Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really surprised at that Martin Samuel piece. Think he's a really good journo, but would expect to read that on a Leicester fan forum, not a national newspaper.
 
Sad that, I thought the game spoke for itself, a good battle between two good teams, they had a few chances but I never felt scared we would concede and I thought our chances were OK and they were just throwing themselves into the ball to stop the goals, really great game,
 
The match report was basically showing a bit of support for the underdog, something we will have to get used to and I don't mind.
The headline bore no resemblance to the match report and was a complete disgrace. Utterly contemptible.
 
The slaughtered lamb said:
Is that photoshopped?

If not, can one of the non-agendaists explain such cockwomblery?
Click to expand...

I agree that the headline is ridiculous. The article is pretty one-sided (the suggestion that Mangala and Otamendi "struggled" is particularly fanciful), but it hardly constitutes an agenda. Samuel has been one of our staunchest defenders over the last few years. Or does that get disregarded on the basis of a critical report of a 0-0 draw?

I think some people need to develop a thicker skin. Little point in complaining about every article that isn't complimentary about our club. The bigger we get the more negative coverage we will get, until we're eventually accepted as part of the "elite". Personally, I can tolerate that. It's a trade-off I would've taken 8 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Ric, but I have to disagree that Samuel has been a staunch defender of City - he has been a staunch critic of FFP, but is as much of a cockroach as his other mates in the written press. Tonight's piece came as no surprise to me.

And I really don't think it is about having a thick skin. The drip drip of negativity is both caustic and draining at the same time.
 
Cant really argue with article. TBF Leicester have been fantastic so far and tonight there wasn't alot between the two sides. Money can buy you sublime skill but its a pity theres not a guarantee of heart and passion that comes with it.
 
YaYa's Left Peg said:
Sorry Ric, but I have to disagree that Samuel has been a staunch defender of City - he has been a staunch critic of FFP, but is as much of a cockroach as his other mates in the written press. Tonight's piece came as no surprise to me.

And I really don't think it is about having a thick skin. The drip drip of negativity is both caustic and draining at the same time.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. They have all printed photos of Otamendi's tackle and Sagna's 'high foot' neither of which was even a foul! No photo of the high studs up and dangerous tackle on Sagna! Sorry Ric but they deliberately print constant negativity and it does stink into people's heads.
 
Of the commentary I thought Hoddle was pretty fair. Hargreaves not so much but he did give Sterling mom. Usually when we press someone really hard the daft twats ignore all the good play and give it to a defender in a team with about 20% possession.
 
We're not really here said:
Absolutely this. They have all printed photos of Otamendi's tackle and Sagna's 'high foot' neither of which was even a foul! No photo of the high studs up and dangerous tackle on Sagna! Sorry Ric but they deliberately print constant negativity and it does stink into people's heads.
Click to expand...

The sub-ed responsible for that headline and choice of pictures is clearly an idiot with an axe to grind, because it doesn't really reflect the article in any way.

I agree that the constant negativity is tiresome, but I just tend to ignore it now. Some bitter, resentful hacks aren't going to stop City's march to the top.

It's funny how United's 0-0 home draw against the 14th placed team in the league was lauded, whilst City's 0-0 away draw at the joint league leaders was criticised.
 
Ric said:
The sub-ed responsible for that headline and choice of pictures is clearly an idiot with an axe to grind, because it doesn't really reflect the article in any way.

I agree that the constant negativity is tiresome, but I just tend to ignore it now. Some bitter, resentful hacks aren't going to stop City's march to the top.

It's funny how United's 0-0 home draw against the 14th placed team in the league was lauded, whilst City's 0-0 away draw at the joint league leaders was criticised.
Click to expand...
Absolutely Ric, the coverage of the manure/ chavs game was hilarious, particularly Shreks performance. I did chuckle last night at the BT coverage when savage said Raheem had not really produced for us. Cut to immediate coverage of his Champions league goals. What a twat.
 
