Different reactions to City and Arsenal defeats

[Plaything of the gods]

So A says "I like cats" and B says "I don't like dogs" and you conclude from that that everyone is against dogs?

I checked on the BBC website this morning because I was curious about how the Arse result was treated vis-à-vis the City result (I'm just kinda like that). And, do you know what? There wasn't much to choose between them.

This.

Theres hardly any difference between them, one says Arsenals chances are dim, the other says Citys chance are dim. Then describe what happened. Both very similar and i dont see any bias to be honest.

I am not sure anyone is claiming that every single report is biased against us, every single journalist has it in for us. In fact no-one is suggesting that. There is no coordinated "agenda" with secret meetings, phone calls and agreements.

But that does not mean there isn't an overall bias when you look at ALL of the articles from all of the media and all of the journalists over time. If you take that more rounded appraisal, I think is plain to see that City get more critical press than (say) United. I really don't see how anyone can argue agains that. It's pretty bleeding obvious imho.

The question is why, not if. And again imho, it's because of a number of factors but high up on the list are (a) we are not a London club and (b) there are more raggy journlists around than pro-city ones.

The OP cited two articles from two different journalists and news sources, one in praise of Arsenal, the other critical of City and said "Spot the difference". I would have thought it obvious from my initial response where I saw the weakness in that argument.

I haven't suggested that there is no bias. Of course there is bias (no secret meetings, etc though) but it's not worth getting worked up about. As long as the club let it all wash over them, then we'll be fine and will do our talking on the pitch, the only place where it matters. And in that respect, I was very disappointed with Pellegrini's churlish reaction post-match - that is the stuff of wet dreams for the hater journos and I'm not at all surprised that so much is being made of it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

This.

Theres hardly any difference between them, one says Arsenals chances are dim, the other says Citys chance are dim. Then describe what happened. Both very similar and i dont see any bias to be honest.

I am not sure anyone is claiming that every single report is biased against us, every single journalist has it in for us. In fact no-one is suggesting that. There is no coordinated "agenda" with secret meetings, phone calls and agreements.

But that does not mean there isn't an overall bias when you look at ALL of the articles from all of the media and all of the journalists over time. If you take that more rounded appraisal, I think is plain to see that City get more critical press than (say) United. I really don't see how anyone can argue agains that. It's pretty bleeding obvious imho.

The question is why, not if. And again imho, it's because of a number of factors but high up on the list are (a) we are not a London club and (b) there are more raggy journlists around than pro-city ones.

The OP cited two articles from two different journalists and news sources, one in praise of Arsenal, the other critical of City and said "Spot the difference". I would have thought it obvious from my initial response where I saw the weakness in that argument.

I haven't suggested that there is no bias. Of course there is bias (no secret meetings, etc though) but it's not worth getting worked up about. As long as the club let it all wash over them, then we'll be fine and will do our talking on the pitch, the only place where it matters. And in that respect, I was very disappointed with Pellegrini's churlish reaction post-match - that is the stuff of wet dreams for the hater journos and I'm not at all surprised that so much is being made of it.

I agree, but you have to ask if they would all have been so critical had it been ferguson or Maureen who said it. I am not saying there would have been no coverage, or even that there would not have been adverse coverage. But would they have been so universally critical? I am not so sure.

 

[Plaything of the gods]

I am not sure anyone is claiming that every single report is biased against us, every single journalist has it in for us. In fact no-one is suggesting that. There is no coordinated "agenda" with secret meetings, phone calls and agreements.

But that does not mean there isn't an overall bias when you look at ALL of the articles from all of the media and all of the journalists over time. If you take that more rounded appraisal, I think is plain to see that City get more critical press than (say) United. I really don't see how anyone can argue agains that. It's pretty bleeding obvious imho.

The question is why, not if. And again imho, it's because of a number of factors but high up on the list are (a) we are not a London club and (b) there are more raggy journlists around than pro-city ones.

The OP cited two articles from two different journalists and news sources, one in praise of Arsenal, the other critical of City and said "Spot the difference". I would have thought it obvious from my initial response where I saw the weakness in that argument.

I haven't suggested that there is no bias. Of course there is bias (no secret meetings, etc though) but it's not worth getting worked up about. As long as the club let it all wash over them, then we'll be fine and will do our talking on the pitch, the only place where it matters. And in that respect, I was very disappointed with Pellegrini's churlish reaction post-match - that is the stuff of wet dreams for the hater journos and I'm not at all surprised that so much is being made of it.

