Most people are fully aware the guardian is left leaning and the mail is right leaning politically but for those who do not see a systematic bias in the media, in relation to City, is not due to a life long belief in journslistic integrity or even a liking for the media but simply based on the content they read.
Its not difficult to reach that conclusion when you see the likes of Martin Samuel (Daily Mail) defending Citys position on fair play or Simon Mullocks (Blue) writing for the Mirror. Sky having a dyed in wool blue as a presenter, BT sponsoring City Square, BBC featuring us repeatedly as the feature game on MOTD in addition to the platitudes we have received all season for our football from the likes of Lineker, Henry Winter (Times) etc.
If these organisations were biased against us or even colluding against us (as some claim) they are failing miserably to rein in their staff to follow this message.
A far more favourable argument would be to argue certain individuals have issues with our business model/players etc but this blanket accusation of media bias smacks of a throwaway comment with little validity.
Even now out of season Sane does not get picked for the world cup squad because he signed for City rather than Bayern, Jesus get stick because he plays for us and like wise the media want Sterling dropped because he plays for us. The accusations of bias on here are never ending. Could it not just be possible that some journalists may see the game differently to many on here and as journslists are being paid to write their opinion than part of a sinister bias against us?