The DT this morning has scrutinised the ITV offering from last night and concluded that Inler 'appeared' to bet a touch on the ball. I seem to remember that Stones got 'a touch' on the ball at weekend but Crappenberg still gave the pen. There was no touch other than on Aguero. The front cover of the sports section shows Aguero getting up with accomanpying puzzled look as to why he wasn't given the pen. At least Pawson didn't compound the felony by not booking him. The caption - Who wants to win this crazy league? Sub-caption - Leicester's title dreams still alive as they hold Manchester City's millionaires 0-0!

I am unable to recall whether a similar sub-caption was attached to any of the pictures following the Rags v CFC game. Perhaps, none of them is a millionaire!
 
Rags had 2 shots on target and BT sport hailed it as a come back performance, full of spirit and clear signs that they are on the way back whilst our performance, with 21 shots on goal with 5 on target and over a dozen corners and 60% possession is claimed as boring by the same channel.

Fuck me they even have a ref on who gave the rags a penalty whilst claiming we never had one.

It doesn't get any more obvious.
 
The reporting of the match has been biased, albeit I think its at least as much pro Leicester bias as anti City bias. The match hasn't been reported as a clash between two title contenders, but more like an FA Cup tie between a PL team and one from a lower division. The reporters are praising the Leicester players for punching above their weight, whilst criticising City because players are not quite at the stellar levels that they are capable of playing. They're not comparing the teams objectively based on their performances in the game.

The player ratings in The Times give the Leicester players a rating that averages more than 1 point per player higher than the marks given to City players. Normally you only see that disparity when its been a one sided game. If you just looked at the player ratings you would assume that Leicester had won 3-0. The markings in no way reflect the balance of play.

I'm not an agenda-ist but wouldn't argue that the reporting of this game has been very poor and definitely biased.
 
cibaman said:
The reporting of the match has been biased, albeit I think its at least as much pro Leicester bias as anti City bias. The match hasn't been reported as a clash between two title contenders, but more like an FA Cup tie between a PL team and one from a lower division. The reporters are praising the Leicester players for punching above their weight, whilst criticising City because players are not quite at the stellar levels that they are capable of playing. They're not comparing the teams objectively based on their performances in the game.

The player ratings in The Times give the Leicester players a rating that averages more than 1 point per player higher than the marks given to City players. Normally you only see that disparity when its been a one sided game. If you just looked at the player ratings you would assume that Leicester had won 3-0. The markings in no way reflect the balance of play.

I'm not an agenda-ist but wouldn't argue that the reporting of this game has been very poor and definitely biased.
Click to expand...

Agree with all that. You'd think we were playing a non-league side the way the game has been reported. The Guardian have the headline "When Leicester’s ewoks stood up to Manchester City’s Death Star", ffs.
 
Sorry to say this but, we need to accept that we are the bad guys! it is not going to change until our media dept do something amazing and create a miracle in mindset !
 
if you want to be read negativity then look no further than blue moon, the place is dripping with whinging fuckers,shit badge,shit players,shit ground,shit kit,ect ect ect,its becoming very tiresome ,its not surprising the press give us shit,they look at our own forum and take it from here ,I used to think city fans were the best in the world,all I see now it negatives.

3rd in the league
semi of the cc cup
threw to the knockouts of the cl

brilliant ground
brilliant owners
brilliant youth set up
and yet people still whinge
 
peace frog said:
if you want to be read negativity then look no further than blue moon, the place is dripping with whinging fuckers,shit badge,shit players,shit ground,shit kit,ect ect ect,its becoming very tiresome ,its not surprising the press give us shit,they look at our own forum and take it from here ,I used to think city fans were the best in the world,all I see now it negatives.

3rd in the league
semi of the cc cup
threw to the knockouts of the cl

brilliant ground
brilliant owners
brilliant youth set up
and yet people still whinge
Click to expand...
Well said that man.Some people need to grow a pair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top