A ‘new’ City?

[citymad]

Most football journalists and pundits in the UK know very little about the game of football. They grew up liking it but don't really understand it.

It's like asking someone to review a bottle of the most expensive and complex bottles of red wine when all they drink is jaeger bombs.

Pat Nevin loves football and loves watching us. When you compare Nevin and Onuoha to other football pundits the difference is staggering. I can't think of another sport (if any) that dumbs it's coverage down as much as football.

Merson, Lawrenson, Mcpointalot, Mills, Linekar, Thompson and Crooks, disagrees with this post.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Incorrect.

The Guardian is the second most visited newspaper website in the UK by people in the UK.

In fact, in 2020 it overtook the Daily Mail for a period to be the most visited newspaper site by people in the UK.

Disagree with the editorial stance by all means if you wish, but calling it a “fringe product only read by a small number of people in the UK” is just completely incorrect I’m afraid.

Top 50 UK news websites in September: Leading publishers see sharp traffic drop

Press Gazette lists the top 50 news websites in the UK. Monthly updated top 50 listing based on data provided by Ipsos iris

www.pressgazette.co.uk

Ok perhaps it was harsh to describe the Guardian as a "fringe publlication". But there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with web stats. That story actually shows Guardian UK visits down 27 per cent in the last year and suggests they get about 300,000 daily website visits from the UK. A visit is measured by a click on a story. Nothing about how long or engaged that visitor is or how many unique visitors there are (is it just the same group of people every day)
Media groups have been manipulating their web stats for years as they struggle to survive. The point I am making is that the influence of papers/websites like the Guardian (which used to be one of the best in the world) is much diminished these days. It has also cut 12 per cent of its workforce in the last 12 months (presumably Covid factors) so not everything in the garden is rosy.
A daily audience of about 300,000 people online (90,000 print readers) is still small for a country with a population of around 65 million. A lot less than Marcus Rashford's tweets!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

What a load of nonsense by the writer. Pep has changed the style of footy in the EPL for the better. The truth is that managers are not as smart as Pep and clubs dont have the players or resources to match City. Record points, record goals and some of the most sublime football I have ever had the privilege to see.How could a "neutral" not be mesmerised by watching City ???? The writer is surely a rag clutching at straws to denigrate our club.

Even football purists like Fat Sam don't seem to like our football. As Sam said: "All this passing out from the back is just rubbish." What a shame he didn't last long in the England job. Sam must have hated all those passing teams from the past like Brazil 1970, Ajax, and peak Barcelona.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A SAP

He certainly is.

 

[domalino]

Most football journalists and pundits in the UK know very little about the game of football. They grew up liking it but don't really understand it.

It's like asking someone to review a bottle of the most expensive and complex bottles of red wine when all they drink is jaeger bombs.

Pat Nevin loves football and loves watching us. When you compare Nevin and Onuoha to other football pundits the difference is staggering. I can't think of another sport (if any) that dumbs it's coverage down as much as football.

Nedum and Nevin would be a dream punditry team.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Ok perhaps it was harsh to describe the Guardian as a "fringe publlication". But there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with web stats. That story actually shows Guardian UK visits down 27 per cent in the last year and suggests they get about 300,000 daily website visits from the UK. A visit is measured by a click on a story. Nothing about how long or engaged that visitor is or how many unique visitors there are (is it just the same group of people every day)
Media groups have been manipulating their web stats for years as they struggle to survive. The point I am making is that the influence of papers/websites like the Guardian (which used to be one of the best in the world) is much diminished these days. It has also cut 12 per cent of its workforce in the last 12 months (presumably Covid factors) so not everything in the garden is rosy.
A daily audience of about 300,000 people online (90,000 print readers) is still small for a country with a population of around 65 million. A lot less than Marcus Rashford's tweets!

Well, unless you're claiming Marcus Rashford's tweets are now the MSM? ;-)

I appreciate your points about web traffic, but I think you're maybe taking a rather simplistic view on it. Even though 300,000 hits a day may seem like small-fry in a population of 65m, I don't think it's that straightforward.

