Are the Worms turning?

citykev28 said:
But have we not been the subject of shite for the past 8 years?

The Shiek will get bored of his new toy.
We'll only attract mercenaries.
You can buy all the players you want but won't create a team.
The best players will use us as a stepping stone.
The way Hughes was sacked was disgraceful.
We haven't got the winning mentality of other clubs.
We might win a cup but won't be able to sustain it over 38 games.
Players will leave now we've won the league.
We'll never be a threat in Europe.
The way we sacked Mancini was disgraceful.
Liverpool are destined to win it for the 96 and deservedly so.
When Barca and Madrid come calling....
Pep wants a club with history.
The way we sacked Pellegrini was disgraceful.
Pep has had it too easy and will get a shock in England.
His tactics won't work at Stoke away.
We haven't got enough stardust.
Mourinho will teach Pep about the Premier League.

Fucking bore off all of you with the constant shite.
Click to expand...
You missed the most obvious one :
They run out of chips at half time.
 
borassic said:
Most of these geeks who write for the newspapers are late 30's to early 40's they were growing up when United and Liverpool were the most successful teams. That's the way I see it.
Click to expand...

There are loads of them, & loads of Southern ones & a fair Everton media mob too true enough but even if there weren't, still, it's obviously a deliberate thing, to try to produce stuff that appeals to their supporters.

Anyone who says that isn't the case, is deliberately pulling the wool over our eyes imo.

If stuff like that didn't matter, & the media didn't follow a target audience, there would be as much trad jazz etc on the radio as commercial tripe.
 
bobom said:
I don't believe there was ever an agenda against us in the mainstream media. The media looks for the best story. Last season that was "Moneybags city can buy the best players but they can't buy team spirit or success", which beautifully complemented the narrative of Leicester's success. With our current form, the best story is now" genius coach sets up city to challenge the best on the world ". That would have been the narrative last year had we produced performances to justify it...
The Yaya/Seluk saga might provide a brief detour into " uncompromising Pep is an obsessive who will get rid of players who disagree ", but the main narrative will be positive now as long as our performances justify it: neutrals well love watching us, and most media consumers are neutrals as far as city are concerned...
Click to expand...

The idea that the media 'looks (fucking looks!) for the best story' is an utterly laughable, contemptible and derisory assertion. The media don't 'look for a story'; they 'create/fabricate a narrative which suits their own ends. Scousers pickpocketing their own dead ring any bells?
 
Nascent Blues said:
The idea that the media 'looks (fucking looks!) for the best story' is an utterly laughable, contemptible and derisory assertion. The media don't 'look for a story'; they 'create/fabricate a narrative which suits their own ends. Scousers pickpocketing their own dead ring any bells?
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what I'm saying. "Best" doesn't mean most accurate or most pleasing to us. It means that story that best fits a classic narrative without distorting the facts too much.

The strongest stories appeal because they are really deep-seated in our psyche, and they work across myth and film and books into sports:

"Underdog killing the monster" is David vs Goliath, is The Guns of Navarone, is every sports film every made, is Leicester City 2015-16
"Rags to Riches" - the humble, but flawed, protagonist makes their fortune before losing it all; they win it back when they develop as a person through that adversity, is Aladdin, David Copperfield, David Beckham's story between being sent off against Argentina and that freekick against Greece, the current story surrounding Raheem Sterling
"The Quest" The hero overcomes challenges and temptations along the way to reach some goal. - The Lord of the Rings - Pep Guardiola's mission for the perfect footballing style, from Cruyff to Mexico to Barca to Bayern to City, and lots more.

The media chooses the story that "best" fits this narrative, and they leave out or fabricate evidence to support that chosen version. But there's a tipping point where the evidence will only sustain so much stretching, which is when the story has to change. This season it's clear that the facts won't sustain the "moneybags city buy the best players but can't buy team spirit and underperform" storyline any more, so it has to change.

The reason the media are always backing Liverpool is because "Great club from the past goes through decades of crap to win again" is a really powerful story - Boston Red Sox, British winners at Wimbeldon, the 2005 (or 1953) Ashes. Sooner or later they'll be right. And storylines can be sustained for years - or within a single match (3:2 QPR is a classic Rags to Riches, as is Gillingham)

Or take Mourinho: clearly a grade A prick, totally full of himself. Really successful. But if things go tits up at the rags, after last season at Chelsea, he'll fall really low. Guaranteed, in our lifetimes there will be stories about how he has learned from his mistakes, mellowed, seen the light, developed wisdom, and expect the tears to flow as he lifts the Champions League again, a changed man who has redeemed himself. Will that be true? Almost certainly not, he'll almost certainly still be a prick. But that will be how it's portrayed. Alternatively, he could be sacked from the Swamp and disappear from the game: Tragedy - the man gaining success and brought low by his own fatal flaw; or he might pootle along, getting some success before moving on, which will be ultimately unsatisfying...

