Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[flb]

The only thing different in how the two clubs are reported on is how each club themselves allow the media the slack to print certain stories.MCFC have too much of an open dialogue with press and the amount of stories with members of City's players and backroom staff is light years away from how United do it.We really can learn an awful lot in how Ferguson handles the media (the Bob Cass incident is a casing point).

As a club we just come across as a bit to eager to please sometimes,Vicky Kloss does have a hard job no doubt but we just seem to lack that bit of proffesionalism at times-the farcical Cook interview after Hughes departure was cringeworthy of which Cook never fully recovered from.Vicky will get it right as its a learning curve the club are still going through-i just dont think they realise how big a story we have become,its not a case of City dropping its closeness with the fans and its family community tag its pulling some of the slack in we have given out.

United are masters at convincing the press and there fans that everything is great behind closed doors-The Ferninand story hardly made a ripple,Rooney dads story wont be given the attention it deserves either-why? because Ferguson would just tell the reporters involved to fuck off and ban them from Old Trafford-Stuart Brennan has just told us what happened to him for daring to criticise United.

And to think we are more proffesional now than we ever have been-it just goes to show what a shower of shit the club has been since the mid seventies.

Its up to the club in how the press and public perceive us-it does need sorting once and for all.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I don't dispute for a second that certain journalists take a negative slant on our club , and I have seen outright lies in the media on a regular basis.... We've got people with vested interests inside and outside the club leaking stories too.

This is called agenda driven bias fuelled by fear, envy and hatred.

No it's not. It's sections of the press doing what they have always done and spinning things to write stories which sell papers.

Sun readers don't pick up a paper which has a front cover which says "Jordan gives money to charity ", but they do pick one up which says "Jordan splits with lover".

And we are the Jordan of the football world.

If you're talking about the whole national media, you are discounting the rag, scouse, London factor.

The rag tops know that accounts for a large portion of their readership & that many of those readers love to see City get a good slagging. Sure, they'll also write plenty of negative stuff about their favoured clubs but when you look at the behaviour of Rooney & Co, it would be difficult not to. I can understand all the furore about Tevez etc & that gets the deserved coverage, fair enough. It's the constant snidey little snipes & stories that are made up just to take the piss, which show the true colours of these characters.

There are a lot of people including journalists, who don't want us at this party. Some admit their dislike for us when asked, some (northern) ones try to hide it. Any chance to stick the knife in & they do, whether we've done anything to deserve it or not.

Re the M.E.N. Brennan does a good & fair job, Spencer is a closet rag hatchet man.

 

[warpig]

i used to really enjoy reading the men in days gone by, both for the sport and its news content. it really was excellent and imo the best local paper in the country bar the evening standard.

however....

nowadays, unfortunately, it is apparent how far its star has fallen. the overall quality is poor, the overall news content is poor and as people have pointed out, the days of it breaking a big scoop city/united wise are long gone. that this is a result of redundancies and political manourvering to influence what is written, in uniteds case at least, is extremely sad.

being honest, or maybe naieve, i have never noticed any anti-city agenda with the men. i always read stuarts match reports/articles and generally speaking, find it a fair reflection of events. its probably more of paul hinces stuff that gets my goat up these days. but thats a different story.

to wrap up, ive got to give SB his due for coming on here and fighting his corner. so elequently and measured when you consider the attacks have been on his moral and more importantly, professional integrity. he has definately shut a few people up and made a fair few others wisen up. hes probably added a few to his readership. respect.

 

[2sheikhs]

This sums up hughes in a nutshell. A builder, who did some work on my house years ago, is a st holder at ot. He took his 10 year old son to watch the rags in some charity match. He asked his dad if he could go and get some autographs off the players when the game had finished. Off he ran with a big smile on his face. 1 minute later, he ran back to his dad crying. He'd asked hughes for his autograph and hughes told him to fuck off. No matter what kind of mood you're in or if you've had a bad game, there was no need to speak to a kid like that.

 

[stonerblue]

Personally I don't think the MEN has an agenda aginst City. It would be ludicrous of them to do so; they'd alienate half their readership in a fell swoop. They clearly are biased in favour of both Manchester teams, as you'd expect from a regional paper. Some of the paranoia on here is a bit far fetched.

