly rephrased. I don't see the logic that a City reporter owes anything to City fans outside of reporting facts and gossip about City. I don't care if Tommy Docherty was the reporter as long as he was rational which I believe Sam is.

As I said, I accept there's a line here in client journalism. I don't accept that rational people can put 99% of people in that. I'd be much more understanding of someone like Lewis Oldham but would even find that unfair.

 

[Centurions]

... Would you like to see some of the shit that you guys have written about City in the past because I might started editing this stuff into tweets from journalists and watch you want to burn them to death.

...

Now that would be an interesting social experiment, I wonder how many you could catch slaughtering their own posts?

"It makes us look small time and incredibly Arsenal, soft as goose shit basically.", that made me laugh out loud. I'm stealing it.

Along with "Spurs being Spursy" I'm beginning to wonder if it's something in the North London air, perhaps the pollution has had a knock on effect beyond it's accepted negatives.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I understand your argument, I just don't accept it foundationally.

The root logic of this is that a Man City journalist should cater to Man City fans, and specifically to a certain sub-section of City fans who know who these people are and are offended by their presence. This is something I disagree with vehemently.

I think someone who reports on a particular football club should consider and cater to some extent the wants, needs, aspirations and fears of its supporters, yes.

To an overwhelming extent, no, that would be unhealthy, but it should be very much part of their professional MO; after all, that is surely the rump of what their journalistic output will be aimed at, and it would be both strange and somewhat arrogant if they didn’t cater to that market to any extent.

 

[IrishBloodEnglishHeart]

Because this whole thing is utter madness. Listen, in the last two pages we've had several people say "I don't read Sam but he's a **** for what he writes" and even more insane, "Sam is a **** because he didn't write something".

Can you imagine this in any other form of journalism? Are there people out there who going into blistering seething rants because the Economics Editor didn't present the latest BoE rates change through the Austrian lens enough and are "secretly Keynesian cabal who sit in a WhatsApp group to further their media agenda". I imagine you would think that to be a totally ridiculous idea.

What you're seeing and what I'm rallying against is how everybody complains about modern football but you're playing it out, right now, without a hint of irony. People have turned meta-football into a morality play, where there's heroes and villains on social media who you should boo and cheer and there's secret conspiracies and backroom deals. And it REALLY REALLY matters who people supported 30 years ago as a kid because this creates this "bias" that MUST constantly be in effect secretly and they're leaving hidden clues in their articles. Cole Palmer was a United fan growing up as are/were many of our youth team, did you lot question his professionalism because of that though? Was he on a go slow for City because he hated us secretly?

It's this total lack of humanity in it all. Sam Lee, Jack Gaughan, et al, they're not people to you, they're characters or caricatures in this 24 hour media cycle around football. They're no different to Phil Mitchell or Mike Baldwin, they're the bestest guy ever or a **** based on some half remembered lore you might have because ultimately you're involved in a fictional show.

Now listen, there's people like Nick Harris, Miguel Delaney, James Corbett etc and some social media accounts like The Magic Hat who very clearly have some extremely partisan views and should be mocked and called out for. There's a line that they've crossed that I accept. But how fucking mental have you go to be where someone like Sam Lee is on the other side of that line? Who is on the good side then? Would you like to see some of the shit that you guys have written about City in the past because I might started editing this stuff into tweets from journalists and watch you want to burn them to death.

These media threads are full of the worst type of ultra conspiratorial things that often border on paranoid delusions. I was hoping with a new season then we might get away from that but alas on the first page we go straight back to it.

Fair enough, I respect what you're saying and agree with bits of it.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I think it depends on who thinks he is a 'city reporter'. If the organisation he works for appointed him as the go to guy on all things city, then that's their business and the organisation fall into a rather large group of anti city cartel and doesn't make any difference to us. We pretty much view all of them as fleas on the same dog, yes? He won't be the only one in the organisation who writes about us.

As for Sam himself, I don't give a toss on who he supports and I find most of his stuff ok. He even gets near to the occupation we once used to call journalism.

His massive misjudgment on attaching his flag to the most reviled group, means I do look at his articles differently (I'm sure he is gutted). He isn't stupid - he knew what the content of said podcast would be - he needed the fan engagement from other clubs. I understand it's a business. Subsequently I don't click on everything he writes. My choice.

 

[ArniArason]

Funny how the BBC have now changed their tone regarding the Club World Cup, I wonder what's changed.......

Club World Cup: Has run to final been worth it for Chelsea?

Has Chelsea's run to the Club World Cup final made the competition worthwhile for the Blues? BBC Sport weighs up the pros and cons.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jrb]

What has hotel room 115 got to do with Manchester City Football Club?

He obviously thought he was clever and funny.