People can feel these stories as they develop: think of the way the 2005 Ashes caught the British imagination - people wanted the payoff so badly. When the stories fail to end as they "should" we feel unfulfilled. Now this is especially true of neutrals of course - your average city fan cares that we won the title, but for your neutral, 93:20 caught the imagination much more than a safe 3:0 would have done.

The media are in the business of writing and developing stories that suit their own interests, which are usually financial but not always (your example, Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, fitted in beautifully with the right wing anti-scrounger, hooligan, anti working class agenda of the Thatcher years).

So yes, the media looks for the best story. Any no one should be in the least surprised that this distorts the facts.

(sorry for the long post)
 
Last edited:
bobom said:
But that's exactly what I'm saying. "Best" doesn't mean most accurate or most pleasing to us. It means that story that best fits a classic narrative without distorting the facts too much.

The strongest stories appeal because they are really deep-seated in our psyche, and they work across myth and film and books into sports:

"Underdog killing the monster" is David vs Goliath, is The Guns of Navarone, is every sports film every made, is Leicester City 2015-16
"Rags to Riches" - the humble, but flawed, protagonist makes their fortune before losing it all; they win it back when they develop as a person through that adversity, is Aladdin, David Copperfield, David Beckham's story between being sent off against Argentina and that freekick against Greece, the current story surrounding Raheem Sterling
"The Quest" The hero overcomes challenges and temptations along the way to reach some goal. - The Lord of the Rings - Pep Guardiola's mission for the perfect footballing style, from Cruyff to Mexico to Barca to Bayern to City, and lots more.

The media chooses the story that "best" fits this narrative, and they leave out or fabricate evidence to support that chosen version. But there's a tipping point where the evidence will only sustain so much stretching, which is when the story has to change. This season it's clear that the facts won't sustain the "moneybags city buy the best players but can't buy team spirit and underperform" storyline any more, so it has to change.

The reason the media are always backing for Liverpool is because "Great club from the past goes through decades of crap to win again" is a really powerful story - Boston Red Sox, British winners at Wimbeldon, the 2005 (or 1953) Ashes. Sooner or later they'll be right. And storylines can be sustained for years - or within a single match (3:2 QPR is a classic Rags to Riches, as is Gillingham)

Or take Mourinho: clearly a grade A prick, totally full of himself. Really successful. But if things go tits up at the rags, after last season at Chelsea, he'll fall really low. Guaranteed, in our lifetimes there will be stories about how he has learned from his mistakes, mellowed, seen the light, developed wisdom, and expect the tears to flow as he lifts the Champions League again, a changed man who has redeemed himself. Will that be true? Almost certainly not, he'll almost certainly still be a prick. But that will be how it's portrayed. Alternatively, he could be sacked from the Swamp and disappear from the game: Tragedy - the man gaining success and brought low by his own fatal flaw; or he might pootle along, getting some success before moving on, which will be ultimately unsatisfying...

People can feel these stories as they develop: think of the way the 2005 Ashes caught the British imagination - people wanted the payoff so badly. When the stories fail to end as they "should" we feel unfulfilled. Now this is especially true of neutrals of course - your average city fan cares that we won the title, but for your neutral, 93:20 caught the imagination much more than a safe 3:0 would have done.

The media are in the business of writing and developing stories that suit their own interests, which are usually financial but not always (your example, Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, fitted in beautifully with the right wing anti-scrounger, hooligan, anti working class agenda of the Thatcher years).

So yes, the media looks for the best story. Any no one should be in the least surprised that this distorts the facts.

(sorry for the long post)
Click to expand...
Long but good :-)
 
They are and always will be "at it". They want the clicks. They don't care if a story is true they want to suck rag cock for clicks.cant wait for them to realise they backed the wrong horse and they come crawling .
 
not arsed what the media say anymore, it is gonna happen where we lose a few games, and maybe they will jump on it but that is what the press do because it will be a big story. And that for me isn't a bad thing. The fact that if we lose a game is big news shows the stage we are at
 
I've heard a lot on here about "everyone being against you" but I don't think that was ever the case

I just think because of the money you were under more scrutiny than your average Joe team. But yes, the media have credited your performances this season, and rightly so.

To be honest I wasn't aware of a majority of the signings you made, but hats off. It's worked...... So far at least.
 
Nascent Blues said:
The idea that the media 'looks (fucking looks!) for the best story' is an utterly laughable, contemptible and derisory assertion. The media don't 'look for a story'; they 'create/fabricate a narrative which suits their own ends. Scousers pickpocketing their own dead ring any bells?
Click to expand...