I agree, but you have to ask if they would all have been so critical had it been ferguson or Maureen who said it. I am not saying there would have been no coverage, or even that there would not have been adverse coverage. But would they have been so universally critical? I am not so sure.

No. As I said, there is bias, which is why Pellegrini giving the haters, by which I mean journos who write for the United, Arsenal, Liverpool audience, ammunition was so disappointing.

I remember one journo saying that the Pellegrini press conferences at Carrington were so uneventful and uncontroversial that the press corps were stopping going. The media do not have football's, let alone City's, best interests at heart, only their own pursuit of a story.

 

[Chris in London]

I'd quite like to ban the word 'Agenda'.

For the record: I do not think, and have never thought, that there is some grand conspiracy involving FIFA, UEFA, PGMOL (referees) the Premier League and the Media to thwart our plans for world domination, masterminded by some anonymous Mr Big from a dimly lit basement room swathed in cigar smoke.

For the record, I am utterly persuaded that there are large sections of the media, and elements within the other organisations referred to that are prone to making decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon a fair and balanced appraisal of the merits of any given situation.

Why for instance for so many years did reporters give the GPC such a favourable ride in all sorts of circumstances? Because he banned them if they didn't. Did the prospect of being banned from the swamp give them concerns from a self-interest perspective? Yes, because they were often freelance reporters whose ability to generate an income was directly related to their ability to attend the pisscan's press conferences. What was the net effect of that? The rags got favourable media coverage, and we got by comparison significantly less favourable coverage from the same sources.

One of the problems with the 'agenda' debate is that many posters seem to fail to grasp the ultimate point that (to concentrate on media reporting) commercial self interest requires a generally more hostile slant in reporting on City than reporting on say the rags or liverpool. As soon as the word 'agenda' is mentioned that brings down a knee-jerk response that there is no agenda against City, it is just paranoia,fans of every club say the same thing. Equally, many do not appreciate why it matters. The rags have a large PR department which in general works extremely hard to ensure they are well portrayed in the media. Sometimes they are more successful than others. For instance Henry Winter wrote that Wee Davey was greying before our eyes and got an angry phone call for his troubles. What effect that would have had on Henry Winter is a separate issue, but it is an interesting example of the way they go out of their way to influence the media's reporting of them. There are plenty of other examples of what you might call the rag publicity machine.

Then, there are those who just don't get why it's important - as though the billions and billions of pounds that commercial organisations in all sectors spend on protecting and promoting brand image is so much water down the drain.

So if it was up to me I'd have one of those auto-replace facilities enabled on the forum (like the one that replaced **** with ****) so that wherever the word 'agenda' appears it is replaced by 'editorial stance influenced by reasons of commercial self-interest'. It puts Mr Big out of a job at a stroke.

For my part, I think I'm through being angry at what the media says about us. For a long time to come we will have shit written about us, until the media understands that their bread is buttered on the side of saying nice things about City.

That is, it seems to me, the club's (very) long term aim. It is why Vicky Kloss has not banned hacks, or instituted legal action (usually) but instead has rolled out a red carpet and laid on the best dining at any football ground for hacks who write shit about us.

It is a long term strategy, and I think it will ultimately succeed. But it's annoying as fuck to read shit that you know is written because that's what some wanker in the media thinks will attract most clicks.

 

[3rdgenerationblue]

before I start I will state that I can't stick the dog toucher or Salford reds.

but.

Keane said one thing of note mixed in with the bile that it takes time to learn about the chumps league. and I imagine the rags would have got a better result than us on Tuesday even though they are shocking.

it just takes time for the whole club to understand the rules of Europe and for Europe to treat us fairly and accept a new super club into their ranks. I would suggest that this team won't taste European success but their successors will. Be patient my siblings, settle for a treble this year.<br /><br />-- Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:05 pm --<br /><br />before I start I will state that I can't stick the dog toucher or Salford reds.

but.

Keane said one thing of note mixed in with the bile that it takes time to learn about the chumps league. and I imagine the rags would have got a better result than us on Tuesday even though they are shocking.

it just takes time for the whole club to understand the rules of Europe and for Europe to treat us fairly and accept a new super club into their ranks. I would suggest that this team won't taste European success but their successors will. Be patient my siblings, settle for a treble this year.

 

[gmckennasell]

arsenal get the sympathy vote because the press know they will again bottle it and win fcuk all , where as city are going to pick up a lot of trophies over the next few years , so we have Gooners the galant losers charging over a grand for season tickets and £200m sitting in the bank or city proven winners with season tickets from £299 (from 2016) and spent £500m net on the team , which supporter is getting value for money and the ride of a life time ? Think i can handle the media agenda , and the fact we apparently have no history ,but another possible 4 visits to wembley this year is getting bloody expensive.