Loads of people keep up with the news based on what other people share with them, whether in person or online. They go to friends, family, even celebrities who they consider well informed of news and current affairs.

But those "well-informed" people are getting their news from somewhere - the BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian, wherever. Even if national newspaper's circulation and web hits are dwindling - they still play a huge role in setting the topical agenda and being a source where other influencers get their information.

As social media increasingly drags people to the extremes of left or right of opinion, it seems inevitable that the two most polarising newspapers - the Daily Mail and The Guardian are increasing their market share, and influence.

It's almost become the go-to insult if someone's opinion if more left than yours to say "Stop reading The Guardian" or if their opinion is more right wing than yours to say "Stop reading the Daily Mail".

Although these two news outlets may be struggling commercially, their influence on setting the discourse is pretty robust.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Well, unless you're claiming Marcus Rashford's tweets are now the MSM? ;-)

I appreciate your points about web traffic, but I think you're maybe taking a rather simplistic view on it. Even though 300,000 hits a day may seem like small-fry in a population of 65m, I don't think it's that straightforward.

Loads of people keep up with the news based on what other people share with them, whether in person or online. They go to friends, family, even celebrities who they consider well informed of news and current affairs.

But those "well-informed" people are getting their news from somewhere - the BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian, wherever. Even if national newspaper's circulation and web hits are dwindling - they still play a huge role in setting the topical agenda and being a source where other influencers get their information.

As social media increasingly drags people to the extremes of left or right of opinion, it seems inevitable that the two most polarising newspapers - the Daily Mail and The Guardian are increasing their market share, and influence.

It's almost become the go-to insult if someone's opinion if more left than yours to say "Stop reading The Guardian" or if their opinion is more right wing than yours to say "Stop reading the Daily Mail".

Although these two news outlets may be struggling commercially, their influence on setting the discourse is pretty robust.

I agree with most of that. I think the Mail and Guardian do reflect a polarised situation and that impacts on the overall narrative. But the MSM in general is less significant in the overall picture because the market is very fragmented. My Rashford comment was a bit flippant but it makes the point that Rashford himself (with 4m followers who all re-tweet his daily content) has a vast global audience...and a lot of influence...possibly more than the Guardian!

 

[mdj0520]

I think the point is that comments such as this are not made by "neutrals" at all. They are made by fans of other teams for whom, I should imagine, the experience of playing us is, indeed, "joyless"

My experience is that true football-lovers wallow in the glorious football we play.

I get the point being made tbh. It depends what you look for in football. Sure, those that enjoy the technical and tactical side of the game will love our style and matches.

If you're someone who primarily enjoys football for the drama and emotion, I can see why the meticulous, deliberate, metronomic passing may not be to some's liking.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I agree with most of that. I think the Mail and Guardian do reflect a polarised situation and that impacts on the overall narrative. But the MSM in general is less significant in the overall picture because the market is very fragmented. My Rashford comment was a bit flippant but it makes the point that Rashford himself (with 4m followers who all re-tweet his daily content) has a vast global audience...and a lot of influence...possibly more than the Guardian!

Yeh I do get your point about Rashford, I'm just saying if he tweets something that's commenting on the current news cycle, it's likely he (or his team) have formed their opinion based on what they've read from an established news outlet (such as The Guardian)

 

[Norman kneejerk]

Most football journalists and pundits in the UK know very little about the game of football. They grew up liking it but don't really understand it.

It's like asking someone to review a bottle of the most expensive and complex bottles of red wine when all they drink is jaeger bombs.

Pat Nevin loves football and loves watching us. When you compare Nevin and Onuoha to other football pundits the difference is staggering. I can't think of another sport (if any) that dumbs it's coverage down as much as football.

Agree, the economics correspondent would know that subject or the political editor, but for football they have no great insight. As you say even other sports rugby,cricket, golf normally have someone with in depth knowledge.