Interview with Daniel Taylor from The Guardian

[Tim of the Oak]

I've said this before and i'll stand by it until i'm blue in the face;

Newspapers are in the industry of selling units and getting clicks, they produce sports material that is at the same time; informative (to whatever degree you consider), provocative, interesting and populist.

we are still in a situation where a large make up of UK fans are United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. The Premier League era big boys. That's their market and 10 back pages of how good City are and how good they will be will not shift aforementioned units and neither will it attract this huge base of readership to their websites (and thus advertisers).

For now it remains inflammatory but i would love to see in 10 or 15 years time - when the current crop of 5 to 8 year olds who have emerged as footy fans and have a City side that wins titles to pick from - have disposable incomes, how the news coverage changes then.

The only 'agenda' i see is age-old newspaper bias to sell units and advertising to satisfy the largest consumer base. They have zero interest in squashing City out of existence as they are a massive market in the making.

This.

Correct. However this debate is wider than a / non media conspiracy, especially now JJIAC has his own fan boys on this forum!

 

[George Hannah]

There are probably a few things I should clear up.

Firstly, the last thing I would want to do is "betray the forum", as some have suggested. That was obviously never my intention, and I'm sorry if some think that.

I've always said, though, that whilst I think we do generally get negative press coverage, I have never believed that there is a pre-meditated, concerted agenda against the club, from the media at least. I just think they're sycophantic towards United, and play up to the lazy stereotype that City are bad for football. UEFA is a different matter, of course.

Secondly, the interview only really came about by chance (our kids go to the same football training sessions) and was conducted at fairly short notice. It wasn't really something I'd prepared for. The questions were drunkenly concocted with a couple of mates in a boozer in town after the Arsenal defeat, so due diligence wasn't really followed. And it probably showed.

We were probably ranting a bit, hence the over emphasis on the "agenda" and United comparisons, rather than asking more pertinent questions about the club that people would've preferred to see answered.

The original plan was to invite questions from the forum, but I thought I'd probably get grief from people whose questions weren't selected. As tempting as it was, I thought that specific questions regarding Jamie Jackson weren't fair game, considering they are colleagues.

Also, and I hold my hands up, I took certain things for granted, such as who McDonnell, Ladyman, Herbert etc support without actually researching it. Poor stuff, although I still maintain they clearly have a softer spot for United than City. It probably gave Danny greater ammunition though, when it comes to our perception of the press. They're certainly lapping it up on United forums.

Thirdly, the interview was done by email so there wasn't really the opportunity to follow things up properly. The interview would have been different, I suspect, if it was done verbally. It would've flowed more naturally and probably wouldn't have come across as confrontational as it did.

I think he possibly did come across a little patronising towards City fans at times, certainly regarding the Champions League, but as mentioned some of the questions were ill-prepared and set the tone of the interview. Plus Forest were losing 3-0 at the time. If pressed on City when we were losing, I'd probably be a touch cantankerous as well.

My only intention from the interview was for us to get an insight into how the press think, and hopefully most found it interesting. I appreciated his forthright views, even if some don't agree with them. It wasn't "sidling up the press", as some put it, just a chance to hear things from a different perspective.

"forthright" - sorry, but he was the usual anodyne, cutting it both ways bollocks. As were you Ric. And PB - you come across like rabbits in the headlights, all dewy eyed at hearing from some bloke from the so-called "intelligent" end of the journalistic spectrum. Fawning, we're not worthy bollocks. And you know it.

Haha, sorry it wasn't a Frost vs Nixon type interrogation. Feel free to post your questions to him if you like, he might answer them.

That's the trouble with some stains, very hard to wash out even with Mr Turner's crocodile tears. He'll Just have to console himself with the congratulations of Dismal on exposing once again how Bluemoon's trivial, petty obsession with United and the Agenda betrays the profound lack of "real football knowledge" of many of its posters.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

 

[George Hannah]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.
Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

except that he's only a pretend penitent

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.
Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

except that he's only a pretend penitent

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

[bobmcfc]

And I'm still banned from his Twitter. Have no idea why he hates me

 

[waspish]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

All this pro-active it's working hey

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Strange how most of the posts straight after the interview were positive and as the threads gone on they have turned negative with even Ric now questioning it.
Put me down in the I enjoyed it camp please

I thought it was fine too.

Some posters seem less able to forgive a repenting sinner than you and I, mate.

The shock for me was him saying how city are the most reactive to the media bad press when every poster on here thought we were the worst .an eye openner to what goes on behind the scenes

Not every poster, mate. A number of us have stated many times that City's press strategy is fine. All this 'ban them' nonsense is the rantings of the ignorant.