 

[colbee59]

Robbie Savage having a go I in mirror tomorrow

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'd quite like to ban the word 'Agenda'.

For the record: I do not think, and have never thought, that there is some grand conspiracy involving FIFA, UEFA, PGMOL (referees) the Premier League and the Media to thwart our plans for world domination, masterminded by some anonymous Mr Big from a dimly lit basement room swathed in cigar smoke.

For the record, I am utterly persuaded that there are large sections of the media, and elements within the other organisations referred to that are prone to making decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon a fair and balanced appraisal of the merits of any given situation.

Why for instance for so many years did reporters give the GPC such a favourable ride in all sorts of circumstances? Because he banned them if they didn't. Did the prospect of being banned from the swamp give them concerns from a self-interest perspective? Yes, because they were often freelance reporters whose ability to generate an income was directly related to their ability to attend the pisscan's press conferences. What was the net effect of that? The rags got favourable media coverage, and we got by comparison significantly less favourable coverage from the same sources.

One of the problems with the 'agenda' debate is that many posters seem to fail to grasp the ultimate point that (to concentrate on media reporting) commercial self interest requires a generally more hostile slant in reporting on City than reporting on say the rags or liverpool. As soon as the word 'agenda' is mentioned that brings down a knee-jerk response that there is no agenda against City, it is just paranoia,fans of every club say the same thing. Equally, many do not appreciate why it matters. The rags have a large PR department which in general works extremely hard to ensure they are well portrayed in the media. Sometimes they are more successful than others. For instance Henry Winter wrote that Wee Davey was greying before our eyes and got an angry phone call for his troubles. What effect that would have had on Henry Winter is a separate issue, but it is an interesting example of the way they go out of their way to influence the media's reporting of them. There are plenty of other examples of what you might call the rag publicity machine.

Then, there are those who just don't get why it's important - as though the billions and billions of pounds that commercial organisations in all sectors spend on protecting and promoting brand image is so much water down the drain.

So if it was up to me I'd have one of those auto-replace facilities enabled on the forum (like the one that replaced **** with ****) so that wherever the word 'agenda' appears it is replaced by 'editorial stance influenced by reasons of commercial self-interest'. It puts Mr Big out of a job at a stroke.

For my part, I think I'm through being angry at what the media says about us. For a long time to come we will have shit written about us, until the media understands that their bread is buttered on the side of saying nice things about City.

That is, it seems to me, the club's (very) long term aim. It is why Vicky Kloss has not banned hacks, or instituted legal action (usually) but instead has rolled out a red carpet and laid on the best dining at any football ground for hacks who write shit about us.

It is a long term strategy, and I think it will ultimately succeed. But it's annoying as fuck to read shit that you know is written because that's what some wanker in the media thinks will attract most clicks.

I love you.<br /><br />-- 20 Feb 2014, 23:29 --<br /><br />

I'd quite like to ban the word 'Agenda'.

For the record: I do not think, and have never thought, that there is some grand conspiracy involving FIFA, UEFA, PGMOL (referees) the Premier League and the Media to thwart our plans for world domination, masterminded by some anonymous Mr Big from a dimly lit basement room swathed in cigar smoke.

For the record, I am utterly persuaded that there are large sections of the media, and elements within the other organisations referred to that are prone to making decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon a fair and balanced appraisal of the merits of any given situation.

Why for instance for so many years did reporters give the GPC such a favourable ride in all sorts of circumstances? Because he banned them if they didn't. Did the prospect of being banned from the swamp give them concerns from a self-interest perspective? Yes, because they were often freelance reporters whose ability to generate an income was directly related to their ability to attend the pisscan's press conferences. What was the net effect of that? The rags got favourable media coverage, and we got by comparison significantly less favourable coverage from the same sources.

One of the problems with the 'agenda' debate is that many posters seem to fail to grasp the ultimate point that (to concentrate on media reporting) commercial self interest requires a generally more hostile slant in reporting on City than reporting on say the rags or liverpool. As soon as the word 'agenda' is mentioned that brings down a knee-jerk response that there is no agenda against City, it is just paranoia,fans of every club say the same thing. Equally, many do not appreciate why it matters. The rags have a large PR department which in general works extremely hard to ensure they are well portrayed in the media. Sometimes they are more successful than others. For instance Henry Winter wrote that Wee Davey was greying before our eyes and got an angry phone call for his troubles. What effect that would have had on Henry Winter is a separate issue, but it is an interesting example of the way they go out of their way to influence the media's reporting of them. There are plenty of other examples of what you might call the rag publicity machine.

