oakiecokie said:Ragnarok said:Pigeonho said:Could it be because those stories happened? Like this one here, if indeed it did happen well isn't it the news outlets job to print such stories? Isn't it then up to the public to tick either the 'oh shit, really?', 'oh', or the 'so fucking what?' box? If Wenger had been the manager in question, it would have appeared in the papers, same with Rogers, Ferguson or any other manager. Again though I ask how is this a negative, what with the eventual outcome of Mancini deciding to remain here?
FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?
So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.
Blue Hefner said:adrianr said:Same style of story, different reporting, even a seemingly made up number to work into the headline as if Wenger actually came out and said "Van Persie turned down 300k a week at City to join United", which if he did say that, I'm sure the quote would have been in the article with all the other rambling. Surprisingly, it's not. Would this have been written the same way if you swapped United and City around? We can only guess. I'm guessing not.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/van-persie-turned-down-300000-city-deal-to-join-united-says-wenger-8274613.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 74613.html</a>
Headline: Van Persie turned down £300,000 City deal to join United, says Wenger
1st Paragraph:Arsène Wenger confirmed yesterday that Robin van Persie turned down an offer from Manchester City – thought to be in the region of £300,000-a-week – to join Manchester United from Arsenal this summer.
So Wenger didn't say what the headline said, they just put a sensational headline in with a figure they 'thought it to be in the region of'.
Pretty poor really
That was actually a very interesting read. Answer me this though. People on here say the press are in bed with Fergie because of United's standing in the game. With City looking like being the dominant force for the foreseeable future, would it not make sense to be on board with City rather than against them, if of course what you say is true?wireblue said:Pigeonho said:But if it has happened, why would they not print it?Sheikh Rattle n Roll said:The negative is the unwanted attention this is now going to bring on Mancini and City in the days ahead. It is a non-story, but the Press will now go to town on it. We are now just waiting on quotes from persons at Monaco, the cue the story of Mancini being summoned to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, when in fact he is probably being asked to make a fleeting visit for the Grand Prix.
You haven't answered why they are doing it either.
If Fergie got a call from the owners of Blackburn last week and had talked to them about becoming their manager, it would have made the news in the same way this has. The reason for that is because it is news. You say this is a non-story, well how so? The manager of the now-champions of England having talked to the owners of Monaco whilst still in a season where his current club could be champions... how is that a non-story?
I'll throw another one in. Should Chelsea be looking like becoming champions this season and in April RDM decides to talk to Anzhi, for example, because he's not too sure about his tenure at the Bridge, I can guarantee you that it will make the papers at some point. There's no reason why not, just like there's no reason why this Mancini story shouldn't make the papers.
-- Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:59 am --
You beat me to it! I'll add the papers taking the piss out of Wio for not being able to sit down on a plane because his back was 'finished'. We could go all the way back to 92 and how Fergie lambasted his players for partying. We could go back to the Keane/Stam/D'Urso incident when they were described as animals. We could look at any number of Keane stories actually, from breaking Alfie's leg to hitting women whilst pissed up.oakiecokie said:So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.
I don't remember such stories of City players doing this.
I speak as a working journalist.
Couple of points – yes it may be true, but to say there is absolutely no reason to doubt the story is extremely naive. There could be a whole manner of inaccuracies in it and they don’t even have to malicious. Just human error or getting facts wrong, misinformation – it happens.
Also to say certain sections of the media won’t be hoping city get beat against west ham is also very naive. Maybe hope is the wrong word but the journalist will be looking for the strongest possible story and City getting beat by west ham and ramping up the pressure on mancini is a far better story than city breezing to a standard 2-0 win. Admittedly that isn’t specifically anti-city but i have no doubts there are sports journalists out there who would take great pleasure in that angle and push it to the nth degree.
Finally, to say there is no negative angle to this story is way wide of the mark. The very fact the manager’s job (either through sacking or resignation) was a real possibility only a few months ago will do absolutely nothing for the stability of the club. Maybe the journalist didn’t put a negative slant with the language he used but that’s because he didn’t have to – unless he is lives on mars then he would know the result of the article would be a negative one to the club.
I’ll give you an example. I have been subbing the sports pages for a newspaper since the start of the season. I have been writing headlines about a certain club which has been struggling dramatically. I have absolutely no axe to grind against this club but my headlines were negative and putting pressure on the manager simply because that is the inescapable story. Incidentally the manager was sacked very recently.
