Indeed. Doesn't make all of them wrong though anymore than it makes all of them right, does it? I'd be interested to know what narrative fans of say Villa, Newcastle, Liverpool and West Ham think the media has about their clubs.
If you accept the premise that whilst there are still articles out there of real journalistic merit, an inevitable and regrettable feature of newspapers in this online, global media age is the need to make money from advertising revenue (duly enhanced by generating clicks), then when 90% of the world's football fans (and I'm referencing only the Premier League) support either the rags, the dippers, Chelski or the Arse, it makes sense for those papers to portray City, who are a de facto enemy common to all 4 clubs given that our rise has cost one or the other of them £40 odd million a year for the last 5 years, in a particular light. In doing so they pander to preconceptions of us.
I'll happily agree that some, perhaps even most, of the stuff on this thread is absolute tosh, but if you believe that City (and I'm talking in general terms) get spoken off in the same tones as United and Liverpool do by the media, or are afforded anywhere near the same respect, then IMO you can't be helped
No it does not prove anything either way, because all fans feel the same, but it should make people consider their opinion more robustly. However that point was just a counter argument to you associating political bias as proof football bias could also exist. Similarly it proves nothing either way.
What is suggested on this forum is wide scale collusion, corruption within the context of the media, FA, Uefa, Sky and personally I do not think we are that important or the benefits of undermining us is worth the risk to those organisations involved.
The argument we do not get treated like United, Liverpool could be argued by pretty much every club in the football pyramid with regards exposure. Even if this was true it does not prove bias, agenda against us. It would be no different in germany, spain etc
The issue of respect is intriguing. If true is it based on deference to the established order, ex-players in the press, or as widely argued click bait for the masses?
I have always had my doubts regarding this. I find it difficult yo believe thousands of top four fans click on negative articles about City to make it a worthwhile business model. Is their any evidence of this? Personally I think a united article either positive or negative would receive more interest and that is how I think the press works.
Case in point being Mourinho and Wenger. You have highlighted those clubs as being part of the establishment with the majority of world fans. So if the press had this bias towards them, and they had to protect their revenue streams, click bait etc how do you explain the continual criticism this year. In fact Wenger is the most maligned manager every year?
If it was true these Clubs receive favourable press, based on revenues, click bait, surely thousands of chelsea and arsenal fans are switching off, reducing paper sales, advertising revenues as we speak. So why are the papers criticing these clubs now? If what is suggestedis true those papers are cutting their own throat financially at the minute. How do you explain this?
Similarly last year LVG was ridiculed, as was Moyes previously based on the common argument this would not happen as paper, advertising revenues would fall.
