Different reactions to City and Arsenal defeats

[Bodicoteblue]

What is it that unfunny comedienne's alter ego says; ''Am I bovvered?'' Let the media say what they want; it doesn't affect how I feel about my team.I won't wank myself silly when they're nice about us (''the best team on the planet'') and I won't go looking for a tall building to jump off when they're sniping at us. Onwards and upwards blues.

You're absolutely right Jim , my head says I agree with you , but my heart tells me something else when I see the sh*t thrown at the club I love by a bunch of sneering know-nowts.

 

[therealsvenn]

All depends where you look, Ian Cheeseman tweeted a very pro-City article last night.

You need to find opposing views from the same source to prove your point. Sure there'll be one somewhere.

Personally think City have a better chance overturning their game than Arsenal based purely on the teams' recent scoring records, but some will point to Arsenal's CL experience and may see it the other way.

Have a look at the BBC's chief sportswriter Phil ;twat; McNulty's match reports and opinion pieces on both games.

Yes and his article about Maureen's tactical victory over Pellegrini in the league and not a squeak when we beat then 2-0 in the cup (.. they didnt have a shot on goal FFS!)

 

[lloydie]

Well we could all pull two very different articles from completely different places that you could put an argument forward for.

The important thing is anyone with any nouse about them who are supporters of any club will know what the score is. They'd see what you've seen. Not many people in this world would read something and think "ah yes, that ridiculous article's viewpoint has fooled my pathetically unintelligent brain and I know believe exactly what it says!"

Why do people feel the need to read what the media says anyway? Is is because you need telling how to think/feel? Is it because you need to know ONE (as they are generally written by one person) person's view of something? Is it because the OS and the many forums we have as well as other types of media don't provide you with more than enough information than you could ever need aren't enough for you?

Why do people feel that the media owe it to us to blow smoke up our arse? Why does it bother you that they do blow smoke up other club's arses? You've seen through it and so will anyone with half a brain cell!

Do you know what the French media say about Paris? Do you know what the Spanish media say about Barça or the Catalan media say about Madrid? Do you know what the US media says about the New Orleans Pelicans or even about Manchester City for that matter? And do you care about anything that's said by any of them? Does any if it make you think/feel any differently towards Paris Barça Madrid the Pelicans or City?

Looking at the amount of sponsorship we've attracted in the last few years, judging by the fact that even early rounds of domestic cup games are sold out, going off the amount of annoying day tripping tourists there are at our games these days, seeing that the only direction this club is going in is UP! I don't think it matters a fucking jot what any media says about us. It's doesn't matter. It doesn't effect us. We just keep growing and growing. And only the stupid - who we shouldn't worry about - are fooled by the toilet media.

There is so much decent media out there, we should never have to expose even a second of our lives to the shit stuff.

I've said the exact same thing. If there is an 'agenda', it's probably the worst-ran agenda in history.

Denial,

 

[lloydie]

I think we're over-reacting. Sure, the media responses to the two matches were stark. But I think that's more to do with the fact that no one expected anything of Arsenal, whereas they thought we might actually beat Barca. It's interesting in fact, that impartial observers in the media were perhaps more optimistic about our chances than a lot of fans. We're seen as a big club now but we don't quite have the self-confidence ourselves yet...

Plus, Arsenal were away, we were at home.

errrrr no Arsenal were at home too

Oh, so sorry, don't know what I was thinking... :)

You were concentrating on ....

Sure, the media responses to the two matches were stark. But ....

Its a common but commendable failing to try to see both sides even in the face of overwhelming evidence, Standing against majority opinion is mostly an admirable trait, unfortunately some do it for affect (sic).

 

[Sir Joe Aguero]

All depends where you look, Ian Cheeseman tweeted a very pro-City article last night.

You need to find opposing views from the same source to prove your point. Sure there'll be one somewhere.

Personally think City have a better chance overturning their game than Arsenal based purely on the teams' recent scoring records, but some will point to Arsenal's CL experience and may see it the other way.

Have a look at the BBC's chief sportswriter Phil ;twat; McNulty's match reports and opinion pieces on both games.

Yes and his article about Maureen's tactical victory over Pellegrini in the league and not a squeak when we beat then 2-0 in the cup (.. they didnt have a shot on goal FFS!)

Because Mourinho saying stupid shit sells papers, simple as that.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

It's not the managers surely. We had the darling of the media Mark clueless Hughes, followed by Mancini who oozed charisma and who they generally liked and now Pellegrini who is cool and calm and also seems liked and respected. So it's not the managers.

We don't have any obnoxious players. Even the rag forums say our team is hard to dislike. No John Terries or biting divers in the team. (Micah has been known to do the odd bit of gymnastics, but he doesn't bite and is generally liked by the media.)

And it can't be the money either. Yes, some people are jealous and there's too much made of the money, but Chelsea have had oodles of money thrown at them and the media don't hate them, or are not as critical of Chelsea compared to us.

My guess is the reason they don't like us is because we are not from London. It was bad enough having the rags dominating english football and now another team from out of town are damned well doing it. And these southern wanker reports don't like it.

