Media Thread 2020/21

[andyhinch]

No one says its right but I would suggest it does not reflect a bias against us, by virtue of the fact, as you state other clubs get a lot less coverage also in comparison.

Just to widen the debate a little, but still keep it relevant, as you say the BBC is publicly funded so how would be a fair way to split coverage?

Whether we like it or not as United and Liverpool have more supporters, therefore the likelihood more licence payers, does that make them entitled to more coverage by virtue of providing more funding?

Or should coverage be equal between clubs or even based on success?

How should the extent of coverage be determined?

With what most people would call a balanced approach ? Just a thought.

 

[franksinatra]

With what most people would call a balanced approach ? Just a thought.

Fair enough but how does balanced look based on the extent of coverage?

Often we hear on here the argument its publicly funded, with the inference, its different to other media outlets (which I agree to an extent) and therefore the coverage should not be driven by clicks but more equitable as were all licence fee payers.

So what would be fair, equal coverage across the board?

 

[bakerdave76]

As I said last night bbc sport Twitter, 27 articles about scum when they won , tonight after our win 5 , I rest my case .

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Not sure it displays bias but I suppose it could be considered irritating, based on your observations, that we have not received a mention.

As for fair and equitable, fair and equitable in comparison to who?

Do you think other sides, lets say Newcastle, Villa, Everton get as much coverage as us or other sides further down the pyramid? Is that fair or does that display a bias for us against those other clubs?

There is plenty of coverage about us, including after the Liverpool match, we might not get as much as some sides but we get a lot more than others. If memory served me correct we had the Foden goal on video, article from Shearer on us being favourites, article about Peps comments on Foden being a special talent, plus the match report on the BBC website the next day.

I suppose its a personal thing but at the moment just enjoying everything about the club currently, and yes a lot of the coverage also. Just a great time to be a blue so Im just focusing on all the positives and probably less sensitised to do these perceived slights.

I’ll bite, mate. Considering the recent revelation that you will get a better/truer version of a City game if you loosen your coffers and and have a read of what’s behind the pay-wall then it confirms that the none paying customer is getting a story that is embellished in some way to draw in the clicks to keep the advertisers happy.

If that is the case then what they are saying, apart from being condescending to the average reader who cannot afford, or will not pay for it, is that their coverage is bias toward the clubs with the biggest support and against the rest.

You‘re right, we get more coverage than the likes of Fulham, Newcastle, et al, and so we should with what we have achieved, but we should still at least be reported on in a positive light rather than finding a negative angle for a lot of our play and superb wins, just to keep those same click bait punters tuning in.

I gave up on reading what most of the media have to say a long time ago, I can assume that it’s only got worse since then, as per the CAS situation when all and sundry were prepared to deceive and lie to their readers in order to keep the narrative going. Following those reports, whatever shred of perceived impartiality left, was blown away in the gentlest of breezes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

No one says its right but I would suggest it does not reflect a bias against us, by virtue of the fact, as you state other clubs get a lot less coverage also in comparison.

Just to widen the debate a little, but still keep it relevant, as you say the BBC is publicly funded so how would be a fair way to split coverage?

Whether we like it or not as United and Liverpool have more supporters, therefore the likelihood more licence payers, does that make them entitled to more coverage by virtue of providing more funding?

Or should coverage be equal between clubs or even based on success?

How should the extent of coverage be determined?

I have always accepted that the bias in the overall media against City is commercially driven because LFC and MUFC have the biggest fanbases globally (and are the biggest audience). Of course there are some bloggers and journalists who hate City for different reasons, sometimes political, sometimes racial, sometimes just pure malice.
But I expect more from a public broadcaster. The BBC should cover football in a a fair, accurate, and impartial way. It is not about allocating a proportion of airtime to one club or another. It should just be professional journalism.
For example here in the North West the output from Dan Roan and Simon Stone is a disgrace. Full of mistakes, biased, and rarely balanced. I know my view is shared by some of their colleagues within the BBC. To answer your question coverage should just be honest and impartial. It is not asking a lot.

 

[Baggins.mcfc]

Wow, you have thrown me a real curve ball there. Im going to need a bit of time to answer such a thought provoking question. Ok to get back to you?

Its ok mate don't bother getting back to me, i know the answer.

 

[andyhinch]

Fair enough but was it that based on the extent of coverage?

Often we hear on here the argument its publicly funded, with the inference, its different to other media outlets (which I agree to an extent) and therefore the coverage should not be driven by clicks but more equitable as were all licence fee payers.

So what would be fair, equal coverage across the board?

Yesterday morning silly Sally came out with, Can Manchester United continue their impressive league form in the cup, I was wondering if I’d missed something. It’s the blowing smoke up their arse that pisses me off as much as anything.

 

[franksinatra]

I’ll bite, mate. Considering the recent revelation that you will get a better/truer version of a City game if you loosen your coffers and and have a read of what’s behind the pay-wall then it confirms that the none paying customer is getting a story that is embellished in some way to draw in the clicks to keep the advertisers happy.

If that is the case then what they are saying, apart from being condescending to the average reader who cannot afford, or will not pay for it, is that their coverage is bias toward the clubs with the biggest support and against the rest.

You‘re right, we get more coverage than the likes of Fulham, Newcastle, et al, and so we should with what we have achieved, but we should still at least be reported on in a positive light rather than finding a negative angle for a lot of our play and superb wins, just to keep those same click bait punters tuning in.

I gave up on reading what most of the media have to say a long time ago, I can assume that it’s only got worse since then, as per the CAS situation when all and sundry were prepared to deceive and lie to their readers in order to keep the narrative going. Following those reports, whatever shred of perceived impartiality left, was blown away in the gentlest of breezes.

Don’t see it as biting mate. I got tagged by someone to answer a question on the BBC coverage and politely responded. Its only a discussion after all.

I was not aware of any revelation, with regards behind paywalls, and I take your point about the click bait stuff, its undoubtedly out there and some of the fawning over United/Liverpool players is nauseating.

No one is less a fan of the press than me, I have little time for a lot of them, and as I have said before there are a lot of valid points made about the type of coverage.

In relation to my response with regards the BBC, we did have some decent coverage after the match on the website, maybe not as much as Liverpool would have had if they beat us, but still a few decent pieces.

 

[franksinatra]

Yesterday morning silly Sally came out with, Can Manchester United continue their impressive league form in the cup, I was wondering if I’d missed something. It’s the blowing smoke up their arse that pisses me off as much as anything.

You wont get an argument with me about that.

 

[franksinatra]

An all time record of consecutive wins was set tonight. Will the BBC find time for this or are they desperately searching for some water polo clips to exclude It?

Such as an article titled ‘Man City’s ‘special’ record breakers beat Swansea to reach quarter finals of FA Cup’. Might be worth checking before posting.

No doubt some will find a missing comma or something not mentioned to complain about.