Then, there are those who just don't get why it's important - as though the billions and billions of pounds that commercial organisations in all sectors spend on protecting and promoting brand image is so much water down the drain.

So if it was up to me I'd have one of those auto-replace facilities enabled on the forum (like the one that replaced **** with ****) so that wherever the word 'agenda' appears it is replaced by 'editorial stance influenced by reasons of commercial self-interest'. It puts Mr Big out of a job at a stroke.

For my part, I think I'm through being angry at what the media says about us. For a long time to come we will have shit written about us, until the media understands that their bread is buttered on the side of saying nice things about City.

That is, it seems to me, the club's (very) long term aim. It is why Vicky Kloss has not banned hacks, or instituted legal action (usually) but instead has rolled out a red carpet and laid on the best dining at any football ground for hacks who write shit about us.

It is a long term strategy, and I think it will ultimately succeed. But it's annoying as fuck to read shit that you know is written because that's what some wanker in the media thinks will attract most clicks.

I love you.

 

[Blueband Brother]

I'd quite like to ban the word 'Agenda'.

For the record: I do not think, and have never thought, that there is some grand conspiracy involving FIFA, UEFA, PGMOL (referees) the Premier League and the Media to thwart our plans for world domination, masterminded by some anonymous Mr Big from a dimly lit basement room swathed in cigar smoke.

For the record, I am utterly persuaded that there are large sections of the media, and elements within the other organisations referred to that are prone to making decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon a fair and balanced appraisal of the merits of any given situation.

Why for instance for so many years did reporters give the GPC such a favourable ride in all sorts of circumstances? Because he banned them if they didn't. Did the prospect of being banned from the swamp give them concerns from a self-interest perspective? Yes, because they were often freelance reporters whose ability to generate an income was directly related to their ability to attend the pisscan's press conferences. What was the net effect of that? The rags got favourable media coverage, and we got by comparison significantly less favourable coverage from the same sources.

One of the problems with the 'agenda' debate is that many posters seem to fail to grasp the ultimate point that (to concentrate on media reporting) commercial self interest requires a generally more hostile slant in reporting on City than reporting on say the rags or liverpool. As soon as the word 'agenda' is mentioned that brings down a knee-jerk response that there is no agenda against City, it is just paranoia,fans of every club say the same thing. Equally, many do not appreciate why it matters. The rags have a large PR department which in general works extremely hard to ensure they are well portrayed in the media. Sometimes they are more successful than others. For instance Henry Winter wrote that Wee Davey was greying before our eyes and got an angry phone call for his troubles. What effect that would have had on Henry Winter is a separate issue, but it is an interesting example of the way they go out of their way to influence the media's reporting of them. There are plenty of other examples of what you might call the rag publicity machine.

Then, there are those who just don't get why it's important - as though the billions and billions of pounds that commercial organisations in all sectors spend on protecting and promoting brand image is so much water down the drain.

So if it was up to me I'd have one of those auto-replace facilities enabled on the forum (like the one that replaced **** with ****) so that wherever the word 'agenda' appears it is replaced by 'editorial stance influenced by reasons of commercial self-interest'. It puts Mr Big out of a job at a stroke.

For my part, I think I'm through being angry at what the media says about us. For a long time to come we will have shit written about us, until the media understands that their bread is buttered on the side of saying nice things about City.

That is, it seems to me, the club's (very) long term aim. It is why Vicky Kloss has not banned hacks, or instituted legal action (usually) but instead has rolled out a red carpet and laid on the best dining at any football ground for hacks who write shit about us.

It is a long term strategy, and I think it will ultimately succeed. But it's annoying as fuck to read shit that you know is written because that's what some wanker in the media thinks will attract most clicks.

Good work, an insightful post.

It all comes down to what is the purpose of the media in general, not just in sports journalism. The media is a self-serving organization, a business that is only interested and engineered towards profit and does not care one jot about their ideal objective, which is to inform the public. It has become a tool for exploitation and extortion.

I believe that there are emotions that cannot be hidden no matter how people try and it is glaringly obvious that there is indeed an agenda against Manchester City Football club, not just from the British media but also world wide. Although a part of it is personal but all in all it is business. Just as Bill O'Reilly and Fox news are cashing in on the big market in America for right wing opinions, the media is also cashing in or trying to cash in on the obvious animosity and negativity that the general public have towards City. And as you said anything that sells papers or get more clicks. It Is nothing personal, it is just business.