However, those who think there is no wider anti-City agenda in sections of the national press are being a bit naive. It's patently obvious.

I'm not sure if I'm sitting on the fence, or just alienating eveyone on this thread. Either way, there are degrees of truth in both sides of the argument. Nothing is ever black and white. And other cliches.

It's a game of two halves

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Some of you appear to be insinuating that the tabloids write pro united, anti city articles because of the large number of united fans who read the paper. I'd say that if that logic were true you'd see far more negative stories about man united because for every man united fan in the country there are 10 fans of other clubs who detest them and love to see them fail.

The rich irony is that man utd fans actually do believe that the media goes out of it's way to dig up dirt on them. As do arsenal fans, and spurs . Liverpool? Foam at the mouth about the media bias, they even boycott one of them . Chelsea think everyone hates them because of roman. Everton go mad about their finances being laughed at in the tabloids all the time. Most other clubs hate the press because they think they focus all their coverage on the likes of us.

The ultimate irony is that most football foamers buy tabloids, and therefore are totally and completely culpable.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Some of you appear to be insinuating that the tabloids write pro united, anti city articles because of the large number of united fans who read the paper. I'd say that if that logic were true you'd see far more negative stories about man united because for every man united fan in the country there are 10 fans of other clubs who detest them and love to see them fail.

The rich irony is that man utd fans actually do believe that the media goes out of it's way to dig up dirt on them. As do arsenal fans, and spurs . Liverpool? Foam at the mouth about the media bias, they even boycott one of them . Chelsea think everyone hates them because of roman. Everton go mad about their finances being laughed at in the tabloids all the time. Most other clubs hate the press because they think they focus all their coverage on the likes of us.

The ultimate irony is that most football foamers buy tabloids, and therefore are totally and completely culpable.

For every negative article on Utd & Co, ther is a positive one telling you how wonderful they are & what they're going to do next. For every negative article on City, there is another one just around the corner.

I would be perfectly willing to accept your argument if the facts backed it up but they don't. Try reading a cross section of Utd's press & a cross section of ours, actually do the comparison rather than just assuming you are correct. Compare how they react to certain negatives, then how they balance it out with a nice article on Fergie or King Kenny the following day, whilst making up one about Balotelli.

Conspiricy: no. Constant obvious bias: absolutely.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

We are really privileged to have you on this board Dave, not only do you speak for all city fans your views also represent Arsenal,Chelsea,rags and even Everton.


Personally I'm sick to death of the same tired argument that all clubs fans feel persecuted(I don't care) for a variety of reasons we have been and continue to be attacked from all directions(nobody has been attacked this way to the extremes we have IMO)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Conspiricy: no. Constant obvious bias: absolutely.

 

[stonerblue]

Some of you appear to be insinuating that the tabloids write pro united, anti city articles because of the large number of united fans who read the paper. I'd say that if that logic were true you'd see far more negative stories about man united because for every man united fan in the country there are 10 fans of other clubs who detest them and love to see them fail.

The rich irony is that man utd fans actually do believe that the media goes out of it's way to dig up dirt on them. As do arsenal fans, and spurs . Liverpool? Foam at the mouth about the media bias, they even boycott one of them . Chelsea think everyone hates them because of roman. Everton go mad about their finances being laughed at in the tabloids all the time. Most other clubs hate the press because they think they focus all their coverage on the likes of us.

The ultimate irony is that most football foamers buy tabloids, and therefore are totally and completely culpable.

For every negative article on Utd & Co, ther is a positive one telling you how wonderful they are & what they're going to do next. For every negative article on City, there is another one just around the corner.

I would be perfectly willing to accept your argument if the facts backed it up but they don't. Try reading a cross section of Utd's press & a cross section of ours, actually do the comparison rather than just assuming you are correct. Compare how they react to certain negatives, then how they balance it out with a nice article on Fergie or King Kenny the following day, whilst making up one about Balotelli.

Conspiricy: no. Constant obvious bias: absolutely.

After his England debacle, it's a good job Looney isn't a Blue 'cos he'd have been hung out to dry by the red=tops. As it is he seems to have been instrumental in both goals.