There so many more examples out there such as the Sheik giving the players £250,000 watches as gifts.
Fabricated stories to fabricated photographs, look no further than Cavendish press.
 
bobom said:
But that's exactly what I'm saying. "Best" doesn't mean most accurate or most pleasing to us. It means that story that best fits a classic narrative without distorting the facts too much.

The strongest stories appeal because they are really deep-seated in our psyche, and they work across myth and film and books into sports:

"Underdog killing the monster" is David vs Goliath, is The Guns of Navarone, is every sports film every made, is Leicester City 2015-16
"Rags to Riches" - the humble, but flawed, protagonist makes their fortune before losing it all; they win it back when they develop as a person through that adversity, is Aladdin, David Copperfield, David Beckham's story between being sent off against Argentina and that freekick against Greece, the current story surrounding Raheem Sterling
"The Quest" The hero overcomes challenges and temptations along the way to reach some goal. - The Lord of the Rings - Pep Guardiola's mission for the perfect footballing style, from Cruyff to Mexico to Barca to Bayern to City, and lots more.

The media chooses the story that "best" fits this narrative, and they leave out or fabricate evidence to support that chosen version. But there's a tipping point where the evidence will only sustain so much stretching, which is when the story has to change. This season it's clear that the facts won't sustain the "moneybags city buy the best players but can't buy team spirit and underperform" storyline any more, so it has to change.

The reason the media are always backing Liverpool is because "Great club from the past goes through decades of crap to win again" is a really powerful story - Boston Red Sox, British winners at Wimbeldon, the 2005 (or 1953) Ashes. Sooner or later they'll be right. And storylines can be sustained for years - or within a single match (3:2 QPR is a classic Rags to Riches, as is Gillingham)

Or take Mourinho: clearly a grade A prick, totally full of himself. Really successful. But if things go tits up at the rags, after last season at Chelsea, he'll fall really low. Guaranteed, in our lifetimes there will be stories about how he has learned from his mistakes, mellowed, seen the light, developed wisdom, and expect the tears to flow as he lifts the Champions League again, a changed man who has redeemed himself. Will that be true? Almost certainly not, he'll almost certainly still be a prick. But that will be how it's portrayed. Alternatively, he could be sacked from the Swamp and disappear from the game: Tragedy - the man gaining success and brought low by his own fatal flaw; or he might pootle along, getting some success before moving on, which will be ultimately unsatisfying...

People can feel these stories as they develop: think of the way the 2005 Ashes caught the British imagination - people wanted the payoff so badly. When the stories fail to end as they "should" we feel unfulfilled. Now this is especially true of neutrals of course - your average city fan cares that we won the title, but for your neutral, 93:20 caught the imagination much more than a safe 3:0 would have done.

The media are in the business of writing and developing stories that suit their own interests, which are usually financial but not always (your example, Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, fitted in beautifully with the right wing anti-scrounger, hooligan, anti working class agenda of the Thatcher years).

So yes, the media looks for the best story. Any no one should be in the least surprised that this distorts the facts.

(sorry for the long post)
Click to expand...

A great post and at 6.00 in the morning! I have difficulty matching my socks.
 
bobom said:
But that's exactly what I'm saying. "Best" doesn't mean most accurate or most pleasing to us. It means that story that best fits a classic narrative without distorting the facts too much.

The strongest stories appeal because they are really deep-seated in our psyche, and they work across myth and film and books into sports:

"Underdog killing the monster" is David vs Goliath, is The Guns of Navarone, is every sports film every made, is Leicester City 2015-16
"Rags to Riches" - the humble, but flawed, protagonist makes their fortune before losing it all; they win it back when they develop as a person through that adversity, is Aladdin, David Copperfield, David Beckham's story between being sent off against Argentina and that freekick against Greece, the current story surrounding Raheem Sterling
"The Quest" The hero overcomes challenges and temptations along the way to reach some goal. - The Lord of the Rings - Pep Guardiola's mission for the perfect footballing style, from Cruyff to Mexico to Barca to Bayern to City, and lots more.

The media chooses the story that "best" fits this narrative, and they leave out or fabricate evidence to support that chosen version. But there's a tipping point where the evidence will only sustain so much stretching, which is when the story has to change. This season it's clear that the facts won't sustain the "moneybags city buy the best players but can't buy team spirit and underperform" storyline any more, so it has to change.