He needs to fucking grow up, and stop acting like a ****.

To Chelsea.

 

[PeterBarnesShorts]

There are currently 70 news items on the sky sports news app and they’ve managed to get City out of the equation completely now!It’s official,..we’re not really here!The pathetic,butt hurt cunts have surpassed themselves with this one,and it’s high fives all round the office….

 

[Damocles]

There are currently 70 news items on the sky sports news app and they’ve managed to get City out of the equation completely now!It’s official,..we’re not really here!The pathetic,butt hurt cunts have surpassed themselves with this one,and it’s high fives all round the office….

Do you think there's somebody sat at Sky Sports News App main offices who is getting tons of stuff submitted to them but deleting them?

What news do you think they should be covering that they aren't? We have essentially no transfer rumours or news, we're not playing friendlies and outside some academy players then there's nothing particularly going on. What should be there that isn't and do you think there's a collective effort at SSN to hide stories about City and why would they do this?

 

[invisibleandalone]

There are currently 70 news items on the sky sports news app and they’ve managed to get City out of the equation completely now!It’s official,..we’re not really here!The pathetic,butt hurt cunts have surpassed themselves with this one,and it’s high fives all round the office….

Now you know why I am called "Invisible and alone"

 

[PeterBarnesShorts]

Do you think there's somebody sat at Sky Sports News App main offices who is getting tons of stuff submitted to them but deleting them?

What news do you think they should be covering that they aren't? We have essentially no transfer rumours or news, we're not playing friendlies and outside some academy players then there's nothing particularly going on. What should be there that isn't and do you think there's a collective effort at SSN to hide stories about City and why would they do this?

There well may be no news or rumours but I’d hardly say that ‘ Rashford due for crunch talks with utd’ is hardly current or fresh news,same can be said for a fair few of the other features.I believe they make a conscious effort to ignore the club whenever possible,you don’t have to,..that’s fine.

 

[Gray]

The Manchester Evening News is bloody impossible to read on-line.

One sentence then a page of adverts before you pick up the article again, what an appalling Rag and don't get me started on them listing the Rags before City. That is not in alphabetic order you utter morons.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What has hotel room 115 got to do with Manchester City Football Club?

He obviously thought he was clever and funny.

He needs to fucking grow up, and stop acting like a ****.

To Chelsea.

View attachment 162739

By any objective measure, Chelsea haven’t been football’s laughing stock. Not even close. That title has to belong to United for the last decade or so given what they’ve spent. And Chelsea have won the league twice and Champions League once since United last won either. Absolutely ridiculous headline which would never be printed about the true recipient of that laughter.

 

[Gray]

What has hotel room 115 got to do with Manchester City Football Club?

He obviously thought he was clever and funny.

He needs to fucking grow up, and stop acting like a ****.

To Chelsea.

View attachment 162739

Good luck against PSG you are going to bloody well need it.

 

[Wardley Blue]

The Manchester Evening News is bloody impossible to read on-line.

One sentence then a page of adverts before you pick up the article again, what an appalling Rag and don't get me started on them listing the Rags before City. That is not in alphabetic order you utter morons.

I have deleted it from my bookmarks. I feel a lot better now.

 

[bluealf]

I go back to one of my original comments to you about this, slightly rephrased. I don't see the logic that a City reporter owes anything to City fans outside of reporting facts and gossip about City.

When do they ever do that?

Also, you complain about this thread but have added to it by arguing for Sam Lee since page 1.

That is fine but you haven't changed a single mind either way in 7 pages.

Sam Lee reported that we were guilty as charged by UEFA and listed a whole host of punishments we were about to get, and was quite delighted in that.

Not much of a City journalist, more a lying POS, fed a line by his other pals, and picked the wrong side.

That was when he ended up in most people's **** book.

I couldn't give a shit what he has typed since, any praise he has delivered smacks of being false, his true thoughts were printed before CAS.

But hey, he is all nice on that podcast with the guy who hated Mancini, what fun they must have.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not much of a City journalist as lying POS fed a line by his other pals and picked the wrong side.

That was when he ended up in most people's **** book.

This is the part that @Damocles appears to be struggling to grasp the significance of to many City fans, partly because many might feel differently if Lee had engaged in any mea culpa, but his professional relationships with that cohort of cunts is plainly of greater currency to him than the feelings of the supporters of the club which he is privileged to cover.

That’s indefensible to me as it involves an ongoing choice on Lee’s behalf.

 

[Centurions]

The Manchester Evening News is bloody impossible to read on-line.

One sentence then a page of adverts before you pick up the article again, what an appalling Rag and don't get me started on them listing the Rags before City. That is not in alphabetic order you utter morons.

The MEN site (and other, mainly, Reach sites) respond beautifully to an ad blocker.