He's not wrong though. My point -- and his -- is that these articles aren't being written for City fans, nor for those who have no view about City nor football -- they're being written for City haters, of which there is an inherently a great number and a greater number the better City get.
I could write about how much I hate the third cousin of the governor of Tasmania and no one would care -- except maybe the subject.
But it doesn't matter so much to me if we read them or not -- I read some, not others.
What matters is understanding why they're being written, not what they say. And it isn't because the author hates City (though he might). It's because it gets them eyeballs.
And the secret joy I get is that the journalists themselves can't and won't admit that, because that makes them whores to their readers -- exactly the opposite of how they see themselves!
Which is why they stumble over themselves like the stammering, weak-livered lemmings they are to defend their "value-added" perspective.