Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
chesterguy said:
I am confused as you have consistently mocked those who have argued that there is a media bias. Yet you have "disdain for their continual changing of headlines to fill print" why do you think they do that?

This thread used to be titled media "agenda" which like you I did not think existed. I do genuinely believe though that there is a media bias against City and for certain clubs namely United and Liverpool. Now the reasons for this I understand more clicks = more revenues the media know this and pamper to it. If anyone does not understand the different levels of clicks that Liverpool can generate than us just think why Henderson is on the front cover of FIFA with Messi.

I am not sure many think the bias is all encompassing so dont try and put words in peoples mouths. Of course not every article is going to be anti- City, not every journalist hates us, not every media outlet wants City to fail BUT the media do want to attract advertising and sponsors and to do that they want clicks

To suggest there is no media bias I believe is niaive but things will change as our support base gets bigger and we will generate the levels of clicks that matches or surpasses those of our rivals
Click to expand...

Well I think in this instance the argument would be what constitutes as bias then.

The narrative I do not believe, and what has been discussed over the last few pages, are pundits, ex city pundits are speaking negatively about us as they are being told to do so by their paymasters such as the BBC, SKY, BT.

Do I think everyone likes us, no of course not and that will be reflected in their words about us. That is what happens when individuals provide opinion about the game. Journalists like Samuel, who view FFP like us will be supportive of that issue where as journalists who see it differently will not be.

Do I think United receive more press than us, absolutely, and for the reasons you have stated however that to me is not bias, it is a business practice. It is no more bias against us than any other football club which receive less press coverage. Similarly we receive more press coverage than 99 percent of clubs in the football pyramid, neither is it bias against those clubs such as West Ham, Everton, Crystal Palace etc. We are just more newsworthy.

Why do papers change tack??? Well take the Pep story for example we will probably not know his next destination for six months. Papers have six months of news between now and then to fill. The story will change, it will be City/United/Chelsea are favourites as they have print to fill. It is not a bias against us just how the press have always worked. Some have said yesterday City are favourites it does not get a mention on this thread. The ones who haven't and linked him with United are clearly biased as how could they possibly know??? Thus proving in some peoples eyes the bias even though others (who also do not have a clue) have said City is his likely destination. It is cherry picking of stories to suit the media bias narrative.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Do you think, over the last seven and a bit years, united have received less negative press than us?
Click to expand...

That is tough to answer. My overall take has been United receive more press but its a double edge sword as it can be both positive and negative dependent upon the performance of the club and by virtue of they receive more press.

I would say over the last three years Moyes and LVG have probably been the most heavily criticised manager in the league along with Mourinho this year.
 
franksinatra said:
Well I think in this instance the argument would be what constitutes as bias then.

The narrative I do not believe, and what has been discussed over the last few pages, are pundits, ex city pundits are speaking negatively about us as they are being told to do so by their paymasters such as the BBC, SKY, BT.

Do I think everyone likes us, no of course not and that will be reflected in their words about us. That is what happens when individuals provide opinion about the game. Journalists like Samuel, who view FFP like us will be supportive of that issue where as journalists who see it differently will not be.

Do I think United receive more press than us, absolutely, and for the reasons you have stated however that to me is not bias, it is a business practice. It is no more bias against us than any other football club which receive less press coverage. Similarly we receive more press coverage than 99 percent of clubs in the football pyramid, neither is it bias against those clubs such as West Ham, Everton, Crystal Palace etc. We are just more newsworthy.

Why do papers change tack??? Well take the Pep story for example we will probably not know his next destination for six months. Papers have six months of news between now and then to fill. The story will change, it will be City/United/Chelsea are favourites as they have print to fill. It is not a bias against us just how the press have always worked. Some have said yesterday City are favourites it does not get a mention on this thread. The ones who haven't and linked him with United are clearly biased as how could they possibly know??? Thus proving in some peoples eyes the bias even though others (who also do not have a clue) have said City is his likely destination. It is cherry picking of stories to suit the media bias narrative.
Click to expand...

No one said these pundits are being forced to say anything, what's being said is there is a general tone ( narrative ) in regards to us, like there is for every club, but the one that exists for us is negative because we are the nouveau riche, the upstarts who are trying to buy up everything.

There is a begrudgery against us from the general football public and this is reflected in the media, it's that simple.
 
Rolee said:
No one said these pundits are being forced to say anything, what's being said is there is a general tone ( narrative ) in regards to us, like there is for every club, but the one that exists for us is negative because we are the nouveau riche, the upstarts who are trying to buy up everything.
Click to expand...

I'm more inclined that, rather than being TOLD how to behave, that there is feedback of what played well or badly with viewers, and then leaving the pundit to work out his best chance of getting employed again.

That's simplified, but I'm sure there's an influence at work there, the same as there is with other media clickbait.

BT's sponsorship of City is small beer, and the TV is their big punt.
 
George Hannah said:
Both, but the latter predominates, I'm surprised you actually raised the question - the unfair treatment of us is only meaningful in the context of bias in favour of our rivals,
Click to expand...

I am not speaking for Ric but I think the point he is making is regardless of who liverpool were in the title race against there would have been this outpouring based on, rightly or wrongly, they are considered one of the institutions of the english game, are a huge club, and after being all dominant have had such a long period since winning it. I think if Liverpool had been head to head with Chelsea for example the reaction would have been the same.
 
franksinatra said:
I am not speaking for Ric but I think the point he is making is regardless of who liverpool were in the title race against there would have been this outpouring based on, rightly or wrongly, they are considered one of the institutions of the english game, are a huge club, and after being all dominant have had such a long period since winning it. I think if Liverpool had been head to head with Chelsea for example the reaction would have been the same.
Click to expand...

That very much sounds like you think the media is biased in favour of Liverpool
 
franksinatra said:
No just the circumstances of their pursuit of the Championship. Many neutrals wanted us to win it in 2012 for similar reasons.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the fact that many neutrals wanted us to win it was reflected by the media at the time? In the same way it was with Liverpool?
 
Just reading the BBC gossip column this morning there is a back page splash of the Sun with the "City Land Pep Story", yet they make no reference to it and go with the Pep 90% done to Chelsea Story. Is this bias or fear?
 
I think theres no doubt theres plenty of bias when it comes to us in the press. Whether thats against us or in favour of our opponents it's still bias.

For me it's pretty natural for a journo to have bias, and I don't really have a problem that some seem to strongly favour or strongly oppose what we're doing.

The best can get past their own bias and they're the ones worth watching/reading/listening to. Not too many of them about unfortunately, and the ones that can't hide thrir biases should continue to be called out for it.
 
chesterguy said:
I am confused as you have consistently mocked those who have argued that there is a media bias. Yet you have "disdain for their continual changing of headlines to fill print" why do you think they do that?

This thread used to be titled media "agenda" which like you I did not think existed. I do genuinely believe though that there is a media bias against City and for certain clubs namely United and Liverpool. Now the reasons for this I understand more clicks = more revenues the media know this and pamper to it. If anyone does not understand the different levels of clicks that Liverpool can generate than us just think why Henderson is on the front cover of FIFA with Messi.

I am not sure many think the bias is all encompassing so dont try and put words in peoples mouths. Of course not every article is going to be anti- City, not every journalist hates us, not every media outlet wants City to fail BUT the media do want to attract advertising and sponsors and to do that they want clicks

To suggest there is no media bias I believe is niaive but things will change as our support base gets bigger and we will generate the levels of clicks that matches or surpasses those of our rivals
Click to expand...
+1
 
franksinatra said:
Do I think United receive more press than us, absolutely, and for the reasons you have stated however that to me is not bias, it is a business practice
Click to expand...
And it is also "a business practice" to ensure that they get a more favourable coverage than us because of their bigger customer base.
Same goes for Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.
Wake up Frank and smell the coffee.
 
chesterguy said:
I am confused as you have consistently mocked those who have argued that there is a media bias. Yet you have "disdain for their continual changing of headlines to fill print" why do you think they do that?

This thread used to be titled media "agenda" which like you I did not think existed. I do genuinely believe though that there is a media bias against City and for certain clubs namely United and Liverpool. Now the reasons for this I understand more clicks = more revenues the media know this and pamper to it. If anyone does not understand the different levels of clicks that Liverpool can generate than us just think why Henderson is on the front cover of FIFA with Messi.

I am not sure many think the bias is all encompassing so dont try and put words in peoples mouths. Of course not every article is going to be anti- City, not every journalist hates us, not every media outlet wants City to fail BUT the media do want to attract advertising and sponsors and to do that they want clicks

To suggest there is no media bias I believe is niaive but things will change as our support base gets bigger and we will generate the levels of clicks that matches or surpasses those of our rivals
Click to expand...
'Agenda' and 'bias' are not mutually exclusive.
Agenda does not have to involve collaboration between organizations.
So the reason for the media giving City unfavorable coverage can simply be that they are pursuing a common objective ( usually commercial to maximize revenues),but acting independently and not communicating with each other about it.
 
chesterguy said:
So you think all clubs are treated equally?
Click to expand...

No of course they are not. United/liverpool will get more coverage than ourselves and similarly we will get more than Everton/West Ham who in turn will get more coverage than Swansea/ Leicester.

Companies will make business decisions based on their readership. Its natural but does not signify bias.
 
I saw this graphic yesterday

152p2xf.jpg


and this sprang to mind

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...been-surrendered-so-pathetically-8490913.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top