Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[johnny crossan]

Conspiracy: Yes. Constant obvious bias: Absolutely.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

Conspiracy: Yes. Constant obvious bias: Absolutely.

Agree 100%.

 

[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.

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.

I don't disagree with you mate. We do get more negative stories than man utd. But using my previous analogy, they are Cheryl cole and we are Jordan . They have friends in high places and have always had a great ability to keep problems in house because in general they are a very well run club . We are unfortunately victim to bias because of past misdemeanours. And city fucking things up sells papers. Historically that's what we are known for and even now we shoot ourselves in the foot. The more we win and the better we conduct ourselves as a club then the more this will change- it already is doing. But we also have to accept that being flush with petro pounds brings with it a level of scrutiny and yes, jealousy.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Conspiricy: no. Constant obvious bias: absolutely.

Oi ! What you doing up here !! Get back downstairs and discuss water

I think you'll find, that I was the last to post on there.

I'm doing my best. I personally think it's got potential.

 

[scowy68]

Who gives a fuck about what Hughes says anyway?He was handed the keys to the magic kingdom and fucked it up.He's bitter because he knows someone better came along and sorted his mess out,and then took us to the next level.Something he wasn't able to do.Sour grapes.

 

[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.

I don't disagree with you mate. We do get more negative stories than man utd. But using my previous analogy, they are Cheryl cole and we are Jordan . They have friends in high places and have always had a great ability to keep problems in house because in general they are a very well run club . We are unfortunately victim to bias because of past misdemeanours. And city fucking things up sells papers. Historically that's what we are known for and even now we shoot ourselves in the foot. The more we win and the better we conduct ourselves as a club then the more this will change- it already is doing. But we also have to accept that being flush with petro pounds brings with it a level of scrutiny and yes, jealousy.

Oh I do accept all of that. It will probably change over time but meanwhile we just have to grit our teeth.

 

[stuart brennan]

Re: Ex MCFC boss Mark Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row

So Brennan admits to never have wanted an OT Season Ticket, yet colours himself as a proud Rag.

How do I do that, exactly?

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:10 pm --

Of course, its paranoia to wonder why a Manchester derby at youth level wasn't covered in the Manchester Evening News while City vs. Marseille at youth level was days later.

Yes, it is paranoia. Last season, if I remember correctly, United won the same fixture 6-1, and there was nothing in the MEN.
We don't cover academy games due to lack of space, other than FA Youth Cup (for both Utd and City).
But we have always carried reserve fixtures, and as many of the EDS squad take part in NextGen, we have been carrying them.
As you say, paranoia<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:23 pm --<br /><br />

My tuppence worth.....

Couldn't give a flying fuck about negative slants and if as a club we fuck up then we deserve to have it reported and im sure that the vast majority of blues feel the same way.

What has to stop though is the downright blatant lies that is peddled on an almost daily basis.

Papers are there to report the news and not the bile filled jealousy that manifests itself in blatant lies that we see all the time.

SB has already admitted that at times the MEN will file a AP piece and its these reports that get the backs up of many.

Maybe the MEN should ask themselves if its worth doing that from now on or if they should invest a little more time and effort in the Cities club they represent and have their own reports instead?

Headlines and agenda driven slants obviously do work for the national media but they wont work for a local paper like the MEN.

The PA reports are used by our website, to keep news rolling during the day. We simply don't have the staff to both write City news for the website on a 24-hour basis and produce a newspaper, so PA are part of what we do.
PA are also known for their straight reporting - it is their mantra to present facts.
We use their match reports to get something on the website straight after the whistle, as I said, as I don't have time to do everything.
As for "agenda driven slants", what exactly is our agenda, and what purpose would it serve.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but there is no agenda, and we would have to be total idiots to have an anti-City agenda as a Manchester paper.
It would be akin to Boddington's having an anti-drinking agenda.
As I've tried to point out, if you look a little more deeply, there is always another answer when something appears on the website or in the paper which might seem to be biased against City, or United, usually a very simple reason.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Ex MCFC boss Mark Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row

So Brennan admits to never have wanted an OT Season Ticket, yet colours himself as a proud Rag.

How do I do that, exactly?

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:10 pm --

Of course, its paranoia to wonder why a Manchester derby at youth level wasn't covered in the Manchester Evening News while City vs. Marseille at youth level was days later.

Yes, it is paranoia. Last season, if I remember correctly, United won the same fixture 6-1, and there was nothing in the MEN.
We don't cover academy games due to lack of space, other than FA Youth Cup (for both Utd and City).
But we have always carried reserve fixtures, and as many of the EDS squad take part in NextGen, we have been carrying them.
As you say, paranoia

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:23 pm --

My tuppence worth.....

Couldn't give a flying fuck about negative slants and if as a club we fuck up then we deserve to have it reported and im sure that the vast majority of blues feel the same way.

What has to stop though is the downright blatant lies that is peddled on an almost daily basis.

Papers are there to report the news and not the bile filled jealousy that manifests itself in blatant lies that we see all the time.

SB has already admitted that at times the MEN will file a AP piece and its these reports that get the backs up of many.

Maybe the MEN should ask themselves if its worth doing that from now on or if they should invest a little more time and effort in the Cities club they represent and have their own reports instead?

Headlines and agenda driven slants obviously do work for the national media but they wont work for a local paper like the MEN.

The PA reports are used by our website, to keep news rolling during the day. We simply don't have the staff to both write City news for the website on a 24-hour basis and produce a newspaper, so PA are part of what we do.
PA are also known for their straight reporting - it is their mantra to present facts.
We use their match reports to get something on the website straight after the whistle, as I said, as I don't have time to do everything.
As for "agenda driven slants", what exactly is our agenda, and what purpose would it serve.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but there is no agenda, and we would have to be total idiots to have an anti-City agenda as a Manchester paper.
It would be akin to Boddington's having an anti-drinking agenda.
As I've tried to point out, if you look a little more deeply, there is always another answer when something appears on the website or in the paper which might seem to be biased against City, or United, usually a very simple reason.

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

 

[stuart brennan]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

3. Why hasn't the MEN got a City fan as a City reporter?
It has never been a pre-qualification. The Utd reporter Stuart Mathieson is not a United fan. Peter Gardner was not a City fan.
As I've explained several times before, Chris Bailey left in the last round of voluntary redundancies, making the City post vacant.
As people were being made redundant, the MEN legally could not advertise the post externally, so there were only a few internal candidates for the job. I applied, as I thought it would be an interesting and exciting job (which it has been) and was deemed to have the necessary ability and experience.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 pm --<br /><br />

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

Just part of my pro-Boddington's, anti-Holts agenda ;)

It was just the first thing that popped into my mind, which is odd because I wouldn't touch the stuff these days

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

3. Why hasn't the MEN got a City fan as a City reporter?
It has never been a pre-qualification. The Utd reporter Stuart Mathieson is not a United fan. Peter Gardner was not a City fan.
As I've explained several times before, Chris Bailey left in the last round of voluntary redundancies, making the City post vacant.
As people were being made redundant, the MEN legally could not advertise the post externally, so there were only a few internal candidates for the job. I applied, as I thought it would be an interesting and exciting job (which it has been) and was deemed to have the necessary ability and experience.

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 pm --

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

Just part of my pro-Boddington's, anti-Holts agenda ;)

It was just the first thing that popped into my mind, which is odd because I wouldn't touch the stuff these days

You're obviously living in the past!

As a matter of interest who did Peter Gardner support? I always felt he was a little too dismissive of City, but just put it down to him being addicted to 'typical City' cliches in his articles.