This may have already been explained in depth but I feel the need to explain it.

There's a misconception that the sports sections (And newspapers in general) are in place to report the news/matches/transfers based on facts and reputable sources, I.e. You'd expect Journalism when reading it.
The fact of the matter is, especially now that the entire field of journalism is becoming diluted and ultimately dying out because of the internet allowing any knob with an internet connection to report the match, the entire operation is no selling as many papers or in the case of on-line papers Advertising space. Now how do they go about that when reporting anything to do with City?

You're right our manager is cool, calm and collect. Undoubtedly not going to give you headlines (Barring a rant like the one after Barcelona, but that was a rare case) Compare this to Jose 'Writer's wet dream' Mourinho who you know will give you a sound bite that you can spread over an entire spread.

You're also right when you say we don't have any obnoxious players. In fact I'm prepared to change that to we have players that do a damn good job of staying anonymous off the pitch. Remember when we had Ballotelli? Setting his house on fire and the like, you couldn't ask for a more head-line spinning player. Because of this it was always 'Balotelli did this is training' rather than whatever City had been doing.

But it's also not because of the money or the fact we come from Manchester.

There's nothing quite like a villain when it comes to spinning stories, everyone wants to read a story that mocks and belittles the bad guy and let's face it. The press must have wet themselves with excitement when City started to thrust themselves into the limelight, regardless if it was everyone else who forced them to do this.

Imagine it, the status-quo being interrupted by the vile foreigners, paying 'ludicrous amounts' to import foreign talent. You couldn't ask for a more picture perfect villain.

The only thing that separate us and Chelsea and the reason they don't get it as 'bad' as us is that they have Maureen, the press's favourite Socialite, spear heading them and always guaranteeing some form of controversy for them to sell papers with.


Basically it all boils down to selling papers and advertising space and when it comes to time to report on City you have no controversy, no head-line grabbing antics, so you twist them into a villain. This works brilliantly because if we win people will read it to fuel their displeasure at our progress, if we lose people will read it to hear how the evil giant was slain by the plucky underdogs. It's a win-win for them.

I should know. I'm a journalist.

 

[Balti]

It's not the managers surely. We had the darling of the media Mark clueless Hughes, followed by Mancini who oozed charisma and who they generally liked and now Pellegrini who is cool and calm and also seems liked and respected. So it's not the managers.

We don't have any obnoxious players. Even the rag forums say our team is hard to dislike. No John Terries or biting divers in the team. (Micah has been known to do the odd bit of gymnastics, but he doesn't bite and is generally liked by the media.)

And it can't be the money either. Yes, some people are jealous and there's too much made of the money, but Chelsea have had oodles of money thrown at them and the media don't hate them, or are not as critical of Chelsea compared to us.

My guess is the reason they don't like us is because we are not from London. It was bad enough having the rags dominating english football and now another team from out of town are damned well doing it. And these southern wanker reports don't like it.

This may have already been explained in depth but I feel the need to explain it.

There's a misconception that the sports sections (And newspapers in general) are in place to report the news/matches/transfers based on facts and reputable sources, I.e. You'd expect Journalism when reading it.
The fact of the matter is, especially now that the entire field of journalism is becoming diluted and ultimately dying out because of the internet allowing any knob with an internet connection to report the match, the entire operation is no selling as many papers or in the case of on-line papers Advertising space. Now how do they go about that when reporting anything to do with City?

You're right our manager is cool, calm and collect. Undoubtedly not going to give you headlines (Barring a rant like the one after Barcelona, but that was a rare case) Compare this to Jose 'Writer's wet dream' Mourinho who you know will give you a sound bite that you can spread over an entire spread.

You're also right when you say we don't have any obnoxious players. In fact I'm prepared to change that to we have players that do a damn good job of staying anonymous off the pitch. Remember when we had Ballotelli? Setting his house on fire and the like, you couldn't ask for a more head-line spinning player. Because of this it was always 'Balotelli did this is training' rather than whatever City had been doing.

But it's also not because of the money or the fact we come from Manchester.

There's nothing quite like a villain when it comes to spinning stories, everyone wants to read a story that mocks and belittles the bad guy and let's face it. The press must have wet themselves with excitement when City started to thrust themselves into the limelight, regardless if it was everyone else who forced them to do this.

Imagine it, the status-quo being interrupted by the vile foreigners, paying 'ludicrous amounts' to import foreign talent. You couldn't ask for a more picture perfect villain.

The only thing that separate us and Chelsea and the reason they don't get it as 'bad' as us is that they have Maureen, the press's favourite Socialite, spear heading them and always guaranteeing some form of controversy for them to sell papers with.


Basically it all boils down to selling papers and advertising space and when it comes to time to report on City you have no controversy, no head-line grabbing antics, so you twist them into a villain. This works brilliantly because if we win people will read it to fuel their displeasure at our progress, if we lose people will read it to hear how the evil giant was slain by the plucky underdogs. It's a win-win for them.

I should know. I'm a journalist.

fortunately most of us don't give a shit what these people think or write

newspapers are history and rightly so