The reason the media are always backing Liverpool is because "Great club from the past goes through decades of crap to win again" is a really powerful story - Boston Red Sox, British winners at Wimbeldon, the 2005 (or 1953) Ashes. Sooner or later they'll be right. And storylines can be sustained for years - or within a single match (3:2 QPR is a classic Rags to Riches, as is Gillingham)

Or take Mourinho: clearly a grade A prick, totally full of himself. Really successful. But if things go tits up at the rags, after last season at Chelsea, he'll fall really low. Guaranteed, in our lifetimes there will be stories about how he has learned from his mistakes, mellowed, seen the light, developed wisdom, and expect the tears to flow as he lifts the Champions League again, a changed man who has redeemed himself. Will that be true? Almost certainly not, he'll almost certainly still be a prick. But that will be how it's portrayed. Alternatively, he could be sacked from the Swamp and disappear from the game: Tragedy - the man gaining success and brought low by his own fatal flaw; or he might pootle along, getting some success before moving on, which will be ultimately unsatisfying...

People can feel these stories as they develop: think of the way the 2005 Ashes caught the British imagination - people wanted the payoff so badly. When the stories fail to end as they "should" we feel unfulfilled. Now this is especially true of neutrals of course - your average city fan cares that we won the title, but for your neutral, 93:20 caught the imagination much more than a safe 3:0 would have done.

The media are in the business of writing and developing stories that suit their own interests, which are usually financial but not always (your example, Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, fitted in beautifully with the right wing anti-scrounger, hooligan, anti working class agenda of the Thatcher years).

So yes, the media looks for the best story. Any no one should be in the least surprised that this distorts the facts.

(sorry for the long post)
Click to expand...
great post mate..no need to apologise
 
There's a beaut of an article in the mail, Mourinho v Pep: Manchester City boss has the edge over his United rival in their Premier League battle but how do the two managers' reigns rate so far. I wont link it in (cos its the fail) but if you need a right old laugh, go have a read, particularly the bit where both get rated an 8 on signings, apparantly Bailly has impressed since signing and amazingly there's no mention of having spunked the lions share of 100m on the French Jack Rodwell.
 
Last edited:
Ok, maybe there wasn't an agenda towards us but this really has been a strange week. Our football is the best they 'media et-al' have seen, infighting 'over the road', and now they're supporting our stance on Pep v Seluk saga! Strange days indeed!
 
bobom said:
I don't believe there was ever an agenda against us in the mainstream media. The media looks for the best story. Last season that was "Moneybags city can buy the best players but they can't buy team spirit or success", which beautifully complemented the narrative of Leicester's success. With our current form, the best story is now" genius coach sets up city to challenge the best on the world ". That would have been the narrative last year had we produced performances to justify it...
The Yaya/Seluk saga might provide a brief detour into " uncompromising Pep is an obsessive who will get rid of players who disagree ", but the main narrative will be positive now as long as our performances justify it: neutrals well love watching us, and most media consumers are neutrals as far as city are concerned...
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
Media bias is BS. Obviously pundits have their favourite teams, logically, as most of them are ex-players.
But in general, broadcasters, newspapers, radio stations, unless they're local, have nothing to win by being biased.
In fact, I think all of them would be pretty thrilled to witness City repeating Arsenal's "invincibles" season. As you said, it's all about the story.
 
bobom said:
Why? If the dippers bear us and go on to win the league they surely deserve it...
And until we take points off the other title contenders (as we failed to spectacularly last season) we don't deserve an unconditional love-in.
It's hardly a conspiracy - journalists simply don't see our club as we do. And nor should they.
Click to expand...
spot on again!
 
citykev28 said:
But have we not been the subject of shite for the past 8 years?

The Shiek will get bored of his new toy.
We'll only attract mercenaries.
You can buy all the players you want but won't create a team.
The best players will use us as a stepping stone.
The way Hughes was sacked was disgraceful.
We haven't got the winning mentality of other clubs.
We might win a cup but won't be able to sustain it over 38 games.
Players will leave now we've won the league.
We'll never be a threat in Europe.
The way we sacked Mancini was disgraceful.
Liverpool are destined to win it for the 96 and deservedly so.
When Barca and Madrid come calling....
Pep wants a club with history.
The way we sacked Pellegrini was disgraceful.
Pep has had it too easy and will get a shock in England.
His tactics won't work at Stoke away.
We haven't got enough stardust.
Mourinho will teach Pep about the Premier League.

Fucking bore off all of you with the constant shite.
Click to expand...
"Memoires of a bitter City fan" :D
 
Apart from all the great points made by Bobom, I think there's another very important factor that has caused for British media to change their City narrative:

I think all the journalists, pundits and other storytellers have become all too aware, after Pep's magnificent start at City, that this is England's best & in fact only hope to finally close the gap again with Europe's Top Elite and compete for ultimate glory (Champions League, World Cup for Club Teams).

England is craving to be back on top. As much as some pundits may hold a grudge against City's revival, I'm quite sure they'd still rather see Kompany lifting the CL trophy than Piqué, Ramos or Hummels ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top