But this is changing though and city has began to gain acknowledgement and I dare say respect due partly to our expansive, attacking and entertaining style of football this season and this has reflected in the tone of the media when covering our club. It is minimal to almost negligible but it is improving. For now we have to settle for this until there is enough positivism towards us from the general public, this may take years, even a new generation of new fans, new reporters with new original perspective about football. At that point it will become profitable to praise rather than criticize city.

There are many other aspects to why the media seems hostile towards the club. For example the insecurity and secrete ignominy of a top English club being owned by someone from the middle east. I assure you that if our owner was American, the kind of coverage we will be getting will be very different indeed. So they are rooting for a frustrated and unsuccessful city as they do not want the best club in the country to be controlled by someone from that side of the world. Yep, bigotry is a factor but is just one of the ills and malice of the media.

Pundits also has a part to play in this as well and you will find out that most of our former players from Quinn to Mills and even city fans, so called, like Dixon tend to be more critical but as I said, it is just business. From their perspective, it is imperative that they give an impression of being fair and balanced in light of their history. This more often than not leads to excessive, irrational, unfair and ultimately false and substandard appraisal and punditry. Personally I believe it reflects badly on them and it show weakness and inability to give opinions not in line with the theme of the media and Danny Mills is just a bell end to be honest.

Whether Arsenal got a better reaction from last night is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the media will always continue in their theme of serving the public or should I say serving themselves and their interests by exploiting the public. So we can cry Agenda from today until tomorrow but it will have no effect as its all business at the end of the day.

 

[Bluesiam]

I'd quite like to ban the word 'Agenda'.

For the record: I do not think, and have never thought, that there is some grand conspiracy involving FIFA, UEFA, PGMOL (referees) the Premier League and the Media to thwart our plans for world domination, masterminded by some anonymous Mr Big from a dimly lit basement room swathed in cigar smoke.

For the record, I am utterly persuaded that there are large sections of the media, and elements within the other organisations referred to that are prone to making decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon a fair and balanced appraisal of the merits of any given situation.

Why for instance for so many years did reporters give the GPC such a favourable ride in all sorts of circumstances? Because he banned them if they didn't. Did the prospect of being banned from the swamp give them concerns from a self-interest perspective? Yes, because they were often freelance reporters whose ability to generate an income was directly related to their ability to attend the pisscan's press conferences. What was the net effect of that? The rags got favourable media coverage, and we got by comparison significantly less favourable coverage from the same sources.

One of the problems with the 'agenda' debate is that many posters seem to fail to grasp the ultimate point that (to concentrate on media reporting) commercial self interest requires a generally more hostile slant in reporting on City than reporting on say the rags or liverpool. As soon as the word 'agenda' is mentioned that brings down a knee-jerk response that there is no agenda against City, it is just paranoia,fans of every club say the same thing. Equally, many do not appreciate why it matters. The rags have a large PR department which in general works extremely hard to ensure they are well portrayed in the media. Sometimes they are more successful than others. For instance Henry Winter wrote that Wee Davey was greying before our eyes and got an angry phone call for his troubles. What effect that would have had on Henry Winter is a separate issue, but it is an interesting example of the way they go out of their way to influence the media's reporting of them. There are plenty of other examples of what you might call the rag publicity machine.

Then, there are those who just don't get why it's important - as though the billions and billions of pounds that commercial organisations in all sectors spend on protecting and promoting brand image is so much water down the drain.

So if it was up to me I'd have one of those auto-replace facilities enabled on the forum (like the one that replaced **** with ****) so that wherever the word 'agenda' appears it is replaced by 'editorial stance influenced by reasons of commercial self-interest'. It puts Mr Big out of a job at a stroke.

For my part, I think I'm through being angry at what the media says about us. For a long time to come we will have shit written about us, until the media understands that their bread is buttered on the side of saying nice things about City.

That is, it seems to me, the club's (very) long term aim. It is why Vicky Kloss has not banned hacks, or instituted legal action (usually) but instead has rolled out a red carpet and laid on the best dining at any football ground for hacks who write shit about us.

It is a long term strategy, and I think it will ultimately succeed. But it's annoying as fuck to read shit that you know is written because that's what some wanker in the media thinks will attract most clicks.

I like this post Chris and totally agree with the last line. Time will prove we are on the right course.
Peller's rant looks like sour grapes in the short term, but you can't and shouldn't try to take the passion out of people like him. He's human and has shown how much he cares about this team. The players will respect him even more for it.