Blue V Red: The Battle For Manchester

threespires said:
Saw that, imo a masterclass in snide and selective writing but then I am a paranoid chippy bertie.

Hopefully tomorrow the raggies at the BBC will be doing their usual ever so slightly downbeat and perfunctory match report that follows a City victory.
Click to expand...
Gave barely a mention (and did not even refer to Bert) to one of the most famous FA Cup finals ever
 
Nope, don’t agree,at all. Read it right through, and by going back to the very origins of the two clubs, and tracking them through the twentieth century, it contextualises United’s period of dominance from 1992 to 2011 (2013 was for me a final gasp, an abberation) in a way that I suspect the vast majority of third-party supporters would know almost nothing about.
A couple of omissions that struck me – the article omits to mention that Denis Law started with us. And of course it never really explains the technical reason behind why the City supporter insists on calling them Stretford (and why I call them Trafford, and why that billboard welcoming Tevez to Manchester was, quite simply, correct).
By the BBC’s standards, a good effort. For once.
 
threespires said:
Saw that, imo a masterclass in snide and selective writing but then I am a paranoid chippy bertie.

Hopefully tomorrow the raggies at the BBC will be doing their usual ever so slightly downbeat and perfunctory match report that follows a City victory.
Click to expand...
It was a little better than I expected, especially around relative spending and you could feel the Rag’s fan hurting with his comments.
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
Nope, don’t agree,at all. Read it right through, and by going back to the very origins of the two clubs, and tracking them through the twentieth century, it contextualises United’s period of dominance from 1992 to 2011 (2013 was for me a final gasp, an abberation) in a way that I suspect the vast majority of third-party supporters would know almost nothing about.
A couple of omissions that struck me – the article omits to mention that Denis Law started with us. And of course it never really explains the technical reason behind why the City supporter insists on calling them Stretford (and why I call them Trafford, and why that billboard welcoming Tevez to Manchester was, quite simply, correct).
By the BBC’s standards, a good effort. For once.
Click to expand...

Obviously we'll agree to disagree, but I should perhaps clarify a bit what it was that got my goat about it which was mostly quite subtle. I'll use a couple of examples:

The language/adjectives used to describe City's and united's relative highs and lows are different. United's lows are described as 'mediocrity' whilst City's are described as 'unfathomable feats of self destruction', united's mistakes are describe as 'mis-steps' as opposed to (bad) 'habits that would come to rest at the very core of the clubs identity'.

The graphics and quotes used in the dividers. So there is some half hearted condemnation of Keane in the text but the graphic which has the much larger font uses keane's deflecting quote around the supposed lack of spirit in the City team for failing to retaliate. Similarly the Tevez element talks about savvy marketing but the much larger graphic has gpc's quote about it being small time. There is also a graph in the section that is entitled 'City's Era', except the graph doesn't just cover City's era it covers much bigger period when united were dominant, sure it shows City's rise but if you want to make the point that City have been dominant over the last decade which was the purported purpose of that section there are literally dozens of more appropriate or relevant graphs you could use.

I'm not saying it's an egregious piece and you make the valid point that some somewhat more balanced history is better than none for people who have no clue. I do however think it still reeks of the kind of writing style we have got used to from the BBC in relation to City and united over recent years.
 
threespires said:
Obviously we'll agree to disagree, but I should perhaps clarify a bit what it was that got my goat about it which was mostly quite subtle. I'll use a couple of examples:

The language/adjectives used to describe City's and united's relative highs and lows are different. United's lows are described as 'mediocrity' whilst City's are described as 'unfathomable feats of self destruction', united's mistakes are describe as 'mis-steps' as opposed to (bad) 'habits that would come to rest at the very core of the clubs identity'.

The graphics and quotes used in the dividers. So there is some half hearted condemnation of Keane in the text but the graphic which has the much larger font uses keane's deflecting quote around the supposed lack of spirit in the City team for failing to retaliate. Similarly the Tevez element talks about savvy marketing but the much larger graphic has gpc's quote about it being small time. There is also a graph in the section that is entitled 'City's Era', except the graph doesn't just cover City's era it covers much bigger period when united were dominant, sure it shows City's rise but if you want to make the point that City have been dominant over the last decade which was the purported purpose of that section there are literally dozens of more appropriate or relevant graphs you could use.

I'm not saying it's an egregious piece and you make the valid point that some somewhat more balanced history is better than none for people who have no clue. I do however think it still reeks of the kind of writing style we have got used to from the BBC in relation to City and united over recent years.
Click to expand...

As you say, mate, we’ll agree to disagree. And thanks for replying at length, by the way,setting out your reasoning (rather than replying with “Stop talking bollocks, you clown”, a tendency which is lamentably common on this forum). It’s much more satisfying, and I think I’ll scrutinise the article a second time, now.
Sharp on the highlighted quotes, by the way. I hadn’t quite picked that up. Maybe I’ve got so used to that kind of thing that I’ve grown a rhino’s skin.

But since you’ve clearly got an eye for detail, let me draw your attention to this one. It is objectively logical, in any discussion about City and United, that City’s name should be cited first, following the rule of alphabetical precedence. And it‘s observed in this article. Now ask yourself, how often have you seen that over the last twenty years or so? Even now? Count the number of times, in the mainstream media, and I think you’ll see that it’s United first, City second, over and over. And that sends out a subliminal message to the world that is a) totally out of date at this point b) goes against the elementary rule of alphabetical order and c) gets right up my nose.

We’re basically on the same page, I think. The crucial point, for me, having a thousand times heard the absolute tripe, in pubs and suchlike (echoed, incidentally, by journos who are paid to do a bit of research) that “City have no history”, as if we were invented in 2008 by a consortium hundreds of miles away, was to read an in-depth article in a prominent place which can hardly be ignored, going right back to St Marks and Newton Heath. An article, furthermore, that made it fairly clear (although not Gary James clear) that we were the bigger club for a very substantial part of the twentieth century. My criticism would be that it skates too rapidly over the seventies, when we were at the very least level pegging as a power with United, and actually in a number of seasons ahead of them. United were no great shakes in either the seventies or the eighties. Those were the years of the Liverpool hegemony.
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
Nope, don’t agree,at all. Read it right through, and by going back to the very origins of the two clubs, and tracking them through the twentieth century, it contextualises United’s period of dominance from 1992 to 2011 (2013 was for me a final gasp, an abberation) in a way that I suspect the vast majority of third-party supporters would know almost nothing about.
A couple of omissions that struck me – the article omits to mention that Denis Law started with us. And of course it never really explains the technical reason behind why the City supporter insists on calling them Stretford (and why I call them Trafford, and why that billboard welcoming Tevez to Manchester was, quite simply, correct).
By the BBC’s standards, a good effort. For once.
Click to expand...

I just finished reading it and I enjoyed it very much, memories and tears and it kept my mind off tomorrow for 20 mins.... well done BBC.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.