But like i say i had absolutely no beef with the club – no opinion whatsoever – but if it was a club i disliked with a passion then you can bet your bottom dollar my headlines would have been more inflammatory. If i was writing a headline about fergiescum being under pressure do you not think i would take great pleasure in doing a little bit to bring about the end of the old pisscan? Of course i would!
You can’t call a journalist a rag just for printing a negative story, but you need to compare his story to those of others covering the same story and judge it over a period of time. Then all will become clear as to who in the media has an agenda against City
Ragnarok said:oakiecokie said:Ragnarok said:FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?
So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.
No. Those were fact based articles based on physical proof. Articles like the ones posted in this thread are not. They use supposed sources and speculation with a negative slant on City. And again, why now? If this and RVP news are true, then they have been sitting on it for months. So, why now?
Pigeonho said:That was actually a very interesting read. Answer me this though. People on here say the press are in bed with Fergie because of United's standing in the game. With City looking like being the dominant force for the foreseeable future, would it not make sense to be on board with City rather than against them, if of course what you say is true?wireblue said:Pigeonho said:But if it has happened, why would they not print it?
You haven't answered why they are doing it either.
If Fergie got a call from the owners of Blackburn last week and had talked to them about becoming their manager, it would have made the news in the same way this has. The reason for that is because it is news. You say this is a non-story, well how so? The manager of the now-champions of England having talked to the owners of Monaco whilst still in a season where his current club could be champions... how is that a non-story?
I'll throw another one in. Should Chelsea be looking like becoming champions this season and in April RDM decides to talk to Anzhi, for example, because he's not too sure about his tenure at the Bridge, I can guarantee you that it will make the papers at some point. There's no reason why not, just like there's no reason why this Mancini story shouldn't make the papers.
-- Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:59 am --
You beat me to it! I'll add the papers taking the piss out of Wio for not being able to sit down on a plane because his back was 'finished'. We could go all the way back to 92 and how Fergie lambasted his players for partying. We could go back to the Keane/Stam/D'Urso incident when they were described as animals. We could look at any number of Keane stories actually, from breaking Alfie's leg to hitting women whilst pissed up.
I don't remember such stories of City players doing this.
I speak as a working journalist.
Couple of points – yes it may be true, but to say there is absolutely no reason to doubt the story is extremely naive. There could be a whole manner of inaccuracies in it and they don’t even have to malicious. Just human error or getting facts wrong, misinformation – it happens.
Also to say certain sections of the media won’t be hoping city get beat against west ham is also very naive. Maybe hope is the wrong word but the journalist will be looking for the strongest possible story and City getting beat by west ham and ramping up the pressure on mancini is a far better story than city breezing to a standard 2-0 win. Admittedly that isn’t specifically anti-city but i have no doubts there are sports journalists out there who would take great pleasure in that angle and push it to the nth degree.
Finally, to say there is no negative angle to this story is way wide of the mark. The very fact the manager’s job (either through sacking or resignation) was a real possibility only a few months ago will do absolutely nothing for the stability of the club. Maybe the journalist didn’t put a negative slant with the language he used but that’s because he didn’t have to – unless he is lives on mars then he would know the result of the article would be a negative one to the club.
I’ll give you an example. I have been subbing the sports pages for a newspaper since the start of the season. I have been writing headlines about a certain club which has been struggling dramatically. I have absolutely no axe to grind against this club but my headlines were negative and putting pressure on the manager simply because that is the inescapable story. Incidentally the manager was sacked very recently.
But like i say i had absolutely no beef with the club – no opinion whatsoever – but if it was a club i disliked with a passion then you can bet your bottom dollar my headlines would have been more inflammatory. If i was writing a headline about fergiescum being under pressure do you not think i would take great pleasure in doing a little bit to bring about the end of the old pisscan? Of course i would!
You can’t call a journalist a rag just for printing a negative story, but you need to compare his story to those of others covering the same story and judge it over a period of time. Then all will become clear as to who in the media has an agenda against City
Do all the journalists hate City and want them to fail? Do they all want United to succeed? Is there an agenda?wireblue said:Pigeonho said:That was actually a very interesting read. Answer me this though. People on here say the press are in bed with Fergie because of United's standing in the game. With City looking like being the dominant force for the foreseeable future, would it not make sense to be on board with City rather than against them, if of course what you say is true?wireblue said:I speak as a working journalist.
Couple of points – yes it may be true, but to say there is absolutely no reason to doubt the story is extremely naive. There could be a whole manner of inaccuracies in it and they don’t even have to malicious. Just human error or getting facts wrong, misinformation – it happens.
Also to say certain sections of the media won’t be hoping city get beat against west ham is also very naive. Maybe hope is the wrong word but the journalist will be looking for the strongest possible story and City getting beat by west ham and ramping up the pressure on mancini is a far better story than city breezing to a standard 2-0 win. Admittedly that isn’t specifically anti-city but i have no doubts there are sports journalists out there who would take great pleasure in that angle and push it to the nth degree.
Finally, to say there is no negative angle to this story is way wide of the mark. The very fact the manager’s job (either through sacking or resignation) was a real possibility only a few months ago will do absolutely nothing for the stability of the club. Maybe the journalist didn’t put a negative slant with the language he used but that’s because he didn’t have to – unless he is lives on mars then he would know the result of the article would be a negative one to the club.
I’ll give you an example. I have been subbing the sports pages for a newspaper since the start of the season. I have been writing headlines about a certain club which has been struggling dramatically. I have absolutely no axe to grind against this club but my headlines were negative and putting pressure on the manager simply because that is the inescapable story. Incidentally the manager was sacked very recently.
But like i say i had absolutely no beef with the club – no opinion whatsoever – but if it was a club i disliked with a passion then you can bet your bottom dollar my headlines would have been more inflammatory. If i was writing a headline about fergiescum being under pressure do you not think i would take great pleasure in doing a little bit to bring about the end of the old pisscan? Of course i would!
You can’t call a journalist a rag just for printing a negative story, but you need to compare his story to those of others covering the same story and judge it over a period of time. Then all will become clear as to who in the media has an agenda against City
Who knows? That’s not avoiding the question but they’re human and they’ll do what they see fit for their employer and their career. But i would suggest if they are of a red disposition then obviously they will fall heavier on certain stories than others. Ian cheeseman is has done an in the spotlight with Silvestre. He’ll be professional and it’ll be a decent listen if you’re a red but don’t tell me he wouldn’t be more enthusiastic if he was interviewing joe royle.
I would also say though that one sports reporter i work with covers a two-club patch and we have a right old laugh about the grief he gets from both teams about how biased he is. And i don’t just mean the fans – the managers are just as bad!
Pigeonho said:Do all the journalists hate City and want them to fail? Do they all want United to succeed? Is there an agenda?wireblue said:Pigeonho said:That was actually a very interesting read. Answer me this though. People on here say the press are in bed with Fergie because of United's standing in the game. With City looking like being the dominant force for the foreseeable future, would it not make sense to be on board with City rather than against them, if of course what you say is true?
Who knows? That’s not avoiding the question but they’re human and they’ll do what they see fit for their employer and their career. But i would suggest if they are of a red disposition then obviously they will fall heavier on certain stories than others. Ian cheeseman is has done an in the spotlight with Silvestre. He’ll be professional and it’ll be a decent listen if you’re a red but don’t tell me he wouldn’t be more enthusiastic if he was interviewing joe royle.
I would also say though that one sports reporter i work with covers a two-club patch and we have a right old laugh about the grief he gets from both teams about how biased he is. And i don’t just mean the fans – the managers are just as bad!
Pigeonho said:Do all the journalists hate City and want them to fail? Do they all want United to succeed? Is there an agenda?wireblue said:Pigeonho said:That was actually a very interesting read. Answer me this though. People on here say the press are in bed with Fergie because of United's standing in the game. With City looking like being the dominant force for the foreseeable future, would it not make sense to be on board with City rather than against them, if of course what you say is true?
Who knows? That’s not avoiding the question but they’re human and they’ll do what they see fit for their employer and their career. But i would suggest if they are of a red disposition then obviously they will fall heavier on certain stories than others. Ian cheeseman is has done an in the spotlight with Silvestre. He’ll be professional and it’ll be a decent listen if you’re a red but don’t tell me he wouldn’t be more enthusiastic if he was interviewing joe royle.
I would also say though that one sports reporter i work with covers a two-club patch and we have a right old laugh about the grief he gets from both teams about how biased he is. And i don’t just mean the fans – the managers are just as bad!