Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigOscar said:
For anyone who does not believe there is an agenda, how can you possibly explain the way that our transfers are valued as opposed to other clubs? It's clear as day and there is no other explanation as to how the same media source can print Sterling at £49m and Roberts at £11m, but only put Martial at £36m. You're either including add ons in the price or you aren't. Picking and choosing is clearly just a deliberate attempt to sway perception about how much money the two teams have spent.
Click to expand...

there was a Q&A on the guardian at lunch with one of their footy 'reporters' and i tried to get the qu across about reporting of fees being different for different players/clubs, but it didnt get answered unfortunately. There has to be some justification otherwise i'll continue to take it as out and out bias.
 
blueinsa said:
Sky continue to claim Martial has cost £36M despite the lad himself saying he doesn't know if he is worth the 80M Euros its cost them to sign him in the same article!
Click to expand...

BBC the same:

Manchester United's new £36m signing Anthony Martial tells a news conference at France's training camp in Clairefontaine he was not concerned about the cost of the transfer.

"My family were definitely a bit nervous because of my high price but I'm going to stay focused on my work," he says.

"I'm not sure I'm worth 80m euros. I left for the football side. It's quite crazy for a player of my age but that's how the market works.
Click to expand...
 
Silva_Spell said:
Noticed on the Guardian...

Memphis reported as 25m - Full cost 31m
Schneiderlin reported as 24m - Full cost 27m
Darmian reported as 12.7m - Full cost 14.7m
Martial reported as 36m - Full cost 58.8m

Sterling initial 44m - Reported as 49m
Otamendi initial 28.5m - Reported as 32m
Roberts initial 5m - Reported as 11m

and that's just this window
Click to expand...

Think about how soul-destroying this window has been for them.

Arsenal didn't bother to compete. Chelsea made panic buys and failed on Stones so no Mourinho worship. And the rags are a calamity.

We, on the other hand, are leaving them behind on the pitch without even using Otamendi or De Bruyne. Bigger stadium, best academy in the country.

Their sole hope is that we keep getting nightmare draws in Europe, so they can pretend we flopped (nevermind that no other English club is beating these super clubs)

It's over and these petty delusions are all they have left.
 
There's been quite a lot of articles in the papers about how much Martial could cost to be fair.

Perhaps it's more that they see Sterling is more likely to cost his full price considering it is reliant on us winning things, whereas with Martial it is more likely to stay at 36m for the same reason...;)
 
meltonblue said:
There's been quite a lot of articles in the papers about how much Martial could cost to be fair.

Perhaps it's more that they see Sterling is more likely to cost his full price considering it is reliant on us winning things, whereas with Martial it is more likely to stay at 36m for the same reason...;)
Click to expand...

I could buy that even allowing for the fact that City winning the CL is one of the add ons but to see Roberts quoted as £12m everywhere proves the disparity.

If we'd signed Martial and they'd signed De Bruyne then Martial would have been reported as the biggest deal of the Summer. The French media all seem to be quoting 80m euros and comparing his fee to that of Zidane.
 
Think I just saw on Sky that the price City paid for Sterling is now £44m. Looks like they've realised the discrepancy.
 
Wilf Wild 1937 said:
I could buy that even allowing for the fact that City winning the CL is one of the add ons but to see Roberts quoted as £12m everywhere proves the disparity.

If we'd signed Martial and they'd signed De Bruyne then Martial would have been reported as the biggest deal of the Summer. The French media all seem to be quoting 80m euros and comparing his fee to that of Zidane.
Click to expand...

L'Equipe quite clearly state his fee as being 80m euros http://m.lequipe.fr/Medias/Actualit...-erreur-en-signant-a-manchester-united/586884
 
ESPN gave City a 10/10 for the transfer window but Merson only rated them as a B-. To be fair, he also rated the scum at a B- but how could you rate them as high as City when you consider their behavior regarding the De Gea fiasco?
 
Neville Kneville said:
Collymore quoted as saying that 'this country needs a strong Manchester Utd' pretty much spells it out for me. That's coming from an ex Liverpool player.

If he thinks like that, where does your average Sky or Talkshite or newspaper stand ? You can then add the huge Liverpool contingent who think their club needs to be near the top, & the huge Arsenal contingent who feel the same, then look at who has come along to represent the biggest threat to that. Chelsea were resented, but they are a London team & still left room for the old guard to do their thing, plus Utd had Ferguson & thought the were fine to just cruise on as normal.

Now they know they're not safe at all. Liverpool & Arsenal know they have a big problem . Abramovic isn't happy either. All down to City.

We've just seen the Germans reacting the same way because Bayern feel threatened. We are not welcome.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that we are the good guys?
 
its beyond getting bothered about it now, we don't add big names we cocked up by not strengthening, we buy to strengthen we are ruining football
 
Matty said:
It's annoying, it's frustrating, it's not what accurate journalistic reporting should be about, but in the modern age of the media, it's completely understandable from a business perspective, that City get a fairly rough deal.

Ignoring football for the time being, the media should have one aim, and one aim only, to accurately report the news, giving an unbiased view on what's happening. Yes, there can be opinion pieces, but in the main the media's job should be to present the key facts to the public. I say should as that's what the media is supposed to do, however it's not what the media does. The media's main aim is to create profits, to bring in revenue, to make money for the Rupert Murdocks of this world, and for their shareholders. This aim is often in direct conflict with the provision of unbiased facts. The media need people to engage with their products. They need the public to buy their newspapers, to click on their websites, to watch their TV channels. More viewers/users equates to more revenue, it's really very simply. The way they achieve this is to give the public what they want. If enough members of the public want to see a dwarf being thrown then someone, somewhere, will be showing it.

The way this, at least currently, relates to Manchester City is fairly clear. We are viewed by many in the footballing public as the embodiment of all that is wrong with the modern game. We, in their opinion, spend extortionate sums of money trying to buy success we haven't earned. Success their clubs should have, or at least success they wish their club could achieve but can't due to a lack of their own money. It's a mix of jealousy, fear and anger. The media are aware of this groundswell of opinion and, as they want to attract as many viewers/users as possible, they tailor the news towards a narrative that shows Manchester City to be everything the public have assumed we are. Negativity towards City generates interest from your average football fan as it supports their flawed viewpoint, "see, I was right, City are awful, the Daily Mail says so". The only way this will change is if public opinion changes. Time will help, City's wealth, and position within World Football, are comparatively new, as time passes we'll become a more accepted, more "regular" member of football's elite, and the public will "forget" quite why they disliked us. It's happening with Chelsea more and more, they are still where they are due to Abramovich's investment, however they have more or less become an accepted member of England's establishment these days.

Media bias is just something we're going to have to live with for the time being. We don't have the support of enough neutrals yet for us not to be a simple, easy, lazy target for journalists when it comes to "clickbait" reporting.

Fuck em' I say. They can whimper and complain, they can take shots at us from the safety of their fleet street offices, or more accurately, from behind the screen of their laptop in their bedsit, it won't halt the City juggernaut, we won't even feel it as we plough straight through them. Manchester City, despite the constant attempts to derail our progress, will be on of World footballs top sides for years to come, if we have to put up with a bit of negativity from the jealous throngs then so be it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree the media should be about just reporting the news as facts anymore than coca cola should be about cheaply and healthily lubricating the world or Colgate Palmolive should be about cheaply and environmentally cleaning the world. It's a very idealistic view of what business is. Where I would agree is a nationalised media such as the BBC should be factual , neutral and pursuing the news without slant.

News corp or any other media company has one responsibility and that is to their shareholders (whilst complying with the laws of the land). Their aim is to sell the most newspapers, get the most hits etc to maximise advertising revenue, same with commercial TV is about Ratings, websites are about hits etc. it would be a gross dereliction of duty if unbiased news reporting was out ahead of profits and shareholders would agree.

Same with any business out there unless they are a business whose selling point and driver of business is neutrality.

I have to say the bias is plain in the case of transfer fees but it is less bias and more that it follows the story to sell media. Fans click on 200m deal more than they do on 50m deal, outrage sells more than fact etc. that's life we should get used to it and it works all ways.

I also think City fans are over sensitive ie I have read far more about Merson giving us a b- the same as the Rags far more than the other fifty articles praising our window and crucifying our rivals. I have read more about savage and James tipping 5th than the 50 journalists who had us top 3 etc etc

There is bias but I see a lot of bluemooners searching for it and desperately looking for slights that are not there. At times behaving a bit like a militant group of feminists looking for sexism even when it isn't there.

It's business, it's life and I think it's about time blues stopped worrying about it . Honestly who cares, it's all about what happens on the pitch, it's all about enjoying City, ignore media you don't like and let's not try and spend our lives being victims .
 
make sure you don't look at today's back page of The Sun, it mentions £58m for Martial so won't fit in well with yesterdays agenda rantings, keep it Merson based for now guys
 
Monkfish said:
make sure you don't look at today's back page of The Sun, it mentions £58m for Martial so won't fit in well with yesterdays agenda rantings, keep it Merson based for now guys
Click to expand...
The ridiculing Moyes got was unbelievable even though he was better than Van Gaal on about 10